Sitting of 1 February 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Learning Disability White Paper
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Woolas.]
9.33 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I welcome this opportunity to describe and debate progress made in implementing the proposals in "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century", which was published in March last year.
We estimate that there are around 210,000 people with severe and profound learning disabilities. About 25 people per 1,000 of the population are thought to have mild to moderate learning disabilities. So the total learning-disabled population in England is about 1.2 million. Learning-disabled people can be among the most disadvantaged of an already disadvantaged group. Before we look at developments and the implementation of the proposals in "Valuing People", it is worth remembering why there was a need for a new strategy on learning disability services. What were the problems that people with learning disabilities faced?
The problems fall into three main categories. First, there is the category of social exclusion. As I have said, learning-disabled people can be among the most isolated and disadvantaged groups in our society. Too often, they have faced poor housing, difficulties in being able to work and in using transport and poor advocacy services, and they have had too little ability to make and exercise choices over the care and support that they receive.
Secondly, there has been too much inconsistency in service provision. People are receiving different services in different parts of the country, there are very great differences in the proportion of spending by both local authorities and health authorities throughout the country, and there has not been a sufficiently consistently high level of services, such as day services, for users.
Thirdly, the management of services has too often been dependent on administrative and bureaucratic boundaries, and too little focused on the users' needs. There has been too little co-ordination between social and health services, never mind other statutory authorities. There have been problems with the transition from children's services to those for adults; services have not properly been designed around individuals' needs; and there have been unqualified staff and poor training.
Often, learning-disabled people live isolated lives, knowing only their family and other people with learning disabilities. Research published in 1999 found that only 30 per cent. had a friend who was not learning-disabled, part of their family or paid to care for them. So, more
536
than two thirds of people with learning disabilities have no outside friends—no ability in either their social or community life to enjoy the sorts of opportunities that many of us take for granted.
The Prime Minister made that point very clearly in his foreword to "Valuing People":
"People with learning disabilities can lead full and rewarding lives, as many already do. But others find themselves pushed to the margins of our society. And almost all encounter prejudice, bullying, insensitive treatment and discrimination at some time in their lives. Such prejudice and discrimination—no less hurtful for often being unintentional—has a very damaging impact. It leads to your world becoming smaller, opportunities more limited, a withdrawal from wider society so time is spent only with family, carers, or other people with learning disabilities."
So those were the problems that we needed to tackle, and "Valuing People", the first White Paper on learning disability services for 30 years, sets out a programme to tackle them.
Published in March last year, the programme is based on four key principles—of rights, independence, choice and inclusion—and lays down a wide-ranging programme of action. The programme includes developing an integrated approach by health, education and social care to services for disabled children and their families; more choice and control through the development of advocacy; enabling more people to receive direct payments; a national information centre; plans to move the 1,500 people living in long-stay hospitals to more appropriate accommodation in the community by April 2004; access to a specialist health facilitator and a health action plan for every learning-disabled person; more choice in housing; a five-year programme for modernising day services; increased employment opportunities; the development of person-centred planning; and stronger partnership working locally.
I shall return to those things later, when I will describe progress in their delivery, but I shall now make some points about the way in which the development and implementation of the strategy has involved learning-disabled people themselves. If we are serious about putting learning-disabled people at the centre of services and designing services around them, it is right—in fact, it is essential—that they are involved in the policy discussions and debates that determine those services.
That theme was summed up in the title of one of the reports published with the White Paper. The report from the national service user group, which worked with us in developing "Valuing People" is called "Nothing about us without us". Work on "Valuing People" began in December 1999, and service users and carers were at the launch seminar; what they said directly affected the way in which we took the work forward. Service users and carers were also members of the learning disability advisory group, which oversaw the whole process. "Valuing People" is the first White Paper to be published both in conventional form and in more straightforward, accessible forms, including tape and CD, so that people with learning disabilities can see for themselves what the Government are proposing. Service user involvement continues as we develop and implement the policy, for example, in the selection of the director of learning disability implementation and members of the support team—candidates were interviewed by people with learning disabilities; the development of a national forum for people with learning disabilities; membership,

537
including co-chairmanship, of the learning disability taskforce; and membership of local learning disability partnership boards.
I should like to turn to developments since March in implementing principles in the White Paper. "Valuing People" set out in broad terms our proposals for improving learning disability services. Guidance which we issued in August last year gives more detail, and stresses that "Valuing People" is for all children, young people, adults and older people with learning disabilities and their families; people with severe and profound learning disabilities, through to people with mild or moderate learning disabilities; and people with learning disabilities in the autistic spectrum. I know that concern has been expressed, by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) among others, about the position of adults with Asperger's syndrome or higher-functioning autism. As we made clear in the guidance, and as I have previously made clear in the House, adults with Asperger's syndrome or higher-functioning autism are not precluded from using learning disability services.
I have already referred to the learning disability advisory group, which oversaw the development of "Valuing People"; we are grateful to its members for their contribution to that work. The advisory group was superseded by the learning disability taskforce, which has the role of monitoring and supporting the implementation of "Valuing People" nationally. It also advises the Government on the continuing development of learning disability policy. The taskforce met for the first time in December; its co-chairs are Chris Davies, director of social services of Somerset county council and Michelle Chinery from the self-advocacy group London People First, who is a user of learning disability services. I am delighted that Chris and Michelle agreed to take on that role. Four other learning-disabled people take it in turn, two at a time, to attend the taskforce.
If we are to involve users in our discussions, it is important that we consider the way in which we organise, facilitate and prepare for those discussions. The taskforce has discussed how to ensure that learning-disabled members can participate fully in its work. That is not easy; we shall have to learn to adjust and adopt new procedures. I should like to tell the House the rules that the taskforce has agreed. It has agreed that people should raise their hand if they want to speak; speak clearly and slowly; look at the person to whom they are speaking; and avoid long words. It has also agreed that only one person should speak at a time; there should be no jargon; and that mobile phones should be switched off—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that would get a response. I have to admit that when I recently addressed a conference on the implementation of the learning disability White Paper, I was a bit embarrassed because I was not sure that our procedures in the Chamber were up to the high standards that have clearly been set by the learning disability taskforce. We may well learn from the model that it has provided.
The learning disability taskforce operates at a national level. At a local level, where policy has to be implemented and fit the experience of users of learning disability services, learning disability partnership boards are responsible for overseeing and advising on implementation of the adult aspects of "Valuing People".
538
The boards are chaired by a senior local government officer or elected member, and the membership includes representatives of statutory sector interests, such as social services, housing, education, health bodies; people with learning disabilities and carers; independent providers; voluntary organisations; community groups; and local employers.
The boards were responsible for developing joint investment plans, which should have been returned to the Department of Health by yesterday, and will help to ensure that the £3 billion spent on learning disability makes the best and most appropriate impact; they will also target the extra £42.6 million available for development from this coming April. The taskforce operates nationally and the partnership boards have been set up locally. We must ensure that we provide support for implementation, which is why we have an implementation support team, reporting to the taskforce through its director Rob Greig.
The team is now largely in post and will be fully operational from this month. Its first priority is to establish links and contacts with partnership boards, looking particularly at the involvement of service users and families, offering advice and support as necessary; and to explore how far the boards have begun to include people from outside the traditional learning disability field. Its next priority is to work with boards on the implementation plans for person-centred planning, on which the Department has recently issued guidance. Another early priority is to establish contact with advocacy, and particularly self-advocacy, groups in each region. The support team will work with partnership boards whose joint investment plans, following the evaluation that will now begin, are found to be below an acceptable standard, to help them take remedial action and ensure that the transformation of local services is achieved. In terms of partnership with others, I am especially pleased that in December, we launched with Mencap a telephone helpline to overcome some of the issues identified in the White Paper in relation to the need for national information to be available to users, carers and those who work with people with learning disabilities. The line has responded to 674 inquiries in its first month.
Those are some of the structures that are already in place, but I also want to deal with two areas where independence, which is one of the key principles of "Valuing People", can be strengthened: advocacy and direct payments. Effective advocacy can make a real difference to the lives of people with learning disabilities. It allows them to express their wishes, make choices, put forward their own views and join in planning and designing their own services. With the right support, many people with learning disabilities can become effective self-advocates. Citizen advocacy can also make a vital contribution to ensuring that the voices of people with more complex disabilities are heard.
Some £1.3 million from the implementation support fund is being used this year to promote advocacy. That includes setting up a national citizen advocacy network. Furthermore, £900,000 of that money is for a scheme to support advocacy projects. I am very grateful for the work of two organisations that are working with us in that regard. The British Institute of Learning Disabilities and Values Into Action are helping to ensure that the money is distributed and support is given in a way that ensures that the most value is added in terms of the advocacy

539
work. Bids have been coming in for funding, and decisions will be made within the next few weeks about how we can support those advocacy groups.
I know that concerns have been expressed about funding for self-advocacy groups. We have been considering very closely the funding arrangements for next year. I am pleased to confirm that we have already identified an additional £140,000 that will be available from the implementation support fund from this April. The learning disability taskforce will be discussing funding for advocacy services at its future meetings. I shall want to listen carefully to its concerns and recommendations about how to develop this work. Of course, advocacy groups do not need to look only to central Government for funding. Local government and the NHS at a local level are possible sources, as are European funds and the national lottery. There is an important role to be played in supporting and facilitating advocacy groups in accessing those other forms of funding. Effective advocacy helps people to gain control over their lives.
Direct payments are another effective and popular way of giving people greater control and helping them to make their own decisions about how their care is delivered. I am pleased to say that the number of people with learning disabilities who are receiving direct payments has increased by more than 60 per cent. in the past year. That is good news. It is an indication that progress is being made and that direct payments are increasingly a real option for people with learning disabilities.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that the absolute figures, which she may want to share with the House, are disturbingly and pitifully small? Is not a very rapid and extended increase needed, if that is what the individuals want?
Jacqui Smith: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. While the figures are moving in the right direction, they are still too low. I shall outline what the Government have done and will do to ensure that we can increase that opportunity for people across a wide spectrum of care. In today's debate, that means people with learning disabilities.
The Department of Health has produced and distributed almost 20,000 copies of the "Easy Guide" to direct payments, to help to get across the message that such payments can offer people with learning disabilities real choices and opportunities in their lives. A small number of councils such as Durham, Essex and Hampshire have made substantial progress in making direct payments accessible for people with learning disabilities, but those pockets of good practice are too isolated. Overall, the numbers are still far too small; there are fewer than 400 throughout the whole of England. We want to see significant improvements in those figures. We want direct payments to become a mainstream option for a much wider variety of people. That is one of the reasons why we are taking powers in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 to help us expand the take-up of direct payments by requiring councils to offer them to people who request them. Access to direct payments will no longer be a question of where people live. Councils will have a duty to offer them as part of the standard menu of services.
We are currently working on producing the policy and practice guidance to coincide with those changes. We will use that opportunity to strengthen the message to councils
540
about the need to make direct payments work for people with learning disabilities. A draft of the revised guidance will be issued shortly for consultation. The programme of work arising from "Valuing People" is also helping us to improve the situation for people with learning disabilities. Part of the role of the implementation team will be to promote the uptake of direct payments. Of course, advocacy services can provide significant help for people to access and manage direct payments.
I should like now to turn to some of the other ways in which we are improving and developing better services for people with learning disabilities. Most people with learning disabilities have greater health needs than the rest of the population. Although life expectancy is increasing, 50 per cent. of people with learning disabilities die before they reach 50, compared with only 17 per cent. of the population as a whole. People with learning disabilities are more likely to experience mental illness and are more prone to chronic health problems such as epilepsy and physical and sensory impairment. Poor oral health may lead to chronic dental disease. Although increasing life expectancy is welcome, it will also lead to more age-related diseases; strokes, heart disease, respiratory disease and cancer are all likely to be of concern. An increasing number of young people with severe and profound disabilities have complex health needs.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Does she agree that it is a particular concern that, when people with learning disabilities are hospitalised, they should have access to adequate advocacy and explanation of their problems? They should also have access to medical staff who are very well trained and are aware that such patients may well not only have the specific medical problem for which they were admitted, but a series of related issues in respect of which they also need the most careful maintenance and support during their spell in hospital.
Jacqui Smith: Once again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which demonstrates why we need to develop our specialist learning disabilities services to ensure that those involved can work more closely with other professionals, become multi-skilled and recognise the complex range of health needs to which he refers. Furthermore, the changes being made by the Government in relation to advocacy—especially the development of patient advocacy liaison services for every trust—will also be a very important way of ensuring that people with learning disabilities, in contact with particular health trusts, can express their views and make complaints and be supported in doing so.
The NHS plan commitment to care for all was based on clinical need, shaping services around the needs of individual patients, families and carers and reducing health inequalities. Health improvement plans provide a means of addressing the health needs of people with learning disabilities so that they do not experience avoidable illness and premature death. To help us reduce the number of avoidable deaths we are exploring the feasibility of establishing a confidential inquiry into mortality among people with learning disabilities.
Other key actions on health will include ensuring that all people with a learning disability are registered with a GP by June 2004; getting the NHS to ensure that all mainstream hospital services are accessible to people with

541
learning disabilities; developing local specialist services for people with severe challenging behaviour—this will be a priority for the capital element of the learning disability development fund; and a new role, as I suggested earlier, for specialist learning disability services, making the most effective use of their expertise.
The Government expect all learning disability partnership boards to have agreed a framework for the introduction of health action plans for people with learning disabilities by June 2005, and to have ensured that they all have clearly identified health facilitators by June 2003.
I have spoken mainly about adults, but it is important to remember that the "Valuing People" programme is for learning-disabled people of all ages, and that learning disability partnership boards are responsible for its adult elements. I shall now say something specifically about children.
We consciously and deliberately gave "Valuing People" a lifelong perspective on learning disability. The chapter on children focused on the needs of learning-disabled children and their families, but it did so in a framework that applies equally to all disabled children. Many disabled children have more than one impairment, and a majority have a learning disability.
Where necessary, the Government have put in place the legislative framework for change—for example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Daventry recognises what a fine piece of legislation that is, having spent some happy days in the Standing Committee that considered it last Session. The Act strengthens the right of children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools, and from September 2002 protects them from discrimination on grounds of their disability in their access to education, including further and higher education.
The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 introduces direct payments, giving parents of disabled children and 16 and 17-year-old disabled young people greater choice and flexibility in the way in which they receive services. The Care Standards Act 2000 improves protection and raises standards through new regulations and inspection of care providers. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 ensures continuity of support for all looked-after disabled children.
Furthermore, there are four cross-Government programmes to help tackle the social exclusion of children: sure start for the under-fives; the children fund for older children; Connexions for teenagers; and the "quality protects" programme for the most vulnerable across the whole age range, those in care and children in need. All must give priority to disabled children. As part of the "quality protects" programme, the Government set new national objectives for children's services which for the first time set out clear outcomes for children, and in some instances give precise targets which local authorities are expected to achieve.
Last year's "quality protects" management action plans show that authorities are beginning to improve the services that they provide to disabled children. Many are developing proposals in collaboration with partners from other agencies and sectors, such as the NHS and the
542
voluntary sector. More family support services were being provided, particularly home-based respite care and sitting services. Every management action plan included examples of services that increased the range and scale of provision of leisure, cultural and sporting activities.
That was supported by the last spending review, when the "quality protects" programme was extended from three years to five, with substantial additional funding being made available. Provision for disabled children has been made a priority in the programme. From 2001–02 to 2003–04, £60 million for the children's services special grant has been earmarked for services for disabled children and their families.
The new children's fund is also encouraging joint working between local authorities and the voluntary sector to benefit disabled children. We know, for example, that through the fund, new projects are under way in Birmingham, Bradford, Haringey, Greenwich, Bristol and many other places, where the fund is providing better after-school facilities for children with complex needs, providing sporting activities, addressing child care and transport issues, and working with special schools, mainstream schools, early-years and other settings.
As part of our programme to support children with special educational needs, the Government recently issued the revised SEN code of practice and a toolkit for key professionals with responsibility for implementation. That included sections for health professionals and social services staff. Developing an integrated approach to supporting disabled children is key to the development of the national service framework for children.
As I mentioned earlier, a particularly important issue for children with learning disabilities arises as they enter adulthood. Disabled young people and their families often find that transition stressful and difficult. There has too often been a lack of co-ordination between the relevant agencies. Some young people are not transferred from children's to adult services with adequate health and social care plans.
That is why we have asked all local partnership boards to have a member with responsibility for transition planning. It is also why we set a target by 2003 for local agencies to introduce person-centred planning for all disabled young people moving from children's to adult services. That will include not only council services such as social services and education, but a health action plan, setting out the services to be provided by the health service.
I said earlier that "Valuing People" involved several Government Departments. I have touched on work in education, but we are working across Government. For example, the Government's statutory advisers on transport-related disability matters—the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—includes among its membership a person with a learning disability, and is working with transport operators to help them understand the importance of information and training to give people with learning disabilities the confidence to travel.
With the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, we are funding research leading to the publication of good practice advice on housing options and guidance on the range of housing options that should be provided for people with learning disabilities. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions on a research project studying the links between day centres

543
and supported employment, as well as the ongoing work being taken forward by the workstep programme to provide employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities.
In conclusion, "Valuing People" sets out a programme of action that will make a real difference to the lives of people with learning disabilities, their families and their carers. Old long-stay hospitals will be closed and residents found more appropriate accommodation. Employment opportunities will improve. The transition from children's to adult services will be better. Accommodation choices will be wider, and access to health services will improve. In conjunction with other Government initiatives, educational opportunities will be available for all children regardless of their disability. People's control over their own lives will improve through better advocacy services and greater use of direct payments. People with learning disabilities will continue to work with us to achieve those improvements.
One of the learning-disabled people who worked on the White Paper was recognised in last year's birthday honours—Carol Lee, from London People First, who was awarded an MBE. She is quoted in one of the reports published with "Valuing People" as saying:
"I am proud to be in this group. It means a lot to work together with such a good team committed to supporting people with learning disabilities in their hard struggle to live independent lives."
I hope that, today, we can reassure Carol and other learning-disabled people that that work will continue so that we can provide them with the opportunities that they fully deserve.
10.11 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: I am honoured and delighted to participate in this debate on the implementation of the Government's strategy for learning disability, as set out in the White Paper "Valuing People". It reflects a long history of action taken in this House to tackle disability issues.
So often, the distinctions are not so much between the parties, as we usually speak with the same voice, as between those who turn up and participate in such debates, and those who do not get round to it, and are not as closely focused on some of the problems. Often, we vie with each other in our enthusiasm for the topic, and I am happy to initiate an arms race on that today. The Minister has made a good start in setting out her case. However, we must approach this matter in the spirit—and with the historic record—that change and betterment in such sensitive areas are often progressive between successive Governments of widely differing political views.
I still remember my first visit to the House when I was a schoolboy. I believe that it was in 1959, when I was lucky enough to be at the school that had been attended by the then Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes. I was somewhat disconcerted when I came here as a Member in 1987 and found that he had joined the staff of the Clerk's Department in 1924. There is therefore a long history.
I mention that anecdote because I remember that the subject for debate, which was not well attended and did not leap off the page as a matter of high controversy, was the Report stage of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. Two points arise from that. First, the constitutional one
544
that that measure, or one like it, is unlikely to return here. Secondly, since 1959, we have drawn out and increasingly accommodated the important functional distinction, which was then much less well appreciated, between mental health and learning disability. There was a culture of institutionalisation that bridged both. Both relate to vulnerable people whose care requires careful and loving attention, but they are not the same people. From time to time, however, the frustrations of having difficulty with learning may spill over into mental health problems. If I were to make one criticism of the Minister's approach, it would be that she did not say much about the experience of being an adult with a learning difficulty, and the kinds of frustrations that arise.
At any event, the last major exercise, in the House, in overall provision for learning disability took place on a Conservative Government's watch, as a White Paper and legislation were introduced a generation ago in 1971. It is worth remarking that that White Paper was unashamedly called "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped". Again, in the use of sensitivity and phraseology, we have collectively come a long way in a generation, in emphasising what people with learning difficulties can do, particularly if disabilities and difficulties can be relieved or released, rather than emphasising what they cannot do.
As the new White Paper, "Valuing People", acknowledges, apart from phraseology and terminology real progress has been made in the last generation in closing large institutions and developing services in the community. However, the new White Paper rightly adds that more needs to be done. We are considering the means of doing it, which is the tough part of government.
I am pleased to follow the Minister. As she mentioned, I have shadowed her for several years on educational matters, particularly in relation to special educational needs and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Even if I am not as ecstatic in my praise of it as she was, I readily concede that it represents an important advance, and, of course, feeds directly into this debate. With the way in which responsibilities have fallen, our paths have diverged—she has gone to the Department of Health, and I am an Opposition spokesman for Work and Pensions. That is an interesting development, as ministerial responsibilities in this area can look like a Venn diagram, in which health, work and pensions, education and several other important Government and local government departments and interests are all rightly engaged.
I hope that the Minister and I can claim a common commitment and a degree of mutual respect. Certainly, she has made a constructive and encouraging opening speech. I was particularly pleased that she picked up the point that many hon. Members have made, perhaps fuelled by the excellent campaign in The Times at Christmas, about the autistic spectrum. We are all learning much more about it. Many people with Asperger's syndrome are highly intelligent individuals who have social needs. If they are not catered for, they spill over into educational difficulties. I am glad that she is at least encouraging local authorities not to take a literal-minded view of the scope of her White Paper.
I am also pleased that the Minister talked about direct payments, which is a matter that needs working up. As she acknowledged, the numbers are still small. However, when people have the budget in their own hands, with the

545
support of their family or carers they can make their own choices. They are often better placed to do that than anyone making choices on their behalf.
In the general spirit of what I am sure will be a constructive debate, I should make it clear that the Opposition have no problems with the objectives of the White Paper. We support it and we want it to work. In particular, I like its title, "Valuing People". To use a modernism, it is a brilliant title. It is precisely the belief in the value of all people as ends in themselves and not as means that should drive us. None of us who has met a class or group of young individuals with various special educational needs, or seen an individual pupil properly and sensitively included in a mainstream setting, could have failed to notice the special buzz that can arise, the dedication of teachers, and the friendliness and interaction of the pupils. In this most cynical of places, that force can and should defy our cynicism.
Of course, in saying that, I do not wish to suggest that there are not problems with challenging behaviour from time to time. The Minister has already referred to them. People with learning difficulties can be very difficult, and it can be hard to deal with them and to get the appropriate administrative machinery together to do so. But there is something about them that we should remember and celebrate.
The Conservatives have no problems with the four cardinal principles set out in the White Paper: rights, independence, choice and inclusion. All that I would say, with some diffidence, to the hon. Lady is that they have not just arrived, freshly made, under new Labour. They are concepts that some of us have always thought important. Indeed, to my great personal pleasure, the previous Conservative Government laid the foundations with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—not without difficulty, as I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will remind us—and we are glad to embrace its subsequent extension and the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, with which I have regular and positive exchanges.
Those four principles are interactive and are about the worth of individuals. My only possible reservation, which I state for completeness only, is that inclusion can be interpreted to subvert the free choice of individuals—for example, in relation to whether they should be at a special school or educated in a mainstream setting. Inclusion should be interpreted to offer new opportunities for choice between different educational or lifestyle approaches, but we will not spoil this morning by quibbling over definitions.
The White Paper is frank about what it describes as problems and challenges. Those of us who had the privilege of going to the parliamentary palace of varieties last night saw a rehearsal of the first episode of "Yes, Minister", which was very well executed by some of our colleagues. The great, mythical—and, in terms of the actor involved, sadly deceased—Sir Humphrey Appleby appeared in it. He was always a great believer in describing any ministerial policy, particularly those that included a modicum of initiative, as "challenging". This is a very challenging White Paper, but it is frank, and it is right that we should start, as the White Paper does, by flatly acknowledging the difficulties.
546
The difficulties that I have picked out would be the stuff of any constituency MP's experience: poor co-ordination of services; poor planning for transition; inadequate support for carers; poor, often discriminatory, health care; poor employment opportunities; and a general lack of choice. I can only say amen to that list; any constituency MP could, no doubt, add to it. How many times have we heard in our surgeries the line of argument: "We can cope with the disability of a member of our family, but it is the bureaucracy that gets us in the end"?
Only this week, I have been occupied with the case of a young constituent with multiple disabilities—both physical disabilities and learning difficulties—who now has the benefit, after the family has fought its way through a tribunal hearing, of a placement in a residential school operated by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. The problem now lies between social services and the local education authority, and centres on responsibility for the weekly transport to and from the school. Having recently studied a report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on work carried out at the Norah Fry research centre at the university of Bristol into placements at residential schools, I believe that my constituent's experience would make an admirable object case for the foundation to consider.
I am sure that, with good will, that particular difficulty will be resolved—indeed, we are on the way to resolving it—but is has caused distress for the family and engendered suspicion among the parents that the tribunal's finding is in some way being subverted. It has also required the intervention of a Member of Parliament. Sometimes, I feel as though we function here as the front line of joined-up government, the people who actually put the bits together when there is a problem. To return to the White Paper, it is that element of effective partnership between health, social care and education that desperately needs improvement.
Nowhere is that cast into sharper or more disturbing policy perspective than in the recent Mencap report, "No Ordinary Life", which deals with the support needs of families caring for children with profound or multiple learning difficulties. No decent person could read that report without grave unease. Similarly, no one who is familiar with human rights legislation, and who is involved in government or local administration, could read it without some apprehension of ending up in court because of its findings. It is terrifying that many people set out with good will to put their bit of the jigsaw in place for people with these complex difficulties, but only one piece needs to be missing for the picture to be incomplete, and for the service to be inadequate. Those of us who have interviewed parents know how they feel when nearly everything is in place, but something is missing.
Although the Minister has not referred specifically to that report today, I was delighted that, when she responded on 23 January to my parliamentary questions, which were keyed around the report, she clearly saw the Government's response in terms of the White Paper and the learning disability taskforce that is to lead its implementation. I am also genuinely pleased to have her assurance that Ministers have actively involved Mencap and other leading non-governmental and voluntary organisations in the process.

547
I have long been a passionate supporter of the voluntary sector, and I believe that such organisations can add great value in two ways: by using their hands-on, objective experience of what it all means; and by communicating an element of what I would describe as passionate dissatisfaction to puncture any official complacency. I am sure that it will be the understatement of this speech to say that life for those directly caught up in learning disability, including families and carers, is very tough. It behoves us all to remember that and to take this agenda forward.
Before I concentrate on implementation, I shall touch on the main requirements for service users. Perhaps my comments will be the other way round from the Minister's, but we all approach this matter from slightly different perspectives. I hope that what I have to say will be complementary rather than antagonistic. The provision of proper services for each critical stage of life must begin with early appraisal or diagnosis, and the ability to pick up problems at the paediatric stage. This must be coupled with continuing professional assessment and an eye to the possibilities of development for the individual. Nowhere is that more important than in the increasingly clear area of the autistic spectrum, where up to 1 per cent. of young people may be affected to some extent.
Each individual and their family should have a clear choice in the matter of transfer from home to a placement at school. The transition from primary to secondary school can be fraught, particularly if there is not an exact match of the type of setting. In the crucial transfer to further education, I suspect that many local education authorities still do not implement fully their long-standing obligations for transition planning. At the same time as—or shortly after—that life event, an individual may transfer from child to adult residential provision, in which suitable placements can often be hard to find.
Another area in which Mencap, United Response in Business and other agencies are involved is the creation and best use of employment opportunities, which are enormously enriching where they are feasible. While I acknowledge that many day-care services need restructuring—an institution that I know well in my constituency has restructured itself totally—we cannot wish away the role of day centres. They still have a valuable role to play but cannot be provided on the cheap. That is also true of carer support and meeting the health care needs of service users.
I welcome the Government's recent aid package to carers, but we still await implementation of their pledge to extend invalid care allowance to people aged 65 and over. That is particularly important given the changing demographics of those with learning disabilities. The numbers are rising by some 1 per cent. a year. As more people survive to adulthood and, in many examples, old age and retirement, carers are often older and perhaps reaching the end of what would have been their working lives. They, too, may need help with income and housing.
That brings me to housing issues, which the Minister perhaps only sketched. Although nobody wants a return to long-stay institutions, there is still an important role for residential care. Only two days ago, the Minister published guidance on the full suite of national minimum care standards, but, to my knowledge, she has not yet provided an accompanying statement of the regulatory impact on those providing that residential care. That is greatly exercising national charities as well as private sector care homes and it would be tragic if, in pursuit of
548
a care standards ideal, we contrived a dearth in capacity and, perforce, drove people back to either health service-run institutions or other inappropriate care that inadequately supports community living.
Where, indeed, is the guidance on access to social housing promised in the White Paper? There are important questions to ask. How will we and local authorities know whether they are making adequate provision? How do those issues play into or out of joint investment plan budgets? Will the finance come from those budgets or from other resources? We do not yet have an adequate information base to ensure that needs are identified, let alone met. I am surprised that the Minister said less about that than she might have, because preparing a better database is important to driving the agenda forward.
There is a danger that aspirations may not meet reality and there may not be enough resources to fund the revenue costs of development without losing quality. Any general efforts to widen choice, which of course involve the possibility of direct payments where appropriate, are welcome. I defend direct payments, because they may represent a more cost-effective use of resources.
Implementation is central. I have read the 17 January debate on Bristol royal infirmary and remind the Minister that her ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), sensibly said:
"reports do not implement themselves. They need to be monitored and implemented."—[Official Report, 17 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 507.]
All the more so in respect of learning disabilities, because the hon. Lady is dealing not just with a national health service under relatively unified control, but with a partnership involving local authorities, voluntary organisations, patients, parents, carers and a wide range of support services. If any one piece of that jigsaw is lacking—even, for example, the bus home from residential school—the rest of the package might be invalidated.
I refer again to the university of Bristol research. On residential placements, for example, it says:
"The existence of joint panels or joint policy statements did not necessarily lead to good working relations between frontline staff in day-to-day work with children and parents."
That is a warning that mere words and aspirations do not guarantee policy success.
This is not a day for partisanship and I do not intend to breach the mood, but I must say that I find three aspects of the Government's approach and culture relating to complex social issues trying and often rather implausible. First, we have the aspiration. Fine words such as "rights", "independence", "choice" and "inclusion" are spoken as if nobody has thought of them before. Then adjectives such as "new", "modern", "high quality", "world class" and even "joined up" are attached. Finally, the third leg of the stool: plans are announced, but they do not always happen. I hope that the Minister learns from the shortcomings and achieves a strategy that works.
Let me examine three aspects: partnership working and investment, advocacy and monitoring. The White Paper deploys an impressive array of concepts to explain how the intended partnership is to work, and the keystone is the local learning disability partnership board. The boards were to be established by October last, so perhaps the

549
Minister will tell us whether they are all in place. A good test is how often they have met or, more basically, whether they have any members.
I am pleased that the boards have an incentive to get on with the job. Their first duty is to consider joint investment plans and tap into the learning disability development fund, which was to have involved £20 million of capital and up to £30 million in revenue. Due to the difficulty in making savings from long-term hospitals, that figure has been reduced to £22 million, which, as Mencap rather drily comments, "appears somewhat limited" in the context of an annual spend of more than £3 billion on adult learning disability services alone. That addition is welcome, but it is only a drop in the ocean.
Another aspect is the operation of implementation teams and their role in stimulating and supporting such local partnerships. The local disability partnerships are not to be statutory bodies, so their internal procedures and precise responsibilities remain hazy.
As regards the task ahead, we have already touched on issues such as housing. May I single out another, which impinges on employment prospects? The White Paper does not address the expansion of supported employment. The recent thrust of Department for Work and Pensions policies has aimed at progression to open employment through supported employment. That is not objectionable in principle, but there is a danger that it may displace chances for people with learning difficulties and, indeed, many people with physical disabilities. Our approach should involve finding out what is required across the pitch, whether in open employment that may be stimulated by the disability charities or in supported employment, and widening opportunities.
On the implementation target timetable, we have a precise and contemporary test. Joint investment programmes were supposed to be in place by April last year. Local action plans were to be developed to supplement the joint investment plans and submitted to the Department of Health's regional offices by 31 January—that is, yesterday. Therefore, the deadline expired 10 and a half hours ago. In these days of modest information technology capacity, it should not be beyond the wit of the Minister to tell the House how many such plans have been submitted, how many are outstanding, and what action she and her implementation team intend to take to chase up the laggards.
It is not just a matter of producing some words and calling that a plan. She should ask the implementation team to find out whether the local development plan and partnership boards have met and approved the joint investment plans that they have submitted. Is that a paper exercise, or do they really know what their priorities are?
I am pleased that the Minister stressed advocacy, because I have long been interested in that. It is an invaluable supporter for vulnerable people and harassed families. The national helpline is certainly valuable, as is the Department's —2 million extra for research, but I sense that the sums available from the strategy funds for advocacy are likely to be severely stretched. Can the Minister be sure that everyone who wants an advocate will get one in due course, and that that advocate will be qualified to support the circumstances of the particular case?
550
The hon. Lady may need to consider good practice in the workings of the system as delivered by the local partnerships. It may be necessary for someone in authority in the partnership—not advocating from outside—to field any individual case, to go on with that case and be the person in charge of it, and to knock official heads and budgets together to meet the needs of that individual.
On inspection and monitoring, the White Paper refers to the social services inspectorate and the Commission for Health Improvement. The Office for Standards in Education will chime in by inspecting schools and local education authority provision. I am not clear whether the implementation teams will also have a supervisory role, especially after the initial phase. Ministers need the ability to determine in a clear, joined-up way whether a partnership is working as intended. I have considerable sympathy with Mencap's suggestion of an annual report by Government to Parliament, ideally to be presented during learning disability week. It also suggests that, as well as an overview of achievements, that should include successful, person-centred outcomes and good practice.
That is the note on which I shall draw my remarks to a close. Today's debate is about setting up machinery to cajole an often cautious and defensive, but not malign, bureaucracy in the implementation of policy in an area in which every service user is uniquely different, and the range of services they require spreads broadly across national and local government. As the Minister said, there are more than 1 million people in England alone who have a claim on our attention.
There are genuinely shared objectives across the House, although perhaps—even in the minds of Ministers, dare I say—there are some tacit and even cynical reservations about the likelihood of success. Many service users and their families and carers have a direct interest in today's words being turned into reality, and an interest in seeing the frustrations and setbacks that they often encounter being alleviated or removed.
Conservative Members will press the Government to discharge their current responsibility to ensure that positive change happens. I am sure that all of us here approach this most sensitive of areas with a determination to avoid being accommodative or even patronising, but instead to be genuinely supportive and empowering.
10.44 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) initially welcomed the White Paper, and I welcome his welcome. He then made a number of criticisms, but in such a way that he stood on the shoulders of the report, because he had important points to make on partnership, advocacy and monitoring. We all want the admirable White Paper to be acted on and delivered. The principles contained in it will shape the future for people with learning disabilities.
At the start of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that everyone in the Chamber spoke with one voice on this matter, and I agree. However, that has not always been the case, as he said in a point he made about me. Back in 1994, when the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), following the Bill that had been introduced a few years earlier by Alf Morris, now Lord Morris, there was blood on the Floor of the House on a series of Fridays over how the rights of people with disabilities should be

551
developed, including the rights of those with learning difficulties. That led to the resignation of Nicholas Scott and an apology in the House from Olga Maitland.
I welcome the change of attitude and approach that the Conservative party has displayed in opposition. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which I picked up and ran with in 1995, contained a provision for a disability rights commission. Labour tried to amend the Disability Discrimination Bill that was going through the House at that time to include such a commission.
We argued that the most radical change we could get out of that Bill—we secured a number of changes to that legislation—was the establishment of a disability rights commission. When the Labour Government introduced that measure it was solidly supported by both sides of the House. The Conservatives had changed their position. At one time they blocked such a measure, but because of the criticisms in 1994 they rather reluctantly introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill in 1995. Their approach has been transformed, and I welcome that and the role that the hon. Gentleman has played in that transformation. It is healthy that we have this consensus, but that does not mean conformity in all areas. I may press the Government on various matters.
The hon. Gentleman made a distinction between mental health provisions and learning disability. Although it is right to make that distinction, there is not that absolute division in every area. The general description of people with learning disabilities includes people who suffer from mental health problems. There is an overlap, and we need to bear in mind the fact that some important considerations affect what is said about mental health legislation from the Department of Health and about this admirable White Paper.
I gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he wanted to pursue a particular case. I am currently hoping to initiate an Adjournment debate about a vaccine damage case with which I have been dealing during the nearly 15 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament. There has been a great deal of correspondence between me and Government Departments, but now I want to make the case more public, and as soon as I can agree on a form of words with parents, helpers and others I shall be pressing strongly for the debate.
Discrimination takes many forms. When it involves race, ethnicity, nationality, faith and gender, it has moral aspects that call for legislation to educate society and also deal with the most obnoxious cases—although I accept that sin and laws do not always go together. Those considerations apply at least as strongly to discrimination on grounds of age and disability, but such discrimination is, moreover, logically peculiar. Discrimination plays on, indeed shamelessly exploits, differences. A white person is not a black person, a fact that some will emphasise to justify their prejudices. A man is not a woman; a Christian is not a Muslim, unless he or she converts; and in Northern Ireland people are very conscious that a Protestant is not a Catholic. Indeed, people are not allowed to forget that, because it is a tribal distinction made by extremists.
An able-bodied person, however, is potentially a disabled person. Nearly four years ago, I had a stroke in the Chamber. The current Speaker, then a Deputy Speaker, took me to St. Thomas' hospital and stayed for a couple of hours, along with my hon. Friend the Member
552
for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I have recovered now, but for a time I was clearly a disabled person, and I am well aware that as I get older and develop arthritis and other problems, elements of disability creep up on me.
Similarly, a young person is getting older, and, if he or she survives, will become an elderly person. My late mother developed Alzheimer's, which put her in not just the aged but the disabled category. We are all potentially old people with many disabilities. Discrimination against disabled people is therefore very peculiar: it is, in a sense, discrimination against oneself. People do not normally discriminate against themselves. When people come to me with tax problems I try to deal with them straight away, whereas I deal with my own tax problems last, so I suppose I discriminate against myself in certain ways; but discrimination against oneself is not a normal characteristic of human behaviour. People are generally very partial in their own cause.
The discrimination with which we are trying to deal is, then, both wrong and very odd. It should be possible for us, and for disabled people, to explain its peculiarity and to explain why it is actually against the interests of those engaging in it.
Mr. Boswell: These are interesting points. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to borrow the old Latin tag "Everything that is unknown is inflated". One of the main difficulties with disability issues is the fact that there is ignorance in the population unless or until disabilities are encountered directly. That is why it is important for us to have had a lively and open debate in the Chamber and beyond, so that people understand the issues and how they should be handled.
Mr. Barnes: There is indeed a great lack of understanding, but avenues exist for the development of understanding. There are so many people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, that we all rub shoulders with them. Someone in most people's family networks will fall into one of those categories, which should enable us to sympathise and empathise.
In August, I led a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation on a visit to Nigeria. There we met Professor Akinsete, leader of the national action committee on AIDS. I asked her whether the committee had made any mistakes. She said, "Yes. I am a professor of medicine, and we dealt with AIDS as a medical problem. But it is not just a medical problem; it is a wide social problem that encompasses a number of departments and interests. Now we tackle it by trying to bring together those departments and interests, and we are making much better progress." The committee is receiving good support from the Department for International Development's team in Nigeria.
When I saw that the White Paper had been produced by the Department of Health, I was a bit worried at first. What was happening here? Were the Government treating this as a purely medical problem? The White Paper, however, does not make that mistake. It does deal with health issues, but it also deals with housing, employment, family life, the problems of lifelong carers and the experiences of those with learning disabilities throughout their lives. It deals with special educational needs, pre-school provision and the transition that is involved when people leave school. Families begin to have fears at

553
that stage. Parents think, "Things were fine when there was school and the day centre, but we are getting older. What will happen to the child who is now growing up?" They have helped that child to subsist. Provision is needed to give people the independence that they need in order to function in society. As those people get older, their difficulties are compounded.
On Monday, I visited a special needs consortium in Clay Cross, which wants me to deal with some particular problems. It is based at the Clay Cross pre-school playgroup, but three other groups are attached to it, two in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), the Newbold parish church pre-school and the Walton village pre-school, and another in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, the Stonebroom pre-school playgroup.
A lottery grant enables those playgroups to operate, but the funding for their special needs work goes up only to March 2003 and they do not know what will happen after that. They are exactly the type of group that needs assistance in line with the principles outlined in the White Paper.
While I admire the interdepartmental and interdisciplinary approach adopted in the White Paper, there is a worrying counter-trend in the Department of Health. It produced an earlier White Paper called "Reforming the Mental Health Act". I want to stress the links between the two concepts—the Venn diagram.
"Reforming the Mental Health Act" responded to popular fears about dangerous mental health patients. Obviously the public needs to be protected where there is a risk but there is a danger that the measure applying to mental health services is becoming a public protection measure and is taking away from some of the activities involved in community health provision. I am drawing on the experiences that the hon. Member for Chesterfield and I had when we visited the Hartington ward of the community health trust in north Derbyshire.
There are fears that the measure extends the criteria for detainment to those with drugs and alcohol-dependency problems, that there is no effective discharge procedure, and that patients lack rights prior to tribunals dealing with appeals. The measure may set back the campaign to reduce stigma, which we are anxious to do, deter patients from seeking help and break confidentiality. Professionals who share those feelings may want to detach themselves from that activity. Recruits may not want to work in that sector because of those pressures.
I hope that we will try to reconcile the two measures, although I recognise that we need to take public protection considerations into account. Whether the Department of Health should be leading on that is another matter, but in this White Paper the Department has been sensible enough to adopt the interdisciplinary approach. I want that approach to be taken to the mental health White Paper. I hope that, if there is a battle between the two White Papers, the one we are debating will be the victor.
The size of the problem in relation to learning disability has been outlined by the Minister. We need to deal with discrimination problems and to ensure that legislative, financial and support needs are met. I present the figures in a slightly different way from the Minister. In each constituency in the country, there are some 10,000
554
disabled people and 3,000 or so people with learning difficulties, of whom 500 are severely disabled people, so the problems are known to all MPs. It is a pity that more colleagues are not in the House today because we need to impress upon them the significance of the White Paper and the attention that needs to be given to it.
However, we are mistaken if we think that experts, advisers and politicians alone will solve the problems that have been highlighted in the White Paper. The Minister highlighted the significance of self-help provisions, and we must listen and give authority to organisations for disabled people. We are lucky in north Derbyshire because a number of organisations are doing exactly that. At Clay Cross in my constituency, the Derbyshire coalition for disabled people campaigns on behalf of disabled people in Derbyshire. At Ripley, outside my constituency, the Derbyshire centre for integrated living is the servicing, enabling body. Some of the same people are active in the two, but although their areas of responsibility cross, they wear different hats. Many areas have disabled access groups. In Dronfield, where I live, there is an active access group which is keen on the proposals in the White Paper.
Because of the impact of the Derbyshire coalition, North East Derbyshire district council has provided a breakthrough to work programme for disabled people, including those with learning difficulties. It has been able to place into work, sometimes in the district council itself, people with those difficulties.
The Minister mentioned London People First and Carol Lee. London People First is made up of people with learning disabilities. One of the proudest moments for me in my period in the House was when I introduced the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and London People First produced it as a document for their members, in a form that was meaningful to people with learning disabilities. I will always remember my visit to that organisation when that document was produced. No doubt it will be working on the White Paper so that its members also have access to it.
We must listen to and empower such groups. We can do that through developing further the correct legislative framework and providing for self-advocacy, for example, which the Minister mentioned.
The Government have made a sound start. They have made full use of the Disability Discrimination Act. The scope of that legislation developed considerably, partly because it was in conflict with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which I was introducing at the time. Initially, the Disability Discrimination Bill was not intended to apply to Northern Ireland, so all the Northern Ireland parties signed up to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. That led the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was the Minister responsible at the time, to announce that Northern Ireland was to be included in the disability Bill. There was some lack of provision in terms of transport and education, but this was rectified as the Bill went through the House. Some Conservative Members who were interested in extending civil rights were working behind the scenes to improve the legislation and some agreed to block my Bill so long as the Government's proposed legislation was changed in line with their requirements. That is all good politics and helped to improve the legislation which is now in force.

555
The Human Rights Act 1998 offers other avenues that can be pursued and developed. As I said earlier, the big achievement that resulted from the 1995 Act was the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission. It is only a pity that it was not set up a few years earlier.
The White Paper states on page 23 at paragraph 2.2:
"The Government is committed to enforceable civil rights for disabled people in order to eradicate discrimination in society."
There has always been support in Government circles for the provision of full civil rights for disabled people and there have been encouraging indications that the Government have that objective in mind. The White Paper helps them to work towards that end.
In current legislation the problem is medically defined in terms of physical and learning disabilities. We need provisions that are directed against the discriminator. The primary factor is the perception in the mind of anyone who is crude enough to discriminate on the grounds of disability. The fact that a person is disabled is secondary; the hideous factor is the discrimination, although I agree that those whose problems are covered by the legislation to help chronically sick and disabled people need empowerment, assistance and the right to lead full and decent lives. That is required from future legislation.
The White Paper sets out the rights that people with learning disabilities should have, including the right to vote and ease of access to electoral provision. It proposes
"providing comprehensive guidance to electoral administrators on helping disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, through the whole electoral process—from registering to vote until polling day itself."
I have always taken a considerable interest in electoral registration matters. The Minister who introduced the rolling register that is now in place was kind enough to describe me as the father of the rolling register. However, there is a great deal more to be done and we have various issues to pursue.
In 1994, when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood introduced his Bill on civil rights, I introduced a Bill on electoral matters which included proposals concerning access to polling stations. Giving everyone, including disabled people, registration rights still does not cover the difficulties faced by disabled voters, who should have the same right as able-bodied people to exercise their franchise in person. They should not be pressurised to resort to proxy votes and postal votes. Obviously they should have the same access to those facilities as anyone else, but if they want to vote in person everything should be done to enable them to do so.
My Bill was not successful, but those provisions were included in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—a Bill I inherited from the disability movement and to which I added provisions to address that particular concern, which is shared by many disability organisations. I commend the publications by Scope, which produced three reports at consecutive elections about the continuing problem of access to polling stations. As votes are the building blocks of democracy, I hope that this matter will be further pursued and that the Home Office as the body responsible for such measures, will respond to the points that are raised in the White Paper.
The White Paper is an extremely valuable document. Along with the hon. Member for Daventry, I have climbed onto the shoulders of the report which has provided us with a commendable platform to present our argument.
11.18 am
Paul Holmes: Liberal Democrats very much welcome the aspirations outlined in "Valuing People". As we have heard, it is a major and long overdue updating of its 30-year-old predecessor, the White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped". Society has moved on a great deal since then, and in respect of attitudes towards all kinds of disability it has undoubtedly changed very much for the better.
As a teacher in mainstream secondary schools from 1979 to 2001, I certainly witnessed some of that change for the better. In recent years I taught mainstream classes of 30 and more pupils into which children with Down's syndrome and degrees of autism including fragile X syndrome have successfully been integrated, something that would have been very unlikely 30 years ago or even in 1979 when I started my teaching career. Regrettably, class sizes in secondary schools have got worse in recent years, otherwise the integration of children with all sorts of special needs would have been even more successful.
There can be little doubt that if the White Paper fulfils its promises to those with learning disabilities, and their carers, we will witness an even more dramatic change for the better. We very much welcome the inclusiveness agenda and many of the excellent proposals in the White Paper, but having willed the end are the Government prepared to will the means to the end and provide the financial resources that are necessary to fulfil the White Paper's promise of setting the four key principles of rights, independence, choice and inclusion at the core of provision of services for those with learning disabilities? As a former teacher, I know that those principles can work in a school setting if the money is there to provide the adaptations, support workers and the extra or adapted teaching materials. It cannot be done on the cheap or as a short-term project.
In the light of my own experience, I want to raise some concerns that are shared by Mencap, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Royal College of General Practitioners. I welcome the establishment of a new learning disability development fund, and new money to fund the modernising of day centres and the development of supported living approaches. However, it is important to set the figures in context. In 1999–2000, for example, provisional expenditure on adult learning disability services was in excess of £3 billion, of which £1.4 billion was spent on health and £1.6 billion on social services. In addition, social services contributed about £308 million, and the Department of Health about £107 million, to supporting disabled children, not all of whom, however, had learning disabilities.
Set against that, the White Paper establishes a development fund of up to £30 million revenue and £20 million capital per year, for just two years. Such a figure is hardly significant compared with the overall sum. Obviously, much can be done by using existing funds more effectively, but the key point is that the White Paper's ambitious tones have been accompanied by distinctly unambitious funding. Indeed, it now appears that the initial revenue figure of up to £30 million has in practice been scaled down to an even more disappointing £22 million.
So, however much one might welcome the sentiments behind the White Paper, they are in danger of being made unrealistic by simple underfunding. Of course, we have

557
witnessed precisely the same elsewhere—for example. the excellent new national care standards for residential homes have already been undermined by gross underfunding. The relevant Government impact assessment was a massive 20 times lower than that of the Leonard Cheshire organisation. The Sue Ryder Foundation has already closed one home, NCH Action for Children has withdrawn provision in Wales altogether, and private care homes the length and breadth of the country are closing in record numbers. This excellent White Paper must not be undermined in the same way, yet a general vagueness about funding seems to beset the issue of housing for those with learning disabilities and, specifically, the impact of housing provision on the lives of those with learning disabilities.
As the White Paper correctly points out:
"Department of Health research has shown that supported living is associated with people having greater overall choice and a wider range of community activities."
It makes the further obvious point that
"small scale ordinary housing is likely to lead to better outcomes across a range of factors than large-scale housing or hostel provision."
That issue is all the more important because in England about 60 per cent. of adults with severe or profound learning disabilities—some 87,000 people—live with their parents. I welcome the White Paper's plans to resettle some 1,500 people who still live in long-stay hospitals, and to provide alternative living solutions for those who live with carers aged over 70. A cut-off age of 70 may be arbitrary and should surely be based on a needs assessment of individual families, rather than the nearest convenient round figure. However, I know from experience that it is better than no date at all. I have recently had to fight for many months to secure such an alternative living solution for an 85-year-old constituent of mine and her dependent adult son with learning disabilities. Her son himself is almost of pensionable age.
The Government have not yet clearly explained how the expansion of housing provision and the essential accompanying support will be funded. Because of more than 20 years of severe Government underfunding, local councils often provide housing and support only when there is a crisis in the family home. Independence and choice in one's living arrangements, where possible, are fundamental to the White Paper's four key principles of rights, independence, choice and inclusion. I would like the Government to make a full assessment of the full costs of providing housing for all people with learning disabilities.
Another of the White Paper's welcome aspirations is the stated objective of increasing the number of people with learning disabilities in work from the current lamentable figure of 10 per cent. to 30 per cent.—the same as for other disabled people. Although 30 per cent. is a poor enough figure, it would at least be a step forward. If the targets are to be achieved, the best way to do so is surely—as we have heard—through supported employment schemes. Can the Minister provide full assessments of the cost of such schemes, and a guarantee that funding will be ongoing? That would ensure that, once the targets are met, there can be no falling back in future.
Despite my general support for the White Paper, I am disappointed by its lack of attention to the needs of children with profound and multiple learning disabilities.
558
Intellectual impairment is often accompanied by profound sensory impairment. Such people have the most profound needs, and any examination of the learning needs of this country's learning disabled must make them a priority. I call on the Minister to ensure that local agencies are obliged to target services toward that group, but she must also make a clear assessment of the cost of making such provision, set specific targets to meet their needs, and above all earmark the funding increase to ensure that those needs can be met.
On the proposed major changes to the provision of day services, we welcome the White Paper's requirement for local authorities to examine their dependence on day centres, and its moves to modernise day care centres, many of which are antiquated and inadequate. Change is essential if those centres are to provide the learning-impaired with meaningful experiences. The watchwords must be flexibility—with more activities provided outside the traditional hours of 9 to 5, Monday to Friday—and quality, with services tailored as well as possible to individual needs. The Minister must also note concerns that modernisation should not result in a reduction of services, and that the existing service is not removed before working alternatives are introduced.
On self-advocacy, I welcome the key actions listed in chapter 4 of the White Paper and agree with its assertion that the provision of advocacy services has been patchy and that those with learning disabilities have had little involvement in decision making until now. The £1.3 million that will be provided for self-advocacy and advocacy schemes across the country is to be welcomed, but I know from talking to representatives of disability associations that some uncertainty exists about how the cash will be split. Some fear that its provision may not extend much further than the initial three years.
The White Paper promises
"£1.3 million per annum for the next three years to develop and expand advocacy services in partnership with the voluntary sector."
However, will funding dry up after that time, leaving stranded those who rely upon such services? Will the Minister give assurances that existing self-advocacy schemes that are funded by social services will receive ongoing funding, instead of the Government counting their existing money as part of the promised £1.3 million? Will she give assurances that, when new self-advocacy schemes are set up under the new fund in the White Paper, social services will not withdraw money from other existing self-advocacy services? Will she also give assurances that, when new self-advocacy schemes are set up under the White Paper, they will have a long-term and consistent stream of funding that will continue beyond the three-year commitment made in the White Paper?
Finally, on the question of practical and funding problems, I draw the Minister's attention to the resource implications for general practitioners of resettling into the community those who used to be concentrated in the old-style mental handicap hospitals. About 60,000 former residents have already been resettled and registered with their local GP. However, the Royal College of General Practitioners calculates that that often represents a fourfold increase per patient in the GP's drugs bill and work load. Dr. Graham Martin, the chairman of the RCGP's learning disabilities working group, points out:
"GPs and Primary Care Trusts need extra resources if they are to provide the level of care that is appropriate for patients with learning disabilities and which they deserve."

559
My concluding point, which shows that money and other resources are not the only issues, concerns educational principle. The Minister has mentioned protecting the rights of those with learning disabilities in terms of access to mainstream education, and I have already referred to my experience of working with children with learning disabilities in mainstream education. However, the Government are undertaking a disastrous lurch in the direction of creating an irrevocable two-tier system of education in England, as we will discover in next week's debate on the Education Bill. Specialist schools of various kinds will select by aptitude, ability and aspiration, while "bog-standard" comprehensive schools will take the rest, along with £500,000 less per school.
The Government's own figures, such as those published by the Department for Education and Skills for 2000–01, make it clear that across the country as a whole—not just with individual schools, but right across the spectrum—specialist schools, faith schools, grammar schools and technology colleges take less than the national average of pupils who qualify for free school meals or have special educational needs. The latter category includes children with learning difficulties, who will not be good for schools' league table positions.
Can the Minister reassure us that by some miraculous amendment next week, safeguards will be put into the Education Bill to protect the rights of children with learning disabilities, which the White Paper sets out to enhance, but which the increasing development of a two-tier education system is undermining?
In his foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister says:
"I know the publication of a White Paper, however good its proposals, does not itself solve problems. The challenge for us all is to deliver the vision set out in this document so the lives of many thousands of people with learning disabilities will be brighter and more fulfilling."
I hope that the undoubted good intentions in the White Paper really will be implemented and funded, and will also be protected from the impact of other less worthy Government initiatives such as the Education Bill.
11.31 am
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, even though it draws us away from our constituency engagements on a Friday. For me that is unusual, but this is such an important debate that it is a privilege to take part in it, especially given the tone of the discussion so far. Hon. Members may put different emphasis on different policies, but everybody in the House wants to see the same outcomes, and we have already heard some thoughtful speeches.
As the Minister would expect, I want to talk about special educational needs in the overall context of what we have to do to prevent people from being excluded from society. The White Paper, like the debate so far, acknowledges that many people are excluded from society through no fault of their own.
Before I entered the House, my main occupation was in the textile industry and in manufacturing, but for four or five years immediately before I came here I did a lot of charity work and fundraising, some of it on a professional basis. One of my roles immediately before I was elected was working with homeless women in London.
560
That was an eye-opener, and also in some ways a useful introduction to the House of Commons, because the people with whom we were dealing had severe problems and were excluded from society. It is interesting to note that the people who wanted to help them came from what could be described as the elite, and the job stretched my abilities—and, I should add, my education—in every direction. That was a useful preparation for coming to the House, because when we deal with our constituents we often get stretched in many directions.
What struck me particularly at that time was the prevalence of mental illness, and the way in which it affected people. My role was to raise money to create a hostel for homeless women in London, and that was successfully done. The home took in homeless people and resettled them, but it was not simply a matter of putting someone in a home and then finding them a flat. We had to get people to try to understand why they had become homeless in the first place, and to deal with the problems that had caused that. When we got them into their own home again, we had to continue to work with them to ensure that they did not have further problems.
Many of those people had mental illnesses. They were not necessarily young people; some were older, and some were refugees. They came from all walks of life.
One of the common factors was that those people had never been rich; they were obviously quite poor. That does not mean that rich people do not have mental illnesses or become homeless. They certainly do. I became aware of many quite well-off people who had mental illnesses and had become homeless, but they were shielded from the glare of publicity, and did not become obvious to us or to the rest of society because they had friends who could look after them.
Many people with learning disabilities and mental illnesses do not have such friends, and they end up in hostels or on the streets, with severe problems. That taught me a thing or two about what is going on in society—both what we see and what we do not see. My work had a profound effect on me.
When I entered the House I, like many other Members, was asked to make one or two speeches on crime, and I began to think about the massive changes that had taken place in the 20th century. The rise in crime was pretty constant during that century and, on the face of it, it is difficult to correlate social factors with that rise in crime. The provision of health care, education and housing was far better at the end of the 20th century than at the beginning, and there was far more prosperity, so I began to ask myself why, if all those social factors had improved, had crime increased so tremendously during that century?
I came to two conclusions. One was that attitudes had changed. The world had changed, and people were not taught to tell right from wrong as they once were. However, to say that is to oversimplify. It also became clear that there was a group of people who probably had not shared in the great improvements and advances of the century—people who had not got much better health care or education and were not much better off.
Mr. Boswell: I shall not go into all the interesting points that my hon. Friend is beginning to touch on, such as the relationship of social developments with criminality, and I would not want to identify deficiencies

561
in basic skills too closely with learning difficulties, although there is some correlation between them—but does my hon. Friend not find it remarkable and disturbing, as I do, that about 60 per cent. of the population of our prisons now have severe functional difficulties with basic skills, which may by definition make them unfit for economic participation in the labour force?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right, and has picked up a point that I was going to make.
If we think about the people who have not shared in the great advances of the 20th century, we begin to understand why things have gone wrong for some people. I do not, of course, mean to suggest that everybody in that category ends up as a criminal. That is obviously not true, and I do not think that anybody in the House would assume that that is what I am saying.
As I continued to study crime and the prison population, I found that, as my hon. Friend says, about 60 per cent. of the prison population are either illiterate or semi-illiterate. Again, I am not saying that anyone who is illiterate will automatically commit a crime, but there is a reason to look more deeply for the causes of crime.
I am not saying that all prison sentences are strong enough; indeed, I think that many of them should be stronger. None the less, we need to understand why the crimes are committed in the first place. There is an obvious correlation between the crime figures and a lack of education and basic skills. I was astounded when I checked up on this, because I could not believe the figures, but I found that more than 90 per cent. of prisoners have some form of mental illness or other mental problem.
Those problems fall into five different categories, but most prisoners—indeed, almost all prisoners—have some form of what used to be called mental deficiency. I hesitate to use that term, but do so in the absence of a better one. There is a great problem. Yes, we must address sentencing policy, but that is a matter for another debate; in this debate, we must examine why people end up in that position when we allegedly have an education system that prevents that.
Many people leave school either illiterate or semi-literate. That is a factor in crime and social exclusion. Today's world is extremely competitive. In that respect, the world has changed more in the past 20 years than in the preceding 80 years. I have the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on the Office of Communications Bill, in which we are discussing the massive changes that have taken place not only in television programmes, but through the emergence of the Internet.
The changes in the world and the pace with which they have taken place are incredible. Now, only the strong survive—but in a civilised society we must do better than that. People who are not properly educated will be disadvantaged and excluded from society to some extent. We have to ensure not only that they have some way of making up ground, but—more important—that they do not fall by the wayside and become involved in crime or drugs. That is a big challenge.
There is a problem of acceptance. I hope that I will be allowed to take a gentle swipe at politicians, perhaps even those of my own party. There has been a reluctance to
562
accept that people who are not well educated and who therefore have no job or are caught up in the dependency culture are more likely to fall by the wayside and to turn to crime. The problem is that that is regarded as an excuse for crime. It is not an excuse: many people in the same circumstances do not turn to crime. However, it sometimes serves as an explanation, and as a reason to look deeper.
I am glad that the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), has recently opened up that debate, and I applaud him for doing so. He made it quite clear—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his interesting remarks to the White Paper on people with learning disabilities.
Mr. Robertson: I certainly shall, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for straying.
My point is that learning disabilities or mental illness are often not recognised. Physical illness is much more easily recognised than mental illness. That failure to recognise and address the issues might be because of the stigma that attached to mental illness in the past, or because we find it frightening to talk about, or because we find the people who suffer mental illness rather challenging.
Some of the problems that children have, such as autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia—an illness I came across only recently—are not recognised and identified quickly enough, and not dealt with properly. The result is that many children, through no fault of their own but because of their learning disabilities, do not receive the education that they deserve.
The need to provide education to such children brings me to the issue of special educational needs. With my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the Minister, who was then at the Department for Education and Skills, I had the pleasure to serve on the Committee that considered the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Although we welcomed much of its content, certain aspects of that legislation caused me concern.
The legislation emphasised inclusion, which in theory I applaud, but when that inclusion in education does not provide for the child, that child becomes excluded from society later. The legislation was rather prescriptive, stating that the child had to be educated in a mainstream school unless there was an appropriate statement; and even if there was a statement, the child had to be educated in the mainstream unless that was
"incompatible with the wishes of his parent, or…the provision of efficient education for other children."
The emphasis was on inclusion.
Many children, especially those with moderate learning difficulties, are included and do very well in mainstream schools. However, in my opinion, many children with moderate or more severe learning difficulties—perhaps with emotional and behavioural difficulties—need special provision. The 2001 Act was not helpful in that respect—in fact, it was rather destructive.
My remarks are founded on my experience in Gloucestershire, which, for the avoidance of doubt, is run these days by an unholy Lib-Lab alliance, or pact as it

563
used to be called. I make that point lest people think that Gloucestershire is run by the Conservatives; it has not been for a long time. I am greatly concerned about education policy in Gloucestershire. I am not the only one concerned about special educational needs provision; a damning Ofsted report was published in January.
Inappropriate education can lead to exclusion, even though the intention is to include. Although it might be regarded as inclusive to educate all children in one school, if some children fall behind because they cannot cope with that education, they will end up excluded from society. The theory will not work in practice. Many pupils and parents in Gloucestershire are concerned about the removal of the special schools.
The Minister, dealing with the 2001 Act, said repeatedly that the Act and Government policy at that time should not lead to the wholesale closure of special schools, but Gloucestershire county council decided otherwise and that it should close the special schools. Bownham Park school in Stroud was earmarked for closure. Parents, pupils and everyone else connected with the school ran a tremendous campaign to keep it open; unfortunately, the adjudicator decided that the school should close, with the decision being announced the day after the general election. That is not a political point; it is a fact.
That was extremely sad, not only for those involved in that school, but for many other teachers and head teachers throughout the mainstream sector. They recognise that, regardless of the good intentions of any Government, historically resources have never followed pupils. Mainstream schools have never had adequate resources to provide the support required by children with special needs.
The council has not learned the lesson. This morning, I received an e-mail telling me that Gloucestershire's cabinet has now raised closure notices on Dean Hall school and Oakdene school in Forest of Dean. Oakdene provides for children with severe learning difficulties. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) is to present to the cabinet a petition carrying 5,000 signatures, protesting against the closures. Although we hear from the Government that their policies are not intended to lead to the wholesale closure of special schools, in Gloucestershire—the area that I am paid to represent—there is a programme of wholesale closure of special schools.
The one special school that falls in my constituency, Alderman Knight school, has sent a delegation to the House of Commons and run a tremendous campaign to try to protect itself. Not only do pupils at that school have learning disabilities as described in the White Paper, but they have physical disabilities as well. It is extremely difficult for those children to be educated in mainstream schools. The Minister will be tired of hearing me make this plea, but I urge the Government to re-examine their policy of inclusion.
I do not want the House to think that it is only my opinion that provision for special educational needs is not working well in Gloucestershire. Paragraph 5 of the Ofsted report describes the background in Gloucestershire, and states:
"Against this generally favourable background, the LEA has serious weaknesses."
One of the serious weaknesses listed is the strategy for special educational needs. The process that I have been describing is one such reason for the Ofsted report's criticism.
564
Looking in more detail at the section in the Ofsted report on special educational needs, one paragraph says:
"The strategy is to promote inclusion by educating pupils with moderate learning difficulties in mainstream schools, and as a consequence, closing the area special schools providing for these pupils."
Again we find that the policy is leading to the wholesale closure of such schools. The report continues:
"The closure of the special school in the first area to be tackled was only achieved after the intervention of the office of the schools adjudicator. In the remaining three areas, there is confusion in the schools and among parents as to whether the closure of special schools or a change of status is being considered…As a result of the slow process, the special schools towards the end of the cycle of the review fear that it will become increasingly difficult to recruit staff, maintain pupil numbers and ensure that the pupils' curricula needs are met."
Scare stories lead to staff disappearing, which then leads to falling roll numbers. Then people can turn round and say that there is no demand for the services of such schools—but we all know that there is.
The report goes on to say:
"Despite the existence of the development plan, most of the schools visited had no confidence that the members of the council have a strategy for the future of special educational needs provision in the LEA."
That means that because the schools are earmarked for closure, but there is not an adequate replacement policy, the resources will not follow the pupils into mainstream schools. The report goes on to make another point:
"Most serious of all, although the documentation makes constant references to inclusion and facilitating access, it fails to show how its proposed changes will raise the standards of achievement of pupils with special educational needs."
That is the crucial point. In other words, we are talking about theories and not setting out how the standards of achievement of pupils with special educational needs will be attained.
Highlighting the problem further, the report goes on to say:
"In addition to the extensive special educational needs provision within the county"—
of which I am proud—
"the LEA maintains a number of pupils in out-of-county placements. The total number has reduced…but the number of pupils whose placements are joint funded with the social services department has doubled. Very few of these pupils need to go to schools out-of-county for educational reasons. Rather"—
this is the crucial point—
"they are placed outside because of inadequate respite, fostering or residential arrangements within the county."
The report recommends that the LEA needs to
"work with health authorities and the county's social services department, to reduce the number of cases where exceptional needs prevent the completion of special educational needs statements within 18 weeks".
The statementing situation is obviously of great concern. I fear that you will call me to order if I go down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker, so suffice it to say that the approach is rather "one size fits all", which we want to try to avoid.

565
In general, I welcome the fact that the White Paper addresses the difficulties caused to many people by the fact that they have learning disabilities, whatever that means—the definition is quite wide. I have tried to highlight one or two areas where people can fall by the wayside, end up homeless or perhaps committing crime, or are excluded from society even if they are not homeless or criminals. I hope that the White Paper will address those issues. I hope that it is also able to identify ways in which we can put things right.
I did not go to a grammar school, because, as I have said before in the House, I failed to negotiate the 11-plus successfully. I went to a secondary modern school. I make that point only because I went to the school appropriate for me; it provided me with the appropriate education. So I would not want people for the sake of the theory of inclusivity to be excluded from society. That is the plea that I yet again make to the Minister, with whom I have some sympathy because, even though she has changed Departments, she still has to suffer my pleas.
11.55 am
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I am afraid that I will speak not as magniloquently as some of the previous speakers, but briefly.
The only charity in which I have any involvement is a charity for Down's syndrome children. I have recently been to see it in action, not in Britain but in Moscow. I hope that the House will forgive me if I begin by giving everybody in Britain a pat on the back for the way we treat people with severe learning disabilities. The objective of the charity—it is called Downside Up, and I have absolutely no inhibition about plugging it in the House—is to export to Russia our ideas about what constitutes disability and how parents should cope with having a disabled child.
It is no exaggeration to say that during the communist epoch—and, indeed, it continues to be so to this day—the Russian approach to Down's syndrome children has been barbaric. In many Russian hospitals, as soon as Down's is diagnosed in a new-born child—from the epicanthal fold, the disposition of the thumb and so on—parents are told that it would be best if their infant were left to die and if nature were allowed to take its course as soon as possible.
I met a man called Alexander who received just such a verdict seven years ago on the birth of his daughter. He told me of his fury at that verdict and of his joy at what his daughter had since achieved. One could see that she could read fluently, sing, dance and all the rest of it. She patently enjoyed life to the full.
I felt that the charity was doing something wonderful and remarkable in exporting a particularly British concept of the value of the individual, not as a unit that might be deemed valueless to communist collectivity, but as a person with rights and potential. That is of course the theme of the White Paper "Valuing People". You might be surprised to discover, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have read it very carefully. I think that it is rather good; on the whole, I find it hard to dissent from anything that it says, although I am not quite sure that the Minister is entitled to crow in such extravagant terms about the absence of jargon in it.
566
I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), in which he dwelt so eloquently on the themes of social inclusion and exclusion. We now use those bits of jargon repeatedly in the course of our daily lives, but I have to confess to the House that I do not know what they mean. What is social inclusion and what is social exclusion? I know that the Minister has other things on her mind, but I should be grateful if, when she replies to our debate, she could supply a snappy definition of social inclusion, as well as social exclusion; is it not being invited to top parties? The Deputy Prime Minister, I believe, runs the social exclusion unit; doubtless, such a definition would help him to explicate its function to the wider world.
The White Paper is admirable in its aims. However, Members will not be surprised that I wish that it had more bearing on the situation on the ground as I see it week in, week out in south Oxfordshire. My experience is of parents at the end of their tether, trying to cope with children with severe learning disabilities, and who are now finding that central props in their lives have been, or are about to be, kicked away. Because of its great affluence, Oxfordshire has had a poor per capita settlement in social services, and there is currently a shortfall of at least £5 million. As Members will know, housing in Oxfordshire is expensive and it is hard to recruit and retain staff, which is why valuable day care centres are under threat. Families in the Henley area in particular are greatly concerned about the future of the Chiltern respite centre, where overnight stays have just been curtailed. I am currently in lengthy correspondence with the parents of a severely disabled young man who faces eviction from his care home and has nowhere else to go because of shortages and difficulties in social services in south Oxfordshire.
In conclusion, for all the White Paper's fine words and good intentions, it envisages only £50 million of new money. How much of that will go to help the most vulnerable people in Henley and south Oxfordshire? One cannot but admire the White Paper's intentions, but it is legitimate to wonder how many parsnips its fine words will butter in the day care centres of south Oxfordshire. I hope that the Minister can give some comfort to the most vulnerable people in my constituency and society at large.
12.2 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: If there is one thing that we, as Members of Parliament, must do for our constituents, it is to value the people whom we are elected to represent. I therefore welcome the White Paper and all the contributions to our debate.
We rightly approach the issue largely through consensus, as we all encounter it every week in our constituencies. People who are disadvantaged for whatever reason deserve our support and the backing of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. I therefore thank the Minister for presenting the White Paper. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), Opposition Members endorse an overwhelming majority of the points that it raises and we shall certainly work alongside Government Members to achieve many of its objectives. As the House knows, I am a new Member, elected for the first time last year. I had not encountered the issue before, and it is yet another area in which I am getting an education. Most citizens do

567
not often come across people with learning disabilities who are disadvantaged in the ways that we have discussed today.
As a Member holding regular weekly surgeries, it is my experience that parents of people with learning disabilities come to see their parliamentary representative to ask me to raise issues in Parliament or with the local council; I am a councillor and will remain one until the local elections. I feel responsible; it is my duty as an MP to do everything that I can and use every possible opportunity to raise issues of concern to parents who have to live with their children's disabilities day in, day out, and to the voluntary sector. I shall therefore raise those issues, as is my duty, in the London borough of Havering, of which my constituency is part, and the United Kingdom Parliament.
We must do everything in our power to support the voluntary sector. Government schemes are not necessarily the way forward. If we can use as many of the available resources as possible to assist local voluntary groups to provide a service to the community, that is often a far better way of providing for those with learning disabilities. There are many such local organisations and voluntary groups in my constituency and in the London borough of Havering.
Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the system of direct payments to service users and their carers is almost tailor-made for accessing the range of opportunities that the voluntary sector can offer?
Mr. Rosindell: I endorse my hon. Friend's point. In all areas of Government policy, we should ensure as far as possible that money is given directly to those providing the service. That is a more efficient system that reduces red tape and bureaucracy and means fewer bureaucrats and civil servants spending taxpayers' money, which can instead be spent directly where it is most needed, by those at the grass roots who understand the priorities and how the money can be used to best effect for the people whom we wish to help.
In my constituency and in the London borough of Havering, we are fortunate to have so many organisations dedicated to the care of those who suffer from learning disabilities and to assisting the parents and relatives who live with the problem day in, day out. Last Friday, I visited St. Bernard's day centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). The centre serves all three of the borough's constituencies—Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster. I met the parents and afterwards the people who attend the day centre and who need vital care.
Parents raised several issues that I hope the Minister will consider. There seems to be an immense shortage of respite care. I hope that the Government will find ways of enhancing the opportunities for respite care, which is so badly needed, particularly when the parents are elderly. It is incredibly difficult for people reaching their later years—people in their 60s or 70s or even older—to cope with a child who is growing older and who has huge problems and learning disabilities. Respite care would go a long way to assist them. That was the main issue that parents raised.
I have not heard mention today of speech therapy, which is another matter regularly raised by parents. Recently, the parents of a young boy called Patrick who
568
lives in my constituency came to see me. They are distraught. He attends a local special needs school, Dycourts, which is in the Upminster constituency but serves the entire borough of Havering. He desperately needs more speech therapy, but there is a chronic shortage of teachers who can provide that service. It is difficult to find people willing to take on the task.
Patrick's parents, who are not necessarily well off, are told that they can pay £50 an hour for that service through the private sector, but the local authority cannot provide the service because of the shortage of speech therapists. I hope that the Minister will look into that matter, too. The problem is growing. The ability to communicate is the most important tool that any human being can have. People with learning disabilities who cannot speak or communicate with their family or those around them are hugely disadvantaged. I hope that the Government will consider further the role of speech therapy. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 21 November about the specific case to which I referred—I have the letter here—but I am sorry to say that I have not yet received a reply. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter.
I welcome the White Paper and practically everything that it contains. I should like to highlight one or two points. The Prime Minister speaks in the foreword about a brighter and more fulfilling life for people with learning disabilities. He says:
"It is a challenge that I am determined this Government will meet."
I applaud that commitment and I hope that he intends to follow it through, but without adequate funding, such words can mean nothing. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, whatever proposals are made, the Government will make certain that adequate funding is made available for the aims that we all want to be achieved. I applaud everything that has been said, but believe that we must not give false hope to people who are in great need of help. We must be careful not to promise the earth and propose services that cannot be provided simply because the resources are not made available. I urge caution on the Minister with regard to making promises that we might not be able to keep. We must be careful about the words that we use. Maximising opportunities for disabled children must be our first priority. Disabled children in Britain need and deserve better support and protection and greater opportunities. I hope that we will all work to ensure that that is what they get.
I mentioned respite care and the need to support those who dedicate their lives to looking after disadvantaged people. I refer especially to the parents of such children. I urge the Government to do more for those carers—people who could probably do so many other things with their lives, but who devote themselves to their children and others who need their support. Respite care is one means of giving such people greater opportunities to take the rest that they need from having to cope with the daily life of caring for somebody who has severe learning disabilities.
I am pleased that housing is highlighted in the White Paper. We must ensure that the institutional development and buildings that we have had for many years are phased out. We should give people the opportunity to live in places where they feel comfortable. Residential care is so much better for everybody. We should work towards purpose-built modern buildings, so I am glad that that is highlighted. Such work is being done in my borough, and I applaud it.

569
The White Paper also talks about giving people a fulfilled life—something that we all endorse. That includes modernising day services, giving people equal access to education and lifelong learning and opposing any form of discrimination. Yes, discrimination does exist. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) about the puzzling nature of some of the expressions that are used. There is uncertainty about what terms such as "inclusiveness" mean. When such expressions are used, it is most important that we see action that improves people's lives. Words often mean little to people. I think that they mean little to the vast majority of our constituents, who want positive changes and action that will allow people to lead happier, better and more fulfilled lives. Words are not as important as real action, which will provide a better future for people who deserve a better life. As Members of Parliament, or, in the case of the Minister, as members of the Government, we can use our power to achieve those things for the people whom we represent.
Mr. Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend mentioned lifelong learning, which is of great interest to me. It is a tragedy for many people who want to engage in lifelong learning that the Government took such a strange attitude to the quality of individual learning account training providers, as a result of which they were forced to close down the scheme having overspent on it by £63 million—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how that relates to the debate.
Mr. Rosindell: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point is valid, but perhaps a question could be put to the Minister on another occasion when we are debating that subject.
"Discrimination" is a word that is used frequently; I hear it regularly in this place, particularly from Labour Members. I am concerned that we should not use words that inflame the situation. Sadly, it is a fact of life that people are different. We will not change that through legislation. The word "discrimination" is used so often, and it is not necessarily an appropriate word in every instance. No one denies that discrimination exists, but it is important to get to the root of problems rather than use words as a cover for political correctness.
I want to refer to an article published in Community Care last June. It states:
"Research published this week by Mencap to coincide with National Learning Disability Week reveals that despite positive attitudes to people with a disability, many people with a learning difficulty still face discrimination in everyday life and exclusion from mainstream society. Nine out of 10 people with a learning difficulty experienced bullying in the last year."
None of us would condone that. All of us want those problems to be eradicated. We must bring people together without trying to pretend that differences do not exist; they do. We must be careful that we do not give the false impression that everyone in society, whatever their educational background, and whatever disabilities they may have, can suddenly be lifted up to exactly the same level. Of course, we would all love that to happen, but we
570
must be realistic. We must do everything we can, but we should not use words that can give an impression that can ultimately lead to disappointment.
I want to refer to one or two cases from constituency, and my borough, Havering. In Havering, many aspects of the White Paper are applauded by councillors from all parties, and, indeed, by borough officers. Only yesterday evening, I received details of some of the progress being made in my borough in relation to the points raised in the White Paper, even at this early stage. Havering continues to fund the excellent London People First organisation, which operates in my constituency. It has helped to establish the second service user parliament in the United Kingdom. Assisting more people with learning disabilities and their carers to access direct payments has provided a great advantage. Havering provides cash payments to help people with learning disabilities to organise their own care. If people can do that without being guided all the time by those who work in council offices, that is a good thing. Let us give people more opportunities to be independent and to make their own decisions. It must be a good thing to work towards promoting independence and reducing reliance on local social services departments.
Developing a person-centred approach is vital, and in Havering, we have excellent services such as the Jackson's Cafe. We have initiated or funded a number of other new developments, such as the new supported housing schemes, which residents are incredibly excited about. Those schemes give them the opportunity to lead more independent lives. A new joint community learning disability team is a model for people in many other services who have come to see it as a service that integrates all health and social services provision.
A new worker is also being employed, funded by a local bank and employed by Havecare, a local voluntary organisation dedicated to looking after the interests of carers and those with learning disabilities, and helping them through difficult periods. The new person is being employed for that purpose in a public-private partnership in this instance, and I hope that that will be a success.
The last long-stay hospital in Havering—Little Highwood—will close in 2003, and the residents will all be housed in purpose-built quality homes. That must be the way forward for all those with learning disabilities who need care outside the family home. Havering has also established a local partnership board, consisting of representatives from all the key local sectors, including voluntary groups and other organisations involved in the care of people with learning disabilities. We are establishing a pooled budget under the Health Act 1999, under which budgets between health and social care are to be pooled to avoid divisions and complications between services. That is another positive step forward.
My borough supports a range of activities, such as theatre productions and sports for the disabled. These are leisure activities that we should encourage and support, as they give people the opportunity to get out and take part in the activities that the vast majority of people take for granted—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the White Paper.
Mr. Rosindell: I am about to come to that, Madam Deputy Speaker. If there is a criticism of the White Paper,

571
it is that it does not address the funding issues, especially the need for more revenue to support the large number of children surviving into adulthood who would previously not have survived, and the number of older people with learning disabilities whose life expectancy has increased to the point at which many outlive their families, particularly their elderly parents.
More children are being diagnosed with disorders such as autism and attention deficit disorder, yet few specialist services exist to support the parents of those children. The same can be said of primary health care. Although it is slowly improving, people with learning disabilities are, sadly, not particularly well cared for by their general practitioners. They need specialist primary care services. To some extent, the White Paper is Government policy without guaranteed Government funding. A thorough review of the needs of people with learning disabilities and their carers in the next comprehensive spending review later this year would make that point, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Mr. Boswell: Is my hon. Friend aware that a thoroughly desirable practice is growing up in primary care trusts, in which one of the partners specialises in a particular area of practice? It might be possible for a named individual in each trust to take the lead on learning disability issues, to set an example and to provide a focus of interest in the trust.
Mr. Rosindell: I support that view. Making an arrangement whereby someone specialises in an area is the most efficient way to deal with a policy or need. My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I hope that the Minister takes it on board.
The additional costs to local government need to be addressed as councils will be held responsible for the loss of such services. Councils need to show community leadership in speaking out for people with learning disabilities, who are frequently misunderstood and discriminated against. They are also disproportionately the victims of crime that is often repeated and targeted. I am sure that we all agree that that is shameful.
Local government has a role in promoting the needs of people with learning disabilities and their integration in society. That campaign has been running for at least a century and I hope that it does not run for yet another century. We must address these issues and I hope that the Government and the Minister take those points on board. We must all work together on the objectives set out in the White Paper and Conservative Members will do all that we can to play our part in achieving their success.
12.26 pm
Jacqui Smith: This has been a well-informed and constructive debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made good use of their constituency experience to contribute to achieving an objective in which, as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) made clear, we all share: turning the aspirations of "Valuing People" into reality for people with learning disabilities and improving their opportunities.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has a long history of involvement in this area, before and since being elected to the House, and he raised a number of important issues, which I hope to cover. One relates to
572
the challenge for providers of learning disability services. Some people have particular needs and display particularly challenging behaviour, so recognising those needs and enabling local providers to develop specialist services for people with severely challenging behaviour is a priority for the £20 million capital element of the learning disability development fund.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members also emphasised the need for national and local partnership to deliver the improvements that we want to achieve and suggested that levers are required to ensure its existence. I concur, which is why I am pleased that the flexibilities made available by the Health Act 1999 are being used to achieve better joint working between health and social services departments. The hon. Member for Romford referred to that. In fact, 23 of the 65 areas in which Health Act flexibilities are in place cover learning disability matters.
I strongly agree that that partnership must involve the voluntary sector and the hon. Member for Daventry is right that direct payments provide a way to ensure that. I referred to the Department's important partnership with Mencap to provide a telephone helpline, but partnership does not always come easy, which is why the Department's website already contains advice to partnership boards on developing partnership working. We shall issue further guidance after consulting.
The hon. Member for Daventry also made an important point about transitions. They do necessarily happen at a particular age or time. Everyone—even adults, but especially disabled children and young people—goes through a range of transitions, whether from home to school, from school to school, or from living at home to living independently. It is precisely because of those different transitions that we need to develop a person-centred approach to designing services, and to back that up the Department has published further guidance on person-centred planning to ensure that partnership boards have the understanding and expertise to make that a reality.
Several hon. Members rightly referred to carers. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to put on record their admiration for the work of carers. They ensure that the people in their care, especially learning-disabled people, have the opportunities that we would want them to have, so we have a responsibility to support carers. The Government's strategy on carers is taking that forward in a range of ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Members for Romford and for Daventry raised the issue of older carers who are concerned about their responsibilities for their sons and daughters with learning disabilities. In the revenue and capital expenditure of the development fund we give priority to supported living approaches, especially for people with learning disabilities whose carers are becoming elderly, because we recognise that that is a particular need.
The hon. Member for Daventry made a particular point about the regulatory impact assessment for care standards for younger adults. I understand that that has been placed in the Library. In wider terms, the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000 on common national standards and improved quality of residential and domiciliary care will

573
help learning-disabled people by ensuring that care is of a high standard and that users can feel confident that those standards put their interests at the very centre.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), raised the issue of housing. As I have already said, there is priority in capital spending for housing. Along with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, we are developing the joint circular and guidance on commissioning the housing care and support services required to support housing choice. That has been delayed, but it was partly so that it could coincide with the important work on supporting people. It is vital that those policies are developed in tandem. The guidance will include a discussion of how local strategies should be developed to shift provision and offer more choice, how people with learning disabilities and carers can be involved in the planning and commissioning process, information about the costs of schemes and how capital and revenue funding can be secured, the differences between the options and practical examples that can be drawn on, and performance indicators to monitor progress.
Some of the resources for housing choice will come from the development fund, but there are other important sources. The majority of capital funding for new housing provision is through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. It allocates resources to registered social landlords in line with the priorities identified by local authorities in their housing strategies and within the framework of Government legislation and housing policies. That is why it is important that the role we have given learning disability partnership boards, particularly to develop their housing strategies by 2003, feeds into the establishment of needs and priorities within the local authority housing strategy. We want them to benefit from other forms of housing support as well. We also want local authorities to map both current housing provision options and—because we want to promote choice and broaden scope—their future development.
I assure the hon. Member for Daventry that the local learning disability partnerships are all operating. As he said, the joint investment plans were due to arrive in social care regions yesterday, but in the circumstances I am afraid I cannot tell him precisely how many have been received. I can, however, assure him that the information will be passed to the Department as a matter of urgency, and that the plans will then be evaluated so that we can ensure that they cover many of the priorities raised today.
Another important lever for the securing of partnerships is the allocation of the development fund through pooled budgets, although health authorities will provide the route. The Local Government Association is currently conducting a survey of the partnerships, and I understand that the results so far are encouraging, but if the survey prompts any concern we will act to ensure that the partnerships work effectively. They are, after all, crucial to our ability to make a difference at local level.
Many Members mentioned advocacy, and in particular self-advocacy. In response to representations by the taskforce, we have provided additional funds for self-advocacy.
The hon. Member for Daventry raised the important question of how we would monitor and evaluate the difference that our policies would make. As I have said,
574
we are developing and we will consult on performance indicators and statistics, and will take account of feedback and data from the helpline and the implementation support team. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the social services inspectorate will make an assessment, and we will evaluate the joint investment plans. The £2 million research programme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will enable us to focus on success in particular areas, and the Social Care Institute for Excellence, with its remit for identifying and sharing best practice, will play an important part. We will also carry out a national users survey.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's plans to report to Parliament. I assure him that we will report. We are currently considering how we can ensure that our report includes the perspectives of users and carers.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for that assurance and I am glad that the Minister is focusing on the issue, but she has said nothing about the frequency of reports. Will she reflect on the need not just to report once on the implementation phase, but to set up machinery for reports at convenient points—annually, or perhaps a little less often—so that the House can keep in focus the success of the policies as they develop? We realise that that will take time.
Jacqui Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that it is an ongoing report.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire rightly outlined the struggle for disability rights. It is easy to forget when we talk about progress that those rights were not won easily. I pay tribute to him and to other hon. Members who have fought valiantly on behalf of disabled people to ensure that those rights are clearly represented both in policies and in legislation.
My hon. Friend raised points about the relationship between mental health and learning disabilities, and about the mental health White Paper. Most psychiatric disorders are more common among people with learning disabilities than in the general population. A person with a learning disability who has a mental illness should expect to access services and to be treated in the same way as anyone else.
That will require mainstream mental health services to become more responsive, and specialist learning disability services to provide facilitation and support. Clear local protocols should be in place to promote collaboration between specialist learning disability services and specialist mental health services. That work will be facilitated not only by the extra investment that the Government are making available for mental health provision, but by the standards and reforms laid down in the national service framework for mental health.
My hon. Friend strayed a little into mental health legislation. I assure him that, while the Government's proposals in relation to mental health legislation widen the definition of mental disorders, those will be balanced by very tight criteria on detention and compulsory treatment.
The legislation is currently in preparation. We have taken the opportunity to continue discussions with stakeholders and to ensure that in both the Department of Health and the Home Office, the views of stakeholders—the sort of people whom my hon. Friend talked about—are taken on board.

575
My hon. Friend made a very important point about tackling disability discrimination. It is right to do so not only on moral grounds but because it leads to better services for all of us. Services that discriminate are not good services for anyone. That is an important reason why we need to tackle that discrimination.
My hon. Friend rightly pushed for further progress on delivering enforceable rights for people with disabilities. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), is looking in detail at the disability rights taskforce recommendations which still need to be implemented to determine how to take those forward.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend for North-East Derbyshire mentioned the special educational needs and early years project in his constituency, although I noted his concern that the money was limited to 2003. The significant extra resources that the Government have invested in developing early years provision demonstrate their commitment both to identifying and to dealing with children with special educational needs. I assure my hon. Friend that across government consideration is being given to the means to continue that support as we go into the next spending review period.
My hon. Friend made the important point that being included in a community is partly about having access both to the vote and to democracy. I share his respect for Scope's work to raise that important issue.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke from his background as a teacher— which is my background too— about the progress that has been made on the inclusion of children with disabilities and learning disabilities into mainstream schools. I do not want to introduce an element of discord, but I should point out that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about class sizes. Average class sizes have fallen under Labour.
Paul Holmes: Is the Minister saying that the Government's own figures are incorrect? For children under seven, class sizes have fallen, but for children aged seven to 11 and 11 to 16 class sizes have risen in the past five years.
Jacqui Smith: I do not think that that is right. Average class sizes in all age groups have fallen under Labour.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to provide support to enable disabled children to be included in mainstream schools, and the £220 million schools access initiative and other investment in special educational needs is important in that respect. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's negative view about the effect of inclusion on standards in schools. In fact there is quite significant work, much of it sponsored by the Department for Education and Skills and previously the Department for Education and Employment, that demonstrates links between achieving high standards and adopting an inclusive ethos.
On behalf of his constituents, once again the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) referred to the reorganisation of special educational needs provision in Gloucestershire. As he said, we have engaged in this debate on many occasions and I repeat that the Government's plans, policies and investment in special educational needs are certainly not directed at closing special schools, which have received increased investment
576
under Labour. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to local decisions on reconfiguration and drew strongly from the Ofsted report into Gloucestershire. That report is available only because the Government considered it important to monitor the activities of local education authorities. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will continue rightly to raise that local issue.
Several hon. Members were concerned about resources. We make no apology for providing an extra £42 million in addition to the £3 billion that is currently spent on learning disability services. Much of the work that is carried out locally by the learning disability partnerships and at a national level by the taskforce and the Government relates to looking at the objectives that we have set ourselves and ensuring that the £3 billion is spent in a way that meets the aspirations of people with learning disabilities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Daventry twitched so I thought that he wanted to intervene.
Mr. Boswell: For the avoidance of doubt, it was a twitch of assent.
Jacqui Smith: Good. I am glad that we are back to consensus.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to employment. I can assure him that the Government aim to enable more people with learning disabilities to participate in all forms of employment, to undertake paid work whenever possible and to make a valued contribution to the world of work.
We recognise the importance of supported employment as an option for people who are unable to work without support. Last year, we modernised the former supported employment programme which is now workstep. Workstep enables providers to offer tailored support to individuals and their employers and to encourage development in work with progression to working without support where this is right for an individual. We have backed our commitment to this initiative with a further £37.2 million which will be used to help providers modernise their support approaches, encourage more effective use of information and communication technology and increase provision by around 2,000 places.
I touched on the issue of children and adults with profound and multiple learning disabilities in my opening remarks, but I should like to reassure the House that the proposals in "Valuing People" apply not just to the more able but equally to people with learning disabilities. Such people require long-term intensive health care because of their complex disabilities, and they place significant challenges on services. That point is also made in last August's implementation guidance.
When the revised joint investment plans are evaluated, we will ensure that the objectives deliver on the need to ensure that improvements apply equally to all learning-disabled people. I have already mentioned the capital fund's focus on providing additional facilities for those with challenging behaviour. Of course, integrated services for children will be supported in particular by the £60 million that will be made available through the "quality protects" programme, which focuses on developing much better integrated services for disabled children.
Mr. Boswell: On children with profound and multiple learning difficulties in particular, will the Minister

577
consider and take very seriously the message in the Mencap report, "No Ordinary Life", some of the content of which I found genuinely disturbing? The report perhaps reflects the existence of an even greater problem than constituency experience has led us to believe.
Jacqui Smith: I certainly undertake that, as in the past, we will listen to what Mencap has to say, because it has great expertise in terms of where the problems lie and where developments are needed.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield also mentioned day services. I can assure him that we believe that action on modernising day services and the provision of extra resources must be a priority. According to last August's guidance, the learning disability partnership boards should prepare modernisation programmes by 31 January 2003, which should show the steps needed to achieve modernised services by 2006, with particular reference to existing large day centres. However, it is precisely because we understand the need for bridging finance— for conversions, for example, to ensure that facilities remain available as alternatives are developed— that we have made it available, through the learning disability development fund, to support the modernisation programme.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield also made an important point about the role of primary care and GPs. I can assure him that the taskforce will include a GP, whose presence will enable us to consider many of those issues. It is of course right that significant extra funding for health authorities should also benefit those with learning disabilities, in terms of their primary care needs.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury made a wide-ranging contribution, part of which I have already dealt with. I agree with him that a disability that is not visible is no less important; in fact, people with such disabilities are in some ways more open to discrimination. We should therefore be aware of the need to listen to the views of users and of those with learning disabilities on how such discrimination impacts on them, so that we can counteract it. Given the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed about mental health problems in prisons, he will doubtless welcome the extra Government investment in mental health care in prisons, which will ensure an additional 300 in-reach workers by 2003–04
The hon. Member for Romford, some of whose comments I have already referred to, mentioned speech and language therapy in particular. I can assure him that
578
some of the extra funding being made available through education budgets, particularly for special educational needs, is specifically targeted at speech and language therapy. The employment of more speech and language therapists is an important part of the NHS plan, and the use of Health Act flexibilities will enable us to bring together the therapy provided in the health service and the needs in the education service as we have not managed to do before.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had a response to his letter, and I shall certainly chase that up vigorously when I return to the Department. I welcome the developments in Havering that he outlined, which are designed to make a reality of our proposals.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)— who we are all disappointed to see has now left the Chamber— made some important points. I especially support and commend the work of the Downside Up organisation in exporting good practice from this country to other countries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have many social and health care services in this country that do excellent work— and that includes the voluntary sector. Sometimes, when we talk about the challenges and the ways in which we need to improve, we also need to take stock of what we can be proud of, and we should commend the people who do that work.
The hon. Gentleman chided the Government on the use of the term "social exclusion", and perhaps this would be a useful note for me to end on. He challenged me to say what social exclusion meant in the context of people with learning disabilities.
To define social exclusion we need to explain the effects that it has on people, and what we need to do to counter them. For me, social exclusion for people with learning disabilities is when they cannot get access to a proper job, and cannot get on a bus or choose where they want to live. It is when they cannot meet people apart from their families and their carers, and cannot take part in sporting or other leisure activities or make decisions for themselves.
It is in order to tackle those issues and improve the opportunities that we have set out the programme in "Valuing People", and I welcome the commitment that we have heard today from both sides of the House to work to ensure that we make that a reality.
Mr. Phil Woolas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Long-Term Unemployment (Glasgow)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Woolas.]
12.57 pm
Ann McKechin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on a subject of great importance to my home city and my constituency. Only this week my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) secured a debate on inner-city policy that considered the same problem. That is a measure of the depth of feeling and commitment of Glasgow Members on this matter, and their desire to find solutions to remove this scar from our communities.
Glasgow, like many other urban areas dependent on heavy industry in the United Kingdom, suffered dreadfully during the economic recession of the 1920s and the 1930s, and our older generation still live with memories of applying to the parish for money, going without meals and the threat of eviction.
Although the post-war years until the mid- 1970s were tough for many, at least we enjoyed relatively full employment, and social progress was achieved for the vast majority. Undoubtedly the economic transition away from traditional industries that characterised the next 20 to 25 years would have been difficult in any circumstances— but it was the utter complacency of the Conservative Government in tackling its consequences, and their failure to provide new opportunities, that permanently marred the lives of so many in our communities and led directly to so many of the problems that Glasgow faces today.
Glasgow has the highest concentration of heroin injectors in Europe, and the Greater Glasgow health board estimates that we have 15,000 drug users— four times the national average. It also has rising suicide rates among the young, continuing alcohol misuse and chronic health statistics that are among the worst in Europe. According to the latest statistics, seven of Glasgow's constituencies are in the top 100 UK employment black spots.
Problems of that nature are not unique to my city, but the sheer scale and concentration of deprivation mark Glasgow out as a place that deserves special treatment. I commend the Government on the programme introduced in the past five years which has already made a significant contribution towards Glasgow's renewal. In the last year alone in my constituency the number of unemployed claimants fell by more than 17 per cent., and in the past five years the total unemployed count in Glasgow has fallen by more than 15,000.
Many of the measures introduced have been specifically targeted at the lowest income groups. Steps such as the introduction of the minimum wage, the tax credit system for working families and increases in child benefit, together with our success in providing a stable economy and increasing investment in public services, have obviously borne fruit, but I am sure that the Minister agrees that now is not a time for complacency. I trust that he shares my goal of achieving full employment throughout the UK for all our citizens. That is not an easy task, but we in Glasgow have a unique opportunity in the next few years to rid the city of the problem of long-term unemployment.
580
Glasgow is enjoying substantial expansion in its commercial centre, and the Scottish financial services sector anticipates further growth with upwards of 10,000 jobs in the next few years. The consequent new build of office space in the city centre, together with substantial capital investment in our schools, housing and hospitals, has led to many additional jobs in the construction industry— although there are already skills shortages in that sector.
The proposed transfer of the city council's rented housing stock— the largest in western Europe— to the new Glasgow housing association will offer the basis for substantial new capital investment in rebuilding and repairs, which will create even further demand in the construction sector. In addition, our commitment to quality public services in schools, child care, community care and hospitals will inevitably lead to further job opportunities.
The challenge we face is to harness those opportunities for the benefit of Glasgow's own citizens and to tackle the social problems that afflict so many of them. In substantial areas of the city, the majority of the adult population is not in work: either they are on the unemployed register, or they are on some other form of benefit. In some areas, that group comprises as much as 70 per cent. of the total population. I warmly welcome the Government's proposals to merge the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency into Jobcentre Plus, to offer an increasingly personalised service and to target the hidden unemployed in such areas.
I am also pleased to note the Government's recent announcement of a new start-up initiative aimed at the hardest-to-help applicants. There is no such project yet in Glasgow, but perhaps the Minister might offer some help with that today. I am aware that Glasgow city council is considering applying for funding for a similar initiative based on specific geographical areas, but covering a longer, three-year period. We need to be imaginative and bold in our approach to the problems. I hope that if the models prove successful, they will be spread throughout the country.
More public funding will be required if we are to assist applicants back into the world of work. Many suffer from chaotic lifestyles and drugs or alcohol abuse. Many have no direct family experience of a work routine. Most suffer from low competence, poor communication skills and low education standards. There is no easy fix, but the alternative of continuing with a permanent underclass living outwith normal society is much more expensive to our communities. We have to ensure that all appropriate agencies, whether private, public or voluntary sector, work together and effectively to focus on the issues. There are still too many gaps into which people can disappear.
Glasgow's black economy must be tackled if legitimate work is to be rewarded. There has been too little quality training— especially in the construction sector, which has for too long relied on "the lump", artificial self-employment and shoddy standards— and too little support for small and medium-sized enterprises, which provide the vast majority of employment opportunities for our work force. Both should be integral to all our development plans.
People need to see work going on around them if our city is to beat the spectre of depressed, soulless housing schemes. Even in my own constituency, which suffers

581
from the eighth highest unemployment total in Scotland, there is a shortage of small industrial units for private firms or traders, and of space for community-run industries. We need to focus on spreading job opportunities throughout every part of the city and not just in the centre. It does not suit every worker to travel to work, especially those who have dependants, either young or old, who require the convenience of living near their place of work.
We also need to ensure that our public transport system supports our workers. There need to be more services across the city rather than routes revolving around the city centre. I am aware that the local authority has little control over bus routes following the deregulation of services— I certainly appreciate the services offered on London buses in comparison— and I have every sympathy with the council's frustration over that, but surely we need the Government to consider every hindrance to the opportunity of work and to take appropriate action where possible.
I should also like to take this opportunity to raise the problem with making work pay in Glasgow, which specifically afflicts those in the city, particularly our lowest earners. A study carried out by the development and regeneration services department at Glasgow city council in January 2000 demonstrated the steep withdrawal of housing and council tax benefit that occurs when households move from unemployment to work, and how that acts as a significant barrier to residents in the city who have historically paid higher rents and council tax than those elsewhere in the country. I should like to give the Minister a specific example of that.
When one partner in a couple with two children under the age of 16 takes a job at £170 a week, total weekly income, taking into account the working families tax credit and child benefit, is about £276. In comparison with benefits received while out of work, the family appears to be about £115 better off. However, when revised rent and council tax are taken into account, the net benefit per week of working is less than £14— about £2 a day. The situation is even worse for a couple with no children. In addition, the example disregards any additional costs for travel or food that might be incurred while working.
Obviously, the figures will change to some extent once the new tax credit system is introduced next year, but the so-called work-poverty trap will largely remain and hit hardest those very people in our city who need the most help and support. In particular, as the rules stand, such a low net benefit is further reduced if there is any increase in rent or council tax, as that needs to be met in full by the individual households.
I am aware that the Government rejected the council's original proposals in 2000 to carry out a pilot scheme that would have allowed the working families tax credit to be disregarded as income for the purposes of assessing entitlement to housing and council tax benefit. I appreciate the Government's concerns about marginal deduction rates that may act as a disincentive to work. I also realise that the issue raises a number of technical problems for the Department. But I urge it to initiate dialogue with the council and other public bodies in order to identify mechanisms to remove that barrier to employment as far as possible.
582
In July last year, the council proposed to increase the earnings disregard to £92.90, which is in line with the working families tax credit income threshold, and to reduce the tapers of 65 per cent. for housing benefit and 20 per cent. for council tax benefit to 55 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. That would result in households being on average £75 better off, as opposed to about £12 to £14 better off under the current system. Although that appears to involve an initial loss to the Exchequer, all our statistics point to the fact that people obtain better paid work if they are already in a job. The change would also act as an incentive, to encourage people back into work, which in turn provides significant savings in benefits paid out by the Department. I appreciate that the Minister may have different solutions to the problem, but dialogue is essential if we are to make progress.
I urge the Government to give Glasgow the resources that it needs to tackle this running sore and to engage in a constructive dialogue with the city council and the Scottish Executive. The opportunities have never been better and the rewards to our society for overcoming long-term unemployment are enormous. I ask the Department to be bold and have the courage to take risks. The people of Glasgow have put their faith in this Government and they are entitled to social justice. They deserve nothing less.
1.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing this debate on a crucial subject. I have listened carefully to the points that she made. She acknowledged progress but, perfectly properly, dwelt on the social and economic ills that continue to affect Glasgow and, indeed, a large part of our country. She talked with great authority and feeling about structural and social changes that have affected her constituents.
Our approach is to put work first. For people who can work, the job represents the best social security policy of all. For both individuals and families, paid work is the best form of welfare, and the most secure means of lifting them out of poverty and dependency. It is also the best way to give people back a sense of dignity and self-esteem. Instead of just passively paying out benefits— the welfare state could be accused of that in the past— our task is to deliver a system that works in partnership with individuals, employers and communities to get people back into the labour market.
My hon. Friend rightly noted the importance of making sure that work pays. While much of our policy is about making work possible, it is essential to make it pay. The measures that we are taking are not only helping break down the barriers to work, but ensuring that work pays when people take it up. The working families tax credit is part of the first stage of our modernisation of the tax and benefit system to make work pay and tackle child poverty. By August last year, the WFTC was helping more than 120,000 families in Scotland. The national minimum wage has benefited about 110,000 workers in Scotland. The combination of the national minimum wage and the WFTC guarantees that a family with one person in full-time work has a minimum income of £225 a week or almost £12,000 a year.

583
We recognise that much more needs to be done. I share my hon. Friend's belief that there is no room for complacency. We have made clear our commitment to increase and improve the support available to families; to make work pay; and to tackle poverty. The WFTC is a decisive step towards achieving those goals. The introduction of the new tax credits in 2003 is the next stage of reform, and will allow the Government to make further progress in delivering our objectives. The new credits will integrate child support into one payment, delivering a simpler, seamless system for all families, both in and out of work. They will also extend the principle of in-work support to people without children.
I recognise the wider proposals put forward by Glasgow city council to reduce unemployment, poverty and social exclusion in the city; we fully share those objectives. Indeed, in responding to a debate earlier this week on inner-city poverty, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions assured my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) that we will arrange for officials from the council and the Scottish Executive to meet officials from my Department to explore those proposals further. I repeat that commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill.
I am sympathetic to the objectives of the council's proposals for housing benefit, which my hon. Friend noted. We must tackle unemployment and poverty traps in our systems. She talked about savings in benefit expenditure that would result from the council's proposals, but it would not be appropriate to go into the detail of those proposals now, as much of their content is complex and technical; I do not wish to strain the patience of the House by dealing with technical matters. This is difficult territory, and in seeking remedies, we must not accidentally create new problems. We have a technical quarrel with the council's proposals on that score.
We agree that it is vital to tackle the barriers to work caused by housing benefit. However, the best way of doing so is not to impose more complexity on the scheme, but to improve standards of administration, so that people can have confidence that they will get the money that they are entitled to, on time. Although housing benefit administration varies greatly across our countries, I am determined, as the Minister responsible for housing benefit, that a decent housing benefit system becomes part of the solution in enabling people to get to work and not, as is sadly sometimes the case in some areas, part of the problem.
We have built and are still building a strong, stable economy. There are problems and uncertainties in the world economy, but the United Kingdom economy as a whole is coping well. The economy is growing, and although the labour market has weakened a little since the summer, activity continues at high levels. Employment in Scotland is certainly high. The employment rate is 73.4 per cent., with 2.38 million people in work— an increase of more than 100,000 in the past four years. We have the right policies in place to deal with change so that those who lose their jobs can return to work quickly, and those who have been out of work for some time are given the chance to reconnect with the world of work.
With the support of the new deals, nearly 70,000 people in Scotland have been helped into work. In Glasgow, nearly 6,500 young people have found work through the new deal. Another 1,000 long-term unemployed people have moved into work through the new deal 25-plus.
584
Because we have built a strong economy and introduced measures such as the new deals, unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than a third, and long-term youth unemployment by more than three quarters in the past four years. That represents a major victory for those young people, their families and their communities. We all agree that there is nothing worse than starting one's adult life workless, rather than in work.
We are constantly improving the new deals to help people match their current skills to vacancies in the labour market. The new deals also help clients to gain new skills through education and training to meet the needs of local employers. The Government's skills, education and training agenda is crucial to reducing unemployment. We want people in work and we want work that pays, but in the knowledge economy of the 21st century, we want work that is skilled.
As we announced in November, we will soon be launching pilots for our new StepUp programme. In April, a pilot will start in East Ayrshire and another will begin later in Dundee. I noted my hon. Friend's suggestion that one should be in her constituency. The pilots will test the provision of transitional jobs to act as a stepping stone for long-term unemployed people moving from benefits into work.
As part of our wider approach to helping those facing greatest disadvantage in the labour market, we are investing some £40 million over three years to help people who are facing problems of drug misuse into work. My hon. Friend spoke with great force about the appalling scourge of drug— often hard drug— misuse in Glasgow. Although that has echoes across the countries and in my constituency as well, we are aware of the problems that there have been in her city.
That investment will fund the "progress2work" project which will provide targeted, specialist support and provision for those people. Pathfinders for the project will begin operation in early April and include the Glasgow north and Glasgow south areas.
We have introduced employment zones to help long-term unemployed people in some of the most economically deprived areas of the country. Employment zones are looking at innovative ways to find local solutions to local problems. That represents the Employment Service at its most local, speaking face to face with local communities to find solutions. The employment zone in Glasgow works with local organisations such as the Wise Group, and has already helped nearly 2,000 people find work.
We are determined to ensure that everyone who can work has the opportunity to do so, and not only those who get jobseeker's allowance. We all know that there is too much economic inactivity in our community that JSA statistics do not illustrate. The majority of lone parents say that they would like to work with the right sort of support. The Disability Rights Commission cites the labour force survey, which shows that 1 million people with disabilities are not in work but would like to be. I heard some of the earlier debate about people with learning disabilities and difficulties. I know from personal experience that many such people would dearly like the opportunity that the rest of us expect of being able to join the labour market. They are right to have that expectation and we are right to support them.

585
Our job is to ensure that aspirations become reality. That is why we need a clear work-first approach. Our new Jobcentre Plus service, which my hon. Friend noted, is operating in 56 pathfinder offices and will give all benefit claimants the opportunity to find out about the help and support that is available to allow them to move into work through a work-focused interview. In such an interview, the individual can sit down with one of our personal advisers and talk about all the issues and problems that he or she has in terms of getting into work, whether they relate to child care or anything else. The pathfinder offices include sites in Aberdeen, Livingston, Greenock and Port Glasgow. A few months ago, while visiting Scotland, I had the opportunity to visit the Livingston pathfinder office— a modem, bright 21st century approach to these issues. It is situated in the middle of a shopping centre. Nothing could be more accessible. I should like to pay tribute to the manager of that office, Barbara McManus, and her colleagues, for their excellent work for the local community.
Lone parents with a youngest child of school age already benefit from having a work-focused interview at the start of their claim to income support. From April, the interviews will be extended nationally to lone parents with a youngest child of three years or older. All lone parents who are out of work can benefit from our new deal for lone parents, which offers specialist help and advice to enable the lone mother— or sometimes lone father— to take up work. By the end of last October, the scheme had already helped more than 2,200 lone parents in Glasgow to get a job, including 199 in Maryhill.
Specialist help is also available for people on incapacity benefits through our new deal for disabled people. During the pilot phase, more than 8,200 people were helped into work. In the summer, we began to launch a national network of job brokers who work with people on incapacity benefit to help them access the labour market. These national programmes are complemented by our action teams for jobs, which work with local organisations to find innovative solutions to the problems faced by people who often come from the most disadvantaged
586
backgrounds, including those suffering from disability, as well as lone parents, homeless people and people with drug or alcohol problems.
Action teams take their services to the heart of their local communities and work closely with employers. They also work closely with other agencies such as social inclusion partnerships in Scotland to ensure that regeneration of the physical environment is underpinned by social regeneration. The action team in Glasgow has been so successful that, at the start of this year, it was split into four. Its collective budget has been increased by more than 700 per cent. When I visited the action team working in Clydebank— the West Dunbartonshire action team— I saw again at first hand the excellent way in which my colleagues in the Employment Service are working with others to help people to find work, sometimes when they have not been in work for many years.
Our objective is to ensure that everyone who can and wants to work has the opportunity to do so. Not enough was done in the past, and too many people have found themselves written off.
We are offering more support through Jobcentre Plus and the new deals. We have introduced tax and benefit changes to make work pay, and we are providing more help with preparation and training to make work skilled.
Our new approach, backed by Jobcentre Plus, will make a major contribution to tackling exclusion, combating poverty, and providing more opportunity and choice for all.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend, who works energetically for her constituents, on raising an important matter that affects her constituents in Glasgow and too many people throughout our land. We shall meet colleagues from Glasgow city council and consider some of their proposals.
The debate has been a useful opportunity to raise important issues. We have made progress, but none of us is complacent. I am sorry to say that there is much to do, and we shall get on with that in the years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Disadvantaged Areas
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  9.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): The Government are determined to overcome the years of neglect that have left too many children growing up in poverty and too many neighbourhoods living without hope and without a future.
  The legacy of 18 years of Conservative administration was shocking. Between 1979 and 1994–95, incomes rose by 68 per cent. for the richest 10 per cent. of the population, while the poorest 10 per cent. saw their incomes fall. In 1979, 10 per cent. of children lived in households with below half the average income. By 1994–95, that figure had risen to nearly a third. The legacy was a widening gap between rich and poor people and a widening gap between rich and poor communities.
  So often, people in poverty means communities in poverty and neighbourhoods in poverty. For too many people, their personal poverty mirrors the problems of the community around them. Burglary rates are highest in the areas where people earn the least. Waiting lists are longer in places where people are the least healthy. Public transport is worse in places where fewer people can afford a car. Those living in the most deprived areas are more likely to die younger. For example, there is a 10-year difference in male life expectancy between Glasgow city and Chiltern district.
  Children living in our most deprived areas suffer poverty three times higher than those of parents throughout the rest of the country. People living in our most deprived areas are far more likely to be members of black and minority ethnic groups. We know that 70 per cent. of people from all ethnic minorities live in the 88 most deprived local authority districts. Taken as a whole, ethnic minority groups are more likely than the rest of the population to live in poor areas, to be unemployed, to have low incomes, to live in poor housing, to have poor health and to be the victims of crime.
  Statistics tell their own story: 41 per cent. of African-Caribbean and 84 per cent. of Bangladeshi people have incomes that are less than half the national average compared with 28 per cent. of white people, and 14.7 per cent. of Bangladeshi and 13.8 per cent. of African-Caribbean people have suffered personal thefts or assaults compared with 9.6 per cent. of white people. Residents of deprived communities have put up with poor housing, poor health, poor education, few job
  1156
  opportunities and higher crime rates for far too long. The Government are committed to resolving those problems. They represent considerable challenges that the Government are determined to meet, and are meeting.
  The Government are determined that nobody should be disadvantaged by where they live. There is still a long way to go before we achieve that, but we are starting to make a real difference. We are putting our principles into practice and adopting some new approaches, and it is those that I want to set out
  Linda Perham: Does my hon. Friend accept the real need for investment and regeneration in London, which has many disadvantaged areas? My borough is seen as a leafy outer-London suburb, but five of the eight wards in my constituency are in the top 50 per cent. of the index of deprivation. However, there are pots of money in various sources of funding, for which we are not allowed to apply. Does my hon. Friend agree that Londoners face huge pressures as a result of higher living costs, especially in terms of housing and transport?
  Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is right about the position in London. One of the appalling factors is that the wealthiest communities and the poorest live side by side. Often, little can be done to relieve the poverty of some of those areas. The approach that we are taking, which I shall set out, will deal with my hon. Friend's point about areas of great affluence, or comparative affluence, which mask some areas of acute need. One of the advantages of our approach is that all areas can make an application where they can identify the areas of greatest need, and can seek ways to resolve the problems.
  The key to the delivery of our objective of ensuring that everybody should have a decent and sustainable community is our neighbourhood renewal strategy. It can apply to areas of apparent affluence as well as to some of the hardest-hit communities.
  Mr. James Gray: The hon. Lady is right. Will she acknowledge that there will be many areas of deprivation in other places that might be thought of as quite prosperous, such as market towns and boroughs in the countryside? She will know from her own history that Cheltenham has two of the most deprived boroughs in England. Does she agree that Cheltenham deserves as much support as many of the more obvious areas in the north of England?
  Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is right about the difficulty of targeting small pockets of disadvantage in otherwise affluent areas. We all know that virtually throughout the length and breadth of the country there are little pockets of disadvantage in areas of comparative affluence.
  One of the criticisms that Labour Members always had of the approaches taken by the Conservative Government especially was that they did not target those pockets. A general improvement in the economy did not necessarily stretch to acutely disadvantaged areas. The approach that underpins our national strategy for neighbourhood

  1157
  renewal makes it possible even for relatively affluent areas to identify the needs of the most deprived communities, to target them and to meet them.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Clearly, there are areas of considerable disadvantage next to areas that are not exactly well-heeled, but are relatively prosperous. That has consequences for local government finance and standard spending assessments and can lead to the loss of objective 2 status, as has occurred in my constituency, despite the massive rundown of manufacturing in north-east Derbyshire and Chesterfield. It is important to treat the problem where it exists. My hon. Friend mentioned ethnic minorities. North-east Derbyshire has one of the smallest ethnic minority populations in the country and therefore cannot draw from the funds designated for those minorities; nevertheless it is in need of assistance.
  Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that as long as combating disadvantage relies on bolting on new initiatives, we will not achieve the turnaround that we seek in the life chances of people living in the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. That is part of the thinking that underpins the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. It is designed to address the problems that hon. Members have identified which affect pockets of disadvantage in areas of comparative affluence. That strategy is designed to revitalise our most disadvantaged communities and to ensure that they benefit not just from add-on measures, but from the Government's extra investment in mainstream public services. Our approach involves a radical long-term programme to help poor and excluded people lift themselves into mainstream society.
  The national strategy is a series of practical initiatives involving everyone in our poorest neighbourhoods. It harnesses the enormous desire among communities, businesses, local agencies, service providers and residents to make the places where they live and work safer, friendlier and more prosperous. It is a different approach from what has gone before.
  Previously, attempts to tackle area deprivation have tended to be prescriptive, top-down and short term. Too much attention was paid to small, fragmented initiatives at the expense of the main Government programmes for schools, hospitals and the police, which have such a massive impact on people's lives.
  Previously, Government failed to note the importance of local economies and properly to co-ordinate their efforts. Perhaps most important, communities were never properly engaged as agents for change in themselves. There was too much emphasis on physical regeneration rather than on communities. Regeneration was something that happened to people rather than with them.
  In the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, we have learned from the mistakes of the past. We have found new and innovative ways of working based on three key principles. First, every community has its own set of problems, which no single national initiative on its own can solve. Secondly, local problems often respond best to local solutions, negotiated and implemented by local businesses, service providers and residents; and, thirdly,
  1158
  the best solutions are often owned by the community themselves, with everyone having a stake in the revival of their neighbourhood.
  We therefore stress the need for local solutions co-ordinated and delivered by local people with the help and support of a national framework. We emphasise this area-based approach because we can map poverty. The poorest people have become more concentrated in small areas of acute need and, as has been mentioned this morning, many of the most acute differences lie within regions, cities and even boroughs. Our poorest neighbourhoods often exist in the shadow of some of the most prosperous areas. England's poorest ward, Benchill in Manchester, is only a few miles from the famously wealthy Wilmslow.
  Local extremes apply to jobs as well. Some of the most deprived neighbourhoods lie only a mile or two from prosperous city centres where employers find it hard to fill vacancies. So we have to get down to the local level really to understand the problems and to deliver the right solutions for the people who live there, and that justifies a neighbourhood-based approach. It is part of the reason why the Government have applied their area-based approach to programmes such as the new deal for communities and the education and health action zones. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, we have seen the value of making sure that all the mainstream programmes deliver properly for local people in ways that make a real difference. Combating disadvantage is not an add-on; some would say that it is the main purpose of public services, so mainstream services must bend to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society. We have also seen the value of getting local people involved.
  Those two concepts—delivering mainstream services better and involving communities—are the purpose behind local strategic partnerships that bring together residents and the public, private and voluntary sectors to identify local problems and deliver local solutions. They should not apply only to the most disadvantaged areas, but operate in areas of need in otherwise affluent areas such as Cheltenham and Redbridge.
  Community involvement is crucial, not least because nobody better understands the strengths and weaknesses of an area than the local people. The private sector needs to be engaged because involving local businesses in neighbourhood renewal is key to rebuilding strong, sustainable communities with strong local economies. Improving neighbourhoods leads directly to greater business opportunities, by creating new markets and enabling employers to access better-skilled workers. So we are looking for ways to get local chambers of commerce and local businesses more involved in regeneration. We are also encouraging local communities to participate, although this can be difficult in communities which do not have a sound skills base. We are addressing this through a range of initiatives totalling some £107 million.
  The neighbourhood renewal fund, worth £900 million over three years, provides extra resources for 88 of the most deprived local authority districts in England, but that does not mean that those districts should be the only ones looking to identify pockets of disadvantage and finding ways to tackle it.
  Ms Oona King: A good example of that is Canary Wharf, which towers above one of the most disadvantaged areas in the country. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the skills match programme, a brokerage agency set up between Canary Wharf and the local council, which has brought 1,500 local people into employment? Does she agree that we need to do more, perhaps through planning gain to ensure that local people benefit more directly from very large regeneration projects?
  Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I congratulate the skills match programme. It is extremely important that the business community and local authorities work together, not just to provide opportunities, but to provide a range of opportunities so that people who may be trapped in particular employment sectors have a chance to access the same job choices as the rest of society. My hon. Friend is also right to say that more needs to be done. It is a key part of the Government's strategy to make sure that the good practice in her constituency extends elsewhere.
  We know that the neglect of decades cannot be swept away and that there is still much to do. That is why our national strategy has a long-term horizon over the next 10 to 20 years, but we are beginning to see some practical improvements in our poorest neighbourhoods after a very short time.
  In our coalfield communities—this will interest my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire—we are on track to deliver the £385 million national coalfields programme, with work under way or completed on almost half the sites. For example, at Sherwood energy village in Nottinghamshire we have reclaimed 37 hectares for industry, housing, education, recreation and leisure development, using renewable energy sources for heat and power; and at Shirebrook in Derbyshire, a burning slag heap is being transformed into a business park thanks to £24 million of investment.
  There are also encouraging signs in the vital issue of combating crime. A community-driven package of crime-fighting measures in east Manchester has led to a 25 per cent. drop in crime in the area, including a 34 per cent. drop in burglaries, which amounts to 1,128 fewer crimes—or, to put it another way, at least 1,128 fewer victims.
  A 43 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary is attributed to a partnership between wardens in Merthyr Tydfil and Homesafe, a burglary reduction project. Wardens in Sheffield have helped to reduce removal time for abandoned vehicles—a major source of crime—from 30 days to between a week and 10 days.
  Those are examples of some of the many ways in which people's quality of life is being transformed. As a resident from east Manchester put it:
  "It has been hell living here in recent years, but all that is changing. I'm really optimistic now."
  We are placing our confidence in local people to help themselves. We have underpinned the local strategic partnerships with a national framework for neighbourhood renewal, built on the platform of a stable economy and a remorseless drive against poverty, and against child poverty in particular.
  The national strategy for neighbourhood renewal will deliver the lasting change that our disadvantaged communities need, but we still have a huge amount of
  1160
  work to do. However, we can and will overcome the waste of people's talents and the waste of land and resources, which have blighted too many of our communities for far too long.
  We want to ensure that in future no one is disadvantaged by where they live and everyone has a chance to make choices in their lives in safe, secure and sustainable communities.
  9.52 am
  Mr. Paul Daisley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my initial contribution in this Chamber. I thank the people of Brent, East for returning me to serve as their Member of Parliament. It is a genuine honour.
  I have campaigned over many years for regeneration and the role of local government in achieving it. However, I have recently found myself engaged in a different kind of regeneration, courtesy of the national health service, spending seven months in hospital and the rest of last year convalescing. My recovery continues, which explains the length of time before making my maiden speech. That experience has taught me a lot about the unrecognised roles of carers in our society and given me a fresh outlook—values that I hope will never dim during my time in this House.
  I would like to thank Mr. Speaker and the House of Commons staff for their understanding and assistance during a difficult time. They could not have been more helpful. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for making space available in her office. My time in a wheelchair gave me a new insight into and greater admiration of her achievements.
  I would like to pay an especial tribute to the dedicated staff of the national health service who helped me during my illness, especially at St. Mary's, Paddington; Charing Cross, Hammersmith; and more recently at Willesden community hospital. I also want to place on record sincere thanks to my wife Lesley and my family and close friends on whom I have leant so heavily for support.
  I had also thought about thanking both my physio and the Whips, but I did not think that anybody would believe me. In fact, as my regeneration continues, I am not sure which of the two is likely to cause me the most pain.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ken Livingstone, with whom I worked closely, especially during my five years as leader of Brent council. Ken worked hard for the people of Brent, East and was a valuable support in our efforts to stamp out council corruption. I do not want to forget, either, the contribution of Ken's predecessor, the right hon. Reg Freeson. Reg is still respected throughout the constituency, and won admiration among many hon. Friends in the House for his work on housing policy, as a Minister and as a Member for more than 20 years. I know that he has much more to contribute in the years to come.
  The constituency of Brent, East is often called diverse and cosmopolitan and has a large ethnic minority population, yet the diversity defies any simple classification in a few sentences. Suffice it to say that 130 first languages are spoken or understood in Brent schools. Areas such as Kilburn, Willesden, Neasden and Cricklewood are testimony to enduring values of tolerance and acceptance across an extraordinary range of cultures. Perhaps our tolerance and appreciation of diversity are some of Brent, East's most valuable qualities.

  1161
  Local religious leaders have none the less expressed concern since 11 September about the rather patchy understanding between different cultures in the area, but our schools are helping to build that understanding, and I am proud that the council has sought to affirm diversity through celebrating festivals such as Eid, Diwali, Chanukah, Christmas and of course St. Patrick's day. Some of these Brent events are among the largest of their kind in Europe.
  In fact, in the interests of community cohesion, we have grown quite accustomed to celebrating festivals in Brent, all of which have their own variations of consuming food and drink. My physio is helping me to prepare for the challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead.
  I first became actively interested in Brent council in the 1980s. It was then infamous for being unstable, incompetent and inward-looking. It takes only moments to lose a reputation, but years to regain it. As leader of the council from 1996 until last year, I hope that we at least made some progress in that. That achievement is not only part of my personal political history: the role of local government is also critical in delivering effective and sustained regeneration. I would therefore like to take a moment to outline one or two of the council's achievements.
  The council has modernised. The chief executive has referred to a "quiet revolution" in the council, with recent years of stability standing in stark contrast to the 10 years that preceded them. My successor as leader, Councillor Ann John, is continuing the transformation.
  Achievements have included 11 charter marks; seven beacon schools; shortlisting in three categories for beacon status; 99 per cent. customer satisfaction with the one-stop shops; and numerous quality assurance awards, including ISO 9000 and Investors in People. The Audit Commission awarded the street cleansing and refuse collection service the highest best value rating in England and Wales. A private finance initiative project has dramatically speeded up the improvements in street lighting, reducing the previous estimated wait of 120 years to four years.
  Brent's successes have been achieved via effective partnership and encouraging local people to have more of a say in decision making, including initiatives such as the citizen's panel, area forums and our award-winning websites.
  Education has gone from strength to strength. School standards are rising. Staying-on rates are high and exclusions have dropped by a third.
  Partnership with the police and the community over safety issues has been a council priority. Joint action against gun crime has been effective.
  Brent's equalities work is acknowledged as an example of best practice identified in the recent Cantle report on community cohesion.
  Brent has delivered services while maintaining the council tax below the London average. That has been achieved through careful financial management, setting tough targets and investing selectively in key services. Brent council tax payers have certainly got value for money.
  A comprehensive regeneration strategy is now in place in Brent for tackling poverty and social exclusion.
  1162
  The council has certainly played a constructive role in seeking to bring the national stadium to Wembley, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and just outside my constituency, but which will open up opportunities right across north-west London.
  I hope that by now I have at least convinced hon. Members that Brent is not quite the shambles that it was a few years ago, even if they are not yet all persuaded that it is the best council in London—which some of us think it is.
  I have talked at length about the council's achievements, because an effective council delivering quality services is vital to regeneration. Strong working partnerships are needed between central and local government, residents, business and other stakeholders. That will be central if we are to move beyond a narrow housing-based focus and develop a more integrated regeneration strategy.
  That spirit of partnership will be crucial in overcoming the difficulties facing the South Kilburn new deal for communities project in Carlton ward, which is in the top 3 per cent. of most disadvantaged wards in the country. The effective use of NDC funds has enormous potential to succeed in reconnecting this vibrant yet struggling community with the surrounding regions of north London.
  The role played by the council will be critical, as will be the need to explore appropriate models of neighbourhood management. Our experience shows that local involvement is a vital component in the partnership needed for success even if it is sometimes difficult to achieve. Involving the community takes time. Training and skills development is very dependent upon effective involvement by a range of agencies.
  I am sure that local authorities of all political persuasions will welcome plans in the recent White Paper to lift constraints on borrowing and give greater flexibility. It is providing a valuable and flexible framework for authorities. With another spending review on the horizon, more investment as well as more modernisation of local government will be needed. Improvements in the quality of local government service delivery in areas such as Brent are vital to regeneration. Partnerships with stakeholders, realistic time frames, sustained investment and modernisation are all important.
  As the Government continue to focus on those elements, they are making a growing and lasting contribution to regeneration in disadvantaged communities. Through the effective collaboration of national policy, local council leadership, local agencies and community involvement, the quality of life and the life chances of local people can be transformed.
  I firmly believe that national Government working together with local government can achieve lasting improvements for our communities.
  10.1 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor, as listed in the Register of Members' interests.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley) on a maiden speech of clarity, vision and bravery. The House will have noted carefully what he said. It was not a partisan speech, and it is good to know

  1163
  that Brent council is not as badly run as it used to be. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his time as leader of that council; he will be welcome in this House.
  I particularly agree with the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, I agree that to have an effective regeneration scheme, there must be an efficient council, as the local authority plays a major part in such schemes. Secondly, I agree that local people must be engaged with any regeneration scheme. If such a scheme is to work, local people must have ownership of it. The hon. Gentleman made a number of sound points and the House will appreciate the genuine nature of his speech.
  We are debating Government measures to regenerate disadvantaged areas. Listening to Labour Members and Ministers, one would think that all the ills of this country started in 1979 and finished in 1997, but the world simply is not like that. Furthermore, the public are rather fed up with that approach. They want constructive policies from the Government and they want the Opposition to hold the Government to account. They want to see what realistic proposals can come out of debates such as this. I hope that, this morning, we will hear some constructive suggestions. Unless we get inner-city regeneration right, our economic growth and quality of life will suffer.
  My hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), made a pertinent point—it is not just inner cities that have disadvantaged areas. I represent the Cotswolds, a relatively prosperous area of the country. However, if one carefully examines all the villages in my area, one finds small pockets of poverty. I have gone out all night with the police in Cheltenham and seen the ward to which my hon. Friend referred. One can see that it is as disadvantaged a ward as any in our major cities. Sometimes we can get a skewed view of the "disadvantaged areas" of this country. Having said that, we must put the debate in context. The scale of the problem of disadvantaged areas in our big cities is much larger and deserves much closer attention.
  I was disturbed to see some unfortunate figures showing the rise in crime in some inner-city areas. I hesitate to give these figures because one does not wish to cause alarm and despondency, but the House should be aware of them. For example, in Birmingham, crimes of violence against the person for the year until March 2001 increased by 18.7 per cent. In Nottingham, the figure is 17.9 per cent., and in Tower Hamlets, it is 10.8 per cent. Those are significant increases. Reported robberies increased in Lambeth by 38.4 per cent., in Leeds by 33.8 per cent. and in Sheffield by 46.8 per cent. It is difficult to expect those areas to be regenerated if we do not tackle the increase in crime.
  Mr. Gray: In the light of those figures, was my hon. Friend surprised to hear the Minister apparently claim some success for the Government's policies on regenerating inner cities because the crime figures had fallen? If there were to be a direct correlation between the two, presumably—since my hon. Friend has proved that crime has gone up—the Government's policies have not worked at all.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Nobody likes crime to increase and I do not want to make this a political issue. Crime causes a detriment to the country as a whole—
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way in a second. Crime is something that we all deplore and something that we
  1164
  should discuss with our local police forces and local authorities. The Government must pay attention to it and see whether it can be reduced. We note almost every day stories in the Evening Standard concerning crime in London, which is getting distinctly worse, particularly gangland crime, vehicle crime and mobile phone theft.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman; God forbid. I could never forget him. If I do not give way, he will persist throughout the debate, so it will pay me to give way to him. Suffice it to say, crime is a blight on society.
  Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman quotes selectively from statistics about crime increases in certain urban areas. The fact is that crime in Britain has fallen by 12 per cent. During the Tory years, crime doubled. Before the hon. Gentleman talks about not wanting crime to increase, can he explain why, during his party's time in office, crime significantly increased?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is the kind of knockabout politics that I was trying to avoid. Frankly, such comments bring the House and the hon. Gentleman into contempt. Those figures hide a lot of human misery and misfortune for the victims. I hope that the speeches of Labour Members will be constructive.[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is chuntering. If he cannot do better than that, he should keep quiet.
  The Prime Minister once pledged:
  "If we win the next election, I want to see us judged by how we treat the weakest as much as the strongest; to see us judged not on how the best advance, but on how far we heal the wounds in our fractured society."
  We would all agree with that, along with several other of the Prime Minister's pledges and statements and the high ideals that he set for his Government. The problem is that the delivery is not always quite as he portrays it.
  The Government's own figures show that under Labour inequality has risen overall since 1997, and there has been little or no change in the percentage of working age adults below low-income thresholds, which vary according to median income. We all want the disadvantaged and those on low incomes to be helped on to the ladder, so that they can help themselves and play a full part in society.
  We need to look at the Government's regeneration policies. During a debate in Westminster Hall the week before last, I pointed out that Labour's policy is fragmented, and I read out a list of schemes and quangos that have been introduced since the Government came to power. I do not want to make a partisan point, but the number of schemes is a major part of the problem. As practice shows, when there is a plethora of schemes and quangos, nobody knows precisely what they are and as a result their budgets are underspent. I read out some of the host of schemes in the earlier debate and I shall do so again because it is worth concentrating on this matter. They include
  "the neighbourhood renewal fund encompassing a national … action plan, local strategic partnerships, the new deal for communities, urban regeneration companies, the English cities fund and a host of tax incentives for regeneration."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 37WH.]

  1165
  The Opposition do not believe that such schemes are the best way forward. For example, at the last election we advocated putting one Minister in charge of regeneration. The problem is that the Department of Trade and Industry has one view, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has another, the Home Office has a third and the Department for Work and Pensions has a fourth, so we are not getting the joined-up government that we need. I urge the Minister to consider whether matters can be simplified and an explanation given to the stakeholders, so that everybody knows exactly what funds are available and best use can be made of them. For goodness sake, such a scheme should be for the benefit of this country. If it is not being used, let us get rid of it.
  Opposition Members want a more effective and cohesive policy on urban regeneration. For example, we are particularly exercised about the new targets for building on green fields. We want to protect our green fields; we do not want the setting of housing and other development targets to result in the building of a huge number of houses and other buildings on our green fields. One of our fears is that the Government's new planning Green Papers will be used to force local authorities to undertake such development. We believe that, as the hon. Member for Brent, East said, local authorities have a democratic mandate to take decisions on schemes that affect their areas. We worry that the Government are increasingly taking democratic accountability away from local authorities and giving it to bodies such as regional development agencies. We do not want a regionalisation of planning policy, but I fear that the Government's planning Green Papers are moving in that direction.
  Having said that, as a chartered surveyor I recognise only too well that planning is a major instrument of urban regeneration. We share the Government's aim, as expressed in the Green Papers, that planning needs to be streamlined and speeded up, and to be more responsive to local and business needs. As the Green Papers make clear, although there is often a great battle, 90 per cent. of all applications are eventually accepted. In other words, an extremely cumbersome system deals mainly with just the 10 per cent. of cases that are turned down.
  We welcome some of the proposals outlined in the detail of those Green Papers. For example, one thing that slows down many major planning applications is the negotiation of the 106 agreement. I should explain to those who are not familiar with that procedure that under it, the developer provides reimbursement—such as a new roundabout—for damage done to the infrastructure by a large development. In that way, additional schemes can be put in place to boost the infrastructure and enable it to cope with that large development. The problem is that the existing 106 procedure is cumbersome and arbitrary and takes too long to negotiate. I am pleased that reference has been made to the levering-in of private sector funds, which we all want to see. That will help developments, which in turn will help our rural and urban communities.
  For far too long, the Government and their supporters have said in debates such as this that regeneration must be undertaken by the monolithic hand of the state. We believe that the private sector has a major role to play in urban regeneration in our inner cities. Innovative schemes—for example, urban development corporations—proved very
  1166
  successful in docklands and in city centres such as Leeds and Glasgow. One reason why is that they brought the private sector into partnership with such companies. Private sector involvement is vital. It is interesting to note that some Labour Members are nodding. I am glad that they accept the need for private sector involvement in urban regeneration, but it is therefore odd that they do not accept its involvement in the running of public services such as the railways and the tube. That seems an odd dichotomy.
  Mr. Robert Syms: My hon. Friend mentioned section 106 agreements. Although it is right and proper that companies sometimes contribute to works associated with plans, there is always a suspicion among my constituents that when deals are negotiated between local authorities and companies, money is given for planning permission. Is not there a case for more transparency in such agreements, many of which are negotiated in great secrecy?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend does me a great service by bringing me back to my script. The Green Papers refer to the introduction of a tariff system, and in principle we do not object to that. A system that speeds up negotiation of the 106 agreement and makes it less arbitrary, so that the developer, the local authority and local people know exactly what they are going to get from a particular development, must be a good thing. We need better targeting and definition, and that is the big challenge for the Government. There must be some flexibility in the system, so that it does not become merely a betterment levy tax. We must ensure that it is properly reapplied to the local infrastructure, rather than dissipated into further, more general causes. It is all very well targeting such schemes properly on their introduction. That is what happened with the lottery, but the Chancellor soon cast his eagle eye over the proceeds and used them for causes that are not strictly aligned with the five for which it was originally invented.
  In the spirit of this debate, I should explain what the Opposition believe should be done. First, we would stop the fragmentation of our urban regeneration policy. We initiated some successful, cohesive and large-scale projects—for example, city challenge, the single regeneration bid scheme and urban development corporations—that, contrary to what the Minister said, were very successful in the 1980s. Probably the most successful inner-city regeneration took place under those imaginative schemes during the 1980s, so we want the Government to introduce a more streamlined system.
  Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there were great strides in regeneration, many communities—such as those in Tower Hamlets, which is next door to Canary Wharf—felt that they did not benefit? That was a sincere feeling that is replicated today. For example, on the Will Crooks estate—the closest to Canary Wharf—only two out of 400 adults have a job. That is what regeneration in this decade has to change.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. We have seen this in docklands, and in Leeds, where there has been some very good regeneration of the city centre. However, within a mile of that city centre there is some of the worst deprivation to be found anywhere in the country.

  1167
  The challenge for the Government, having regenerated one or two beacon areas—including some of the worst areas, such as docklands—is that they now have to move out to the next band and apply some of the lessons learned from the urban development corporations. I agree with the hon. Lady that areas such as hers are among the worst in the country. It is a disgrace, 50 years on from the second world war, that such areas are still so deprived, and we must find schemes that lever in private money and also utilise all the resources of the local area. The voluntary sector, the private sector, the local authorities and business groups must all be levered into partnership to try to regenerate some of these areas.
  The most serious question in the debate so far, and one that the Opposition want to address, is how we should move out into the next band after we have regenerated the centre. We should adopt some of the proposals that we used with the urban development corporations, which might supersede some of the local authority's powers by putting all those people together in partnership and coming up with a scheme to manage and regenerate those areas.
  What else would we do if we were elected to power? I have already outlined our proposal for a single Minister to bring together all Departments to develop an effective, united strategy to regenerate some of the worst areas. It is a disgrace that a civilised country with the fourth biggest economy in the world still has some of the most deprived areas in Europe. We should all concentrate on that. A debate such as this is valuable in bringing the subject to the fore, so that we can discover what useful ideas can be culled from it.
  During the election, we advocated spending at least £200 million on new tax cuts for deprived areas. Regeneration companies would be able to choose which tax cuts to implement, and fund a tax credit budget. Such tax cuts could, for example, take the form of lower VAT on brownfield development and conversion. It is a huge anomaly in our tax system that there is no VAT on new building on greenfield sites, yet the full rate is charged on the refurbishment of buildings on brownfield sites. We need to address that anomaly, because it sends out the wrong signal to developers.
  Indeed, it is so much easier to develop greenfield sites than brownfield sites that the tax system should be skewed in favour of refurbishment and the cleaning up of our polluted areas. Many brownfield sites are polluted and difficult to develop, and no Government have so far come to grips with that problem. Having put the infrastructure into the dome site, for example, and having, at long last, started to regenerate it and clean it up, it would have been better to demolish the dome and use the area for much-needed social housing. For goodness' sake, we all recognise that there is a chronic shortage of social housing in London—there was a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall earlier this week—so why should an edifice such as the dome prevent much-needed building on a site that could be made suitable for housing?
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend made an important point about the differential between VAT on new build and on regeneration. Lord Rogers made the same point when he suggested that VAT should be reduced to zero in areas of regeneration. Does my hon. Friend agree that to do the
  1168
  opposite and increase VAT on construction on greenfield sites would send out the wrong signal, and would in fact be a tax on housing that we would not want to encourage?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is interpreting my remarks as I wished them to be interpreted. I chose my words carefully in saying that the tax differential should be closed. What I had in mind was that the tax on brownfield sites should be reduced to zero, and I would certainly not advocate a wholesale increase in tax on greenfield sites. Our 17.5 per cent. VAT rate is plenty high enough compared to that of some of our international competitors. I certainly would not want it to be increased.
  We want to look at business rates for firms locating into regeneration areas. Some of our imaginative schemes during the 1980s included the single regeneration bid and the city challenge. We gave business rate holidays to a number of firms moving into such areas. When the new town of Milton Keynes was built, for example, the business rate holiday was a key factor in bringing businesses into the area, and Milton Keynes has been one of our most successful new build and regeneration projects since the war. We need to learn lessons from that and, perhaps, consider more carefully how we apply business rates.
  Ms Debra Shipley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will happily give way in a minute.
  It is also an anomaly that shops in many city centres pay a higher business rate per square foot than a new build development on a greenfield site would pay. That is wrong. Those who operate similar types of business, whether in a city centre or on a greenfield site, should pay the same business rate per square foot. That would help to redress the balance. I shall now give way to the hon. Lady from Shipley.
  Ms Shipley: I am not actually from Shipley. Will the hon. Gentleman refresh my memory? Was Milton Keynes—where all those companies enjoyed a tax holiday under the Conservative Government—a greenfield site or a brownfield site?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Well, it was part and part. It was a new-build city, but it also took over some previously under-utilised and under-developed brownfield sites. It was not entirely green belt land. It involved a new development corporation and it has been one of our great successes. The hon. Lady may knock that, but she will probably find that her Government will come up with similar proposals. We shall have to build new towns like Milton Keynes to accommodate the increase in housing that we need, and the only way to do that will be to have a similar structure to the one developed there.
  There is too much empty housing. We would consider lowering the council tax on housing that had previously been empty. There are 750,000 empty flats and houses in this country, of which 150,000 are in the public sector. That is an utter disgrace when, at a conservative estimate, at least 150,000 people are homeless. We need to come up with imaginative proposals to regenerate the empty housing in our inner cities, where row after row of flats

  1169
  over shops stand empty. One way of tackling the problem would be to encourage the private rented sector to let such properties by making it simpler to deal with tenants who misbehave and do not pay their rent. Every Government proposal to regulate residential lettings and make things more difficult for private landlords makes it more difficult to bring those empty properties back into use.
  We have heard a lot of bluster from the Government about urban regeneration. They produced an urban White Paper, spawned by the architect Lord Rogers, which was immediately denigrated on the basis that many of his recommendations were not followed. That was a pity. The Government had employed someone who truly knows about the problems of regenerating our inner cities and it would have been nice to have seen some of his recommendations followed.
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has spent £2 billion less on regeneration than the Department of the Environment spent in the last four years of the previous Conservative Administration. Expenditure on the new deal for communities has been offset by the end of programmes such as the urban development corporations and city challenge funds that were so successful in the 1980s and 1990s under a Conservative Government.
  Between 1993 and 1997, the Department of the Environment spent £6.1 billion on regeneration. Between 1997 and 2001, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and then the DTLR spent just £4.8 billion. Adjusting for inflation at 2001 prices, that is equivalent to a cut of £1.9 billion. Money in the rate support grant settlement is being taken away from London, which, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, has some of our most deprived areas. Why are funds being taken away from London and given to the rest of the country?
  We still have a huge challenge to regenerate some of our worst areas of deprivation. Conservative Members want to come up with constructive policies—we will get back to the situation that existed in the 1980s and 1990s when we had a proud record of doing just that.
  10.31 am
  Ms Karen Buck: May I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the board of the New Life for Paddington urban regeneration scheme?
  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley) on his maiden speech. It has been some time in coming because he has been bravely battling against illness, but his speech showed the characteristic passion for his community that he has displayed for many years as a councillor and as leader of Brent council. His constituents will be extremely well served by him here.
  My hon. Friend is my neighbour in parliamentary terms. I look out of my front window on to the South Kilburn estate. The fact that his constituency qualifies for a parliamentary additional cost allowance and mine does not is a scab that has never healed. To make matters worse, phone numbers in his constituency are prefixed by 0207, which, as every Londoner knows, is the true mark of metropolitan prestige. However, I will not hold that
  1170
  against my hon. Friend and I look forward to working with him as a neighbour and colleague on local issues as well as to seeing the contribution that he will make in Parliament.
  I warmly welcome the Government's strategic approach to regeneration and the fact that it is linked, as it must be, to a strategy tackling social exclusion and poverty. The establishment and work of the social exclusion unit and the neighbourhood renewal strategies introduced an analysis into those serious social problems that had been lacking and allowed the development of an approach that considers multiple indicators as a way of tackling them. That is the only way to deal with them; social exclusion and the decline of some of our urban areas are rooted in multidimensional problems, and no single solution can turn them around.
  I know from local experience that the Government have, over recent years, invested significantly and imaginatively in policies that will help us to tackle those problems. My constituency now benefits from four sure start programmes, which I regard as the single best and most imaginative regeneration tool, targeted at parents with very young children. Sadly, I do not have a new deal for communities programme, and I would love to have a few of those. However, we have the £13.5 million single regeneration budget for Paddington—as I said, I am a member of the board for the scheme—and an education action zone. We benefit in both Kensington and Westminster from neighbourhood renewal funding and from the neighbourhood nurseries initiative. So serious money has been invested, targeted particularly at wards and small areas with severe deprivation. The approach and the money are very welcome.
  I want to talk particularly about the case for London. There is no doubt in my mind, from listening to colleagues and reading about the problems in the north, the midlands and in areas of low housing demand, that a catastrophe is taking place. I support those areas and wish them well in dealing with those problems. However, their problems are entirely different from those that we face in the capital, which require a different solution and at least proportionate support. We have had that in some cases, but not in every area.
  We have already touched on the particular problems of communities with high levels of deprivation that exist cheek by jowl with areas of extreme wealth. My constituency probably exemplifies that more than anywhere else in the country. The Church Street ward, which is one of the most deprived in the country according to the index of multiple deprivation, is within 100 yd of St. John's Wood, which includes some of the most valuable real estate in the country. That not only enhances the residents' sense of inequality, but causes us a problem in applying for resources.
  One of London's difficulties is what I have described in previous debates as the tyranny of the average. If a local authority area includes prosperous areas, prosperous wards and high value housing alongside areas of acute deprivation, the funding formulas will be worked out on the basis of an average. As a consequence, we are not able to secure the resources that I believe are necessary to deal with our problems. This is particularly the case, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows well from the representations that we have made, in respect of the index of multiple deprivation and the various sources of funding that flow from it. London Members will continue to lobby

  1171
  on that issue to see whether further refinements can be made to the index to recognise the reality of London's problems. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us when we can expect a crime domain to be introduced into the index, because that is an aspect of urban deprivation that needs to be recognised.
  I want to put on record again the characteristics of London that deserve our attention. We have some of the highest indicators of poverty and deprivation in the country. In inner London, more than half of all children live in households on low income compared with one third for England as a whole. We have the highest proportion of children in workless households of any region in England. We have double the national average of lone-parent families, which we know to be a key indicator of poverty. We have an acute housing shortage; it has been rehearsed many times, so I will not talk about it other than to say that I believe it to be one of the most serious barriers to the city's continuing economic success and to overcoming the problems of urban deprivation.
  Challenges as well as opportunities arise from the capital's cultural diversity. More than half the United Kingdom's ethnic minority and black populations live in London. Unfortunately, many of those communities experience levels of unemployment and poverty that are up to three times higher those of the white population. I believe that a Cabinet Office report, reported in the newspapers last summer, warned that unless further and faster action is taken, the gap in income and opportunities between the black and ethnic minority populations and the white population is set to widen over the next 20 years. That is a real challenge.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given those appalling statistics, which we all condemn, how does the hon. Lady feel about the fact that £100 million has been taken away from London in the local revenue support grant settlement over the past three years? If the estimates using the current indicators are correct, that trend will continue over the next three years at the same rate. Surely the opposite should apply—London should be getting extra money compared with the major urban corporations in the rest of the country so that it can deal with some of the worst poverty and deprivation in the country.
  Ms Buck: Yes and no. I do not disagree. It is no secret that Labour Members lobby extremely hard to make the case for London. We did not do badly in the grant settlement that was announced recently. In fact, both my boroughs received a 7 per cent. increase, which was the joint highest increase in the country. Although there is always a case to be made for London's resources—I am making it now and will continue to do so—I do not think, considering the revenue support grant settlement for the past year and the year before, that London boroughs have done badly.
  London has high social mobility, and I want the Government to take on board the fact that that indicator is not properly recognised in any funding formula. Turnover in London schools is 50 per cent. higher than in the rest of the country, which puts enormous financial pressure on them and huge psychological pressure on teachers and classmates, as well has having a knock-on effect on school standards.
  London also has poor health indicators, particularly because of the disproportionate concentration of people who have mental health problems. Again, almost all
  1172
  funding formulas fail to recognise that, but it has vast implications for the delivery of services from policing to social services. There is a strong case for London, and I want more resources to help London to deal with its problems, including those shown by the index of multiple deprivation.
  Local regeneration has been a recent success story following many years of failure. I pay tribute to everyone involved: community activists and participants, and officers in highly successful schemes ranging from sure start programmes to the New Life for Paddington scheme. The latter is a marvellous example of a regeneration scheme that works with a range of public agencies and community organisations, including tenants and residents organisations, as well as the private sector.
  The Paddington regeneration partnership, which represents the private businesses involved in rebuilding the Paddington basin—an urban redevelopment zone three times bigger than the dome—has been a considerable success. The private sector has helped through a local recruitment strategy, particularly with new jobs for the Heathrow express, and we are about to issue a jobs brokerage linked to the next phase, in which new companies moving into the basin will start to recruit. I hope that that will go from strength to strength. The scheme is a tribute to the Employment Service. A few years ago, it was a deadly bureaucracy, but it has genuinely been enlivened by its new responsibilities and has become a real partner in the regeneration of the Paddington area.
  The Dalgarno single regeneration budget—a small project across the large estates of north Kensington—has done exciting work in partnership with youth justice boards and young offender teams. That is welcome and shows that new sets of partnerships are being built across different agencies. A small and successful scheme also operates in the Golborne ward.
  The recent success of those people-based, participatory schemes stands in stark contrast to the experience of previous schemes, which, though I am not making a party political point here, were developed under the Conservative Government and implemented by Conservative councils. Two examples spring to mind. The first is the Wornington Green estate in north Kensington, which received a large funding injection from the city challenge programme. That brought about some design changes on the estate which were not properly consulted on. Those changes are the reason for the estate's downward spiral further into urban decline and high crime and youth disorder in recent years.
  That investment was entirely wasted. The money might as well have been put down the drain. The estate is still seriously blighted, and we need a new partnership between Kensington housing trust and another housing association. We also need substantial funds to try to turn the estate around. I would not live there, and one of the main urban regeneration indicators has to be whether we ourselves would live on the estates to which we condemn thousands of people. I should be delighted to live on some of the redeveloped estates in my constituency; nothing would give me greater pleasure, but I cannot afford them. There are others, however, where the programmes developed during the 1980s and early 1990s have made the problems worse rather than relieving them.
  The second major example is Lisson Green estate in the London borough of Westminster. To my amazement, it received investment totalling around £65 million

  1173
  through the estate action programme—roughly the same as the new deal for communities. Yet conditions were so bad during that programme in the mid to late-1990s that I had to write my first ever class complaint to the local authority ombudsman on behalf of the residents, who were put through a living hell as a result of bad building management.
  A bricks-and-mortar solution to regeneration failed to tackle the need for community participation and social and economic regeneration. We needed to provide proper youth facilities and to get the people who live on the estate into work. A little has been done, and very welcome it is. Many people have worked hard to turn the estate around, but it was structurally badly managed from the beginning, and it is a good example of a scheme that failed.
  A great deal has been achieved in urban regeneration, but we are not yet able to say that inner-city living is an attractive option, particularly for low-income households. There is a great deal to do. We need to back regeneration funding by tackling the housing crisis. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that she can during the comprehensive spending review to make a case for investment in London's housing. If that housing is chronically overcrowded, all the investment in the world to improve the physical condition of the stock will not make those houses desirable and attractive places to live.
  London faces complex labour market issues, which were addressed in yesterday's debates on the Tax Credits Bill, and I shall address the same points in an Adjournment debate next week. Alongside London's economic success and dynamic growth there are serious problems of poverty and unemployment. There is also a mismatch between the jobs available and the skills of the people who live in London. Several anti-poverty measures, such as those in the Tax Credits Bill, are not yet reaching London's poorest and most deprived communities. We must understand why that is so and hone our policies to help London's unemployed.
  Many of the schemes to which I have referred are excellent. They are doing good and valuable work, but they are too small. I would happily double the number of regeneration schemes in my constituency and the investment that they are bringing. The bid-driven nature of those programmes can involve people too much in the paperwork of writing and monitoring bids. There is a need to streamline some bids.
  Local councils have a critical role. Many are doing marvellous work across London, on their own and in partnership, including partnership with the private sector. That is not always the case, however. In Westminster, despite improvements over the past year or two, there has been a failure properly to engage in urban regeneration, in spite of huge poverty and need in the borough. Even now, when negotiations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are continuing for the Paddington basin, there are problems with the priority list. The refurbishment of a public toilet in Little Venice has been placed ahead of investment in a youth project in Queen's Park, one of the most deprived and poorly served wards in the whole of London.
  Local councils need both to be given their heads and watched carefully by the Government office for London to ensure that authorities such as Westminster are
  1174
  seriously behind urban regeneration. I wish the Minister well in her negotiations over the comprehensive spending review. We could all do with a little more investment along the lines of that which has already come.
  10.48 am
  Tom Brake: I welcome the debate, and I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) about the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley). It was an excellent speech in difficult circumstances, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making it. I urge his Whips to go easy on him over the coming weeks. That might give him the chance, for instance, to speak out against the public-private partnership. However, that will be up to him.
  The hon. Gentleman managed to convince me that Brent has improved slightly, but he did not convince me that it is the best council in London, as that is, of course, the Liberal Democrat-controlled London borough of Sutton. I congratulate him, none the less, on the fact that he did not make a partisan speech and did not criticise Ken Livingstone. It was an entirely apolitical speech, and that is welcome.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman has just extolled the virtues of his Liberal Democrat-controlled council, but does he agree that the Liberal Democrats' commitment to tackling deprivation in our cities is shown by the number of Liberal Democrat Members who are in the Chamber?
  Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues are touring the most disadvantaged areas of their constituencies as this moment.
  I thank the Urban Forum, Groundwork, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Country Land and Business Association and the London borough of Sutton for their assistance in providing briefings for the debate. Reference to those organisations will, I hope, take away the partisan aspect of the debate, because they are actively involved on the front line in delivering regeneration. I will be inviting the Minister to respond to their comments.
  Clearly, regeneration is not just about bricks and mortar but covers a range of areas: policing, access to good health services, housing and policies to tackle graffiti and to deal with abandoned cars, as well as regeneration policies. There is some optimism and there have been some success stories. The Minister and hon. Members have referred to those and I welcome them, but there are also some threats.
  The Government's Green Paper on planning is perhaps one of those threats. There are proposals to abolish urban development plans. I am not sure how that will contribute to involving local communities actively in regeneration schemes. New business zones are being introduced that do not need planning consent, but I am not convinced that that is the best way to involve local communities in regeneration. Some of the organisations to which I have referred believe that one of the key problems is that it is difficult to get local communities involved in schemes such as the new deal for communities, and that there is still too great an emphasis on professionals or the local authority running schemes. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point in her winding-up speech.

  1175
  I do not think any other Member has referred to regeneration in the rural environment. The concern of the Country Land and Business Association is that many rural communities have been badly hit by foot and mouth. There is perhaps a need to prop up many of the rural services on which those communities depend. The association provided some interesting figures:78 per cent. of rural settlements do not have a general store, 72 per cent. do not have a small village shop and 53 per cent. are without a public house. Clearly the Government need to assist the process of ensuring the long-term viability of rural services and post offices.
  Affordable housing is another of the association's key concerns. That is also an issue in the rural environment—hon. Members have already referred to it in the context of the urban environment, particularly London. According to the Countryside Agency, there is a growing problem of rural homelessness and insufficient affordable housing. The Government need to work with local authorities, private business and other providers to ensure that there is sufficient affordable housing in rural areas.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson rose—
  Tom Brake: I give way for what I am sure will be another constructive intervention.
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman talks about rural society and rural problems. Does he agree that rural crime is one of the big issues?
  Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was entirely constructive. As I said earlier, policing is a critical issue and although it does not have a direct impact on regenerating a particular area, we need to be aware of and to make constructive proposals about local communities' fear of crime.
  The Urban Forum, which is an umbrella body for community and voluntary groups that have an interest in urban and regional policy and which was established in 1994, expresses concern, echoing comments by hon. Members, that Government programmes are on occasions so targeted that they exclude groups that are not geographically centred in a particular area: for example, people with disabilities and members of the black and ethnic minority communities, who are then unable to access funds. Because the targeting is so area-focused, it may end up assisting people who are less disadvantaged than people immediately outside that particular area. The Urban Forum has suggested that the focus on a very specific small area perhaps contributed to the problems last year with riots, where one community could look at another across the street, see that very large sums of money had been invested in that community but that nothing had spread literally across the road to their community. Targeting needs to be more sophisticated.
  Some of the measures that the Government have put in place—for example, tax credits—can help, although the Urban Forum is concerned that the system is complex and that the interpretation of the rules varies from place to place, making it perhaps not as helpful as it could be to people on lower incomes and to disadvantaged areas.
  The Government must ensure that the assessment of the viability of projects is conducted thoroughly before they or organisations such as the Housing Corporation agree to
  1176
  fund certain schemes. I am sure that other hon. Members will have seen the Heriot-Watt report, which talks about literally millions of pounds being spent since 1998, so it is not something that happened under a Conservative Administration. I am surprised that no Member has yet referred to this. Over the past four years, the Housing Corporation has built 10,000 affordable homes for people on low incomes, mainly in the north, but either those homes are empty or the tenants want to move out.
  If there are limited funds, let us at least ensure that the money is spent in the right place and that homes are not being built that are not needed. An article on the report refers to the 20,000 to 30,000 houses that are needed in London to meet demand from key workers. I represent a London constituency, and many social workers and teachers have been to see me about the enormous difficulties they face in finding accommodation in and around the London borough of Sutton.
  There are very few affordable homes. Under criteria for being able to access affordable homes, people are required to earn a certain income, which often they do not earn even though they are in work. I am sure that the Minister has studied the Heriot-Watt report. I hope she will say what the Government intend to do to ensure that what money is available is spent well and provides homes and regeneration projects that are successful.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that report. Does he agree that the real scandal is that the Housing Corporation had adequate evidence that the homes were not going to be wanted, yet it still carried on funding them?
  Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is clear from the article on the report that in the area where homes were built, there was already a large number of empty homes. Had the Housing Corporation looked around the surrounding area, it could probably have easily deduced that the homes were not going to be used and would remain empty. That is a crucial point, to which I hope the Minister will respond. We need to ensure that there is effective assessment of the viability of projects before they proceed.
  We also need more community involvement. A report by Cambridge university—I understand that it is available on the DTLR website—assessed the success, or otherwise, of single regeneration budget projects. It clearly demonstrates the link between the degree of local community involvement in SRBs and the benefit that communities feel they have derived from such projects. In the view of the Urban Forum, even more community involvement is needed. As a counterpoint, perhaps there should be less Government involvement, or at least less controlling, centralising influence over the projects.
  The Urban Forum raised the key issue of the provision of support for voluntary groups in deprived or disadvantaged areas. I am sure that hon. Members who have an active council for voluntary service in their constituency will concur with the view of the forum that where there is an active CVS—in my case, the Sutton CVS—which has core funding, ensuring continued voluntary support for voluntary and community groups year after year after year, there is much greater involvement in and activity to assist with regeneration projects.
  Ms Shipley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that charities can also make a contribution? In my

  1177
  constituency, Barnardos has a long-term commitment to a wheels project for young men, so that they can make cars from scratch and race them. Those young men are known as the wall group, because they used to sit on walls with nothing to do, but now they are busy as part of the community.
  Tom Brake: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. Charities do have a major role, and they can benefit from the assistance provided by organisations such as the CVS.
  Many people sit on community boards as volunteers, and the Urban Forum suggested that consideration should be given to paying them an honorarium, given the time commitment. Obviously, if people were unemployed or on benefit, that would have to be addressed, but some financial assistance might encourage people to make the necessary time commitment.
  The Centre for Local Economic Strategies serves a network of local authorities, regional development agencies, partnerships and other organisations. The centre's view of the new deal for local communities is that it is not working too well. For example, in the Braunstone project in Leicestershire there seemed to be acrimony between the local community and the professionals. It is possible that the local community was not sufficiently involved—the project was top-down rather than bottom-up. Furthermore, the CLES found that the projects themselves were not imaginative enough—a point echoed by the Urban Forum.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to the plethora of initiatives. That was not a partisan point; it was a large list. The hon. Gentleman did not read all the names, but the list included the Millennium Commission, the new opportunities fund, green spaces and heritage organisations, Sport England and so on. I am sure that there are many more bodies on the list.
  The hon. Gentleman's point was not partisan. Small organisations trying to bid for funds do not have the necessary skills and do not know what funding is available so they are not as well able to access funds as bigger organisations such as local authorities which have staff who are experienced in putting bids together. The very people whom the Government presumably want to access those funds are unable to do so, owing to the complexity of the process. We want the establishment of a one-stop shop organisation so that funds could be accessed without dealing with a variety of bodies.
  The CLES felt that the single regeneration projects had worked well and that they had matured to such an extent that the bidding organisations knew what was expected and how to go about the process. The CLES was sorry that the projects were coming to an end.
  I do not want to exaggerate the problems that we face in the London borough of Sutton. Statistics occasionally show that Sutton is the most affluent borough in London, although I think that may be incorrect and that Richmond might be more affluent. Sutton does not have problems on the scale that I attempted to address as a councillor in Hackney in the early 1990s. I regret that during the 12 years that have passed since then those problems do not yet seem to have been tackled.
  None the less, Sutton has problems. One of the major difficulties is that so many of the schemes are narrowly targeted and miss out pockets of deprivation in a relatively
  1178
  affluent area. Durand Close offers a good example. The council carried out some research on the estate in the 1990s; I doubt that the housing stock has changed much since then. It is the only estate in the borough with large four or five-bedroom properties where the council can house large families. During the 1990s, the estate had the highest child density in the south-east, with many single-parent families. It needs regeneration, but of course Sutton appears nowhere on any of the requisite indices. The local authority cannot provide the funds needed to meet the requests of local residents that the estate should be demolished and rebuilt.
  The Minister did not say how the Government would make the targeting system more flexible so that pockets of deprivation are not missed out. I hope that she can address that point when she sums up the debate.
  We were successful in our SRB bid for the Roundshaw regeneration project—the second-largest such project in London—which will be finished in a couple of years. There is one concern, however. As the funds are time-limited and all the money has to be spent by the end of the seven-year period, the local community feels driven by a timetable that is not of its choosing or making.
  By comparison, the Durand Close project has an advantage because there is no timetable. If funding is awarded, it will be made available progressively over a longer period so the community will be able to work to a timetable over which it has a certain degree of control.
  It is clear from the comments of hon. Members that a simple bricks-and-mortar approach will not offer a solution. The Heriot-Watt report confirms that. Reference has been made to policies that could address the problems. We need a single regeneration grant system to get rid of that plethora of pots of money. Organisations that lack the administration to tap into the funds could then apply through a single point of contact.
  As other hon. Members have said, there is a need to boost the level of policing in rural and urban areas, to address the fear of crime, which clearly has a significant, and disproportionate, impact on disadvantaged communities. Proposals such as a community safe force that would involve traffic wardens and estate and other park attendants could play a role. We would support the idea of a "safer front doors for all" initiative, which would ensure that people—[Interruption.]If the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) will wait, I will tell him. Such an initiative would mean that people who lived in communities that were subject to high crime levels could at least ensure they were safe in their own home. There are other proposals such as promoting local exchange trading system schemes, and ensuring that in unemployment black spots funds are transferred to a much more local level, from the Government's equal opportunities fund to finance local initiatives.
  As I said at the start of my speech, there is a degree of optimism out there, but the patchwork quilt of regeneration budgets, which has created confusion and red tape, is not helpful. It needs to be streamlined and made more flexible, so that the pockets of deprivation, in rural or urban areas, that are currently excluded from bidding for funds may have much greater access to them.
  11.11 am
  Ms Debra Shipley: I welcome today's debate. There can be no more compelling issue for a Labour Government than the regeneration of

  1179
  disadvantaged areas and there is a moral imperative to tackle the problems that our people in disadvantaged areas face in their day-to-day lives. Whole communities throughout Britain are in desperate need of regeneration. Housing, education, health, infrastructure and policing are all major components that have to be drawn together for regeneration to be achieved in the first instance and subsequently sustained.
  Whole communities have been neglected for decades. In my west midlands constituency, the urban village of Lye has been blighted by the demise of manufacturing. Many traditional metal-bashing jobs, where son would follow father into the local factory, have been lost. Schools have crumbled, starved of cash and resources. Under-invested health and social services have struggled valiantly to deal with a host of problems. The infrastructure has gradually decayed, but the people have remained. The soul of the community is alive and well; Lye is still a viable urban village, and potentially a proud one.
  Many of Lye's families have lived in the area for generations. The Cartwrights, the Partridges, the Newtons and the Hindleys have names that date from the industrial revolution, when the air of Lye was thick with fumes and the sky was darkened with smoke. It is a hard-working community and it has a vision for itself that I believe will surprise the House—a vision of a place of excellence in the very heart of Britain.
  The people of Lye have decided that their urban village will be regenerated in a very modern way. They have rejected initial council plans for extensive housing development on brownfield sites; instead they have formed a community action group called LARA—the Lye Area Regeneration Alliance. It includes local churches, the mosque, the allotment association—many members have tended those plots for 50 years—and local children, who want to know, quite reasonably, why there are no trees where they live. It also includes plenty of individuals who are determined to improve their surroundings.
  LARA is unusual in that its vision is big and it is special. Yes, its members want to see more housing, but they also want to create a place of modern architectural excellence. They want to construct a set of community buildings that will, in their words, be a "flagship for the future", not just for Lye, not just for the industrial black country and the west midlands, but for Britain. They want their new buildings to bring hope back to an area that has been neglected and blighted and they want to do it with modern architecture of the highest possible quality. As one local woman, Carol Partridge, said, "Why can't we have the best?"
  Under the LARA community vision, its members' children will have a way to reach out to Britain as a whole. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a very big vision, and a brave one. We in Westminster should salute it, because it will undoubtedly be a long, hard road to achieve such a landmark project.
  People in Lye desperately need the investment that, as the Minister pointed out, has been denied them for decades under Conservative Governments. Moreover, they will need to be backed by an equal amount of political willpower; I wonder whether it actually exists.
  The Government have said that they will champion good design in building. A Minister in every Department has been made *a design champion. We now have a
  1180
  ministerial design champion for health, education and so on. But with the best will in the world, can a busy Health Minister tackling myriad national health service problems really be expected to be a true champion of construction? Would such a Minister, indeed, have the expertise to read complicated plans or understand detailed specifications? Are Departments equipped to facilitate the championing of good design? I would suggest that the answer is no, and perhaps I may demonstrate why I think so.
  As joint chair of the parliamentary planning and architecture group, I was interested to discover how many new schools had been built since 1997 and what would be built in the next couple of years. I was planning—there was nothing sinister in it—to visit schools that had recently been built and to keep an eye on the new ones that were built. I therefore tabled a parliamentary question about that. I was pretty surprised to receive from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), a written answer to say:
  "We do not hold the information in the form requested."
  All that I had asked for was a list of the new schools. I was told:
  "It is for local education authorities to determine the need for additional school places in the maintained sector and, where necessary, to build or support the provision of new schools. The Department makes available capital funding for new school places; many of these are provided in existing schools."—[Official Report, 4 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 720W.]
  Well, if the Education Minister who is entrusted with delivering design excellence in new school construction cannot even locate the new schools that have been built in the past few years and has no idea where they will be built in the next few years, I fail to see how the Government can hope to ensure that design and construction is of the highest quality.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I share the hon. Lady's frustration with the answers given by the Department for Education and Skills about new schools. I have tried the same questions myself and received a similar response. What I have been able to establish is that, under the provisions of the Education Bill, there is an opportunity for new schools to be set up by new promoters. In her response to me the Secretary of State said that no more than 10 schools a year might be built.
  Ms Shipley: The hon. Gentleman makes a supportive point to mine about trying to obtain information on new schools, but I believe that our Government should be proud that we are building schools and that we are investing—massively, as I shall show—in school buildings. It was the Conservative party, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, that left our built education structures—schools, classrooms and the playgrounds that our children play on—in an absolutely disgraceful state. Throughout my constituency, children were literally falling over in playgrounds where the tarmac was crumbling over on itself. They were in schools where the temporary buildings were disintegrating and were damp. These are gradually being replaced by the Labour Government, but in order to reach design excellence there needs to be a much greater awareness of what that is and what is going on. Good enough is not good enough.
  The Government are to be congratulated on establishing the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. CABE could point the Minister in the right

  1181
  direction for school buildings, because it seems to have sniffed out quite a few of them. There seems to be a particular problem with the PFI-funded school buildings initiative. According to a recent report in the journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, some 500 schools have now
  "experienced life under the initiative from total rebuild to minor refurbishment"
  and, apparently, the
  "government has invested a further £1.2 billion in 43 further projects which are currently at planning or procurement stage."
  The good thing is that, at last, money is being invested in schools after years of under-investment by the Conservative party. The bad news is that the opportunity to produce buildings of architectural excellence is being squandered. According to CABE's commissioner, Richard Fielden,
  "mediocrity is closer to the norm".
  It is a sad waste that communities that desperately need their schools to be replaced or refurbished are receiving buildings that, although adequate, are far from life enhancing.
  In disadvantaged areas, schools may well he the only public buildings and, as such, are the community focus, but instead of a new construction providing a much-needed catalyst for rejuvenation, they are merely good enough. They are better than that which they replace, but far from good enough to enhance young lives.The Architects' Journal suggests that the Department for Education and Skills is addressing certain aspects of school-building design, but I contend that a Department that, only last week, could not supply a simple list of new schools will struggle in its task to champion design excellence in the built environment.
  So what is good design? I emphasise that I am not talking about personal aesthetic taste. CABE has produced some worthwhile guidelines for good school design. To design-conscious people most of the points are extraordinarily obvious, but the truly shocking thing is that most new building work fails to address some basic principles. Those principles include, first, good, clear organisation with an easily legible plan and full accessibility; secondly, spaces that are well proportioned, efficient and fit their purposes; thirdly, circulation that is well organised and generous; fourthly, appropriate levels of natural light and ventilation; fifthly, attractiveness in design to inspire pupils, staff and parents; sixthly, good use of site; seventhly, attractive external spaces with appropriate security; eighthly, a lay-out that encourages community access and facilitates use out of school hours; ninthly, robust materials, which weather and wear well; and tenthly, scope for future adaptation. Finally—this is hugely important—the building should transcend the sum of those parts to produce genuine delight for all who use it and a sense of lasting quality.
  I make a plea for environmentally sensitive construction. As I have already said, some £1.2 billion-worth of school building projects are at the planning and procurement stages. In addition, billions of pounds will go into the construction of new hospitals and housing in the next few years. That represents massive buying power, and I urge the Government to decide to require high environmental standards as part of all new
  1182
  building works specifications. The combined political pressures and financial considerations could be galvanised to ensure the mass production of energy-efficient devices, which would, in turn, drive down unit costs.
  The Government should use their massive spending power to stimulate and support a rigorous environmental strategy. It is, frankly, scandalous that new buildings are constructed that do not utilise the best practices available to reduce energy consumption. Moreover, deprived areas surely deserve the best in terms of energy efficiency. I very much welcome the Government's fuel poverty strategy. Because of poor building insulation and inefficient heating systems, many people in Britain, particularly in disadvantaged areas, cannot afford to keep their homes warm in winter, so I am very pleased that the Government are working hard to upgrade existing housing stock.
  Much stronger legislation is needed to require new buildings to be low in fuel consumption and high in insulation values. I am aware that guidelines on that matter exist, but I suggest that requirements would be more appropriate to create a level playing field. I should like the Government to commit themselves to requiring new houses, hospitals, schools and other buildings to reach the highest standards of insulation and to use alternative power sources. That would enable the Government to take a massive step towards meeting their welcome and well-meant environmental targets.
  To conclude, this really is a vision thing. Could Ministers, perhaps led by the Prime Minister—the issue is as serious as that—envisage the rejuvenation of the disadvantaged urban village of Lye to the point where it becomes a centre of excellence in design and environmental standards? Could our disadvantaged areas become places of national pride, civic pride and local pride? In fact, the money is already being made available; the need is very obvious, so it is surely now a matter of political will power.
  11.25 am
  Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) in the debate. I nearly called her the hon. Member for Shipley. She speaks with much knowledge and experience, especially of art and architecture. I took the opportunity of reading "Dod's" while she was finishing her speech, and I see that she not only has a postgraduate degree in architectural history, but is the author of 17 books, several of which are on architecture.
  It is not good enough just to regenerate and provide help for the disadvantaged areas of Britain; we must find ways to do so in a decently designed environment. One of the great errors of the 1960s and 1970s was that huge tower blocks were thrown up. They were quite ghastly and horrible places in which to live. That creates some of the disadvantages that we now see in some areas, so I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what the hon. Lady said about design in the inner cities.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Lady talk about Lye. In my constituency, there is a place the name of which is pronounced in the same way, but it is spelt Lea. It is probably the leafiest area in England. It is a tiny hamlet in the middle of the countryside, surrounded entirely by trees, so hon. Members may think that it would be difficult for someone from a constituency such as mine to

  1183
  imagine the situation in Lye, which the hon. Lady described. As I shall explain in a moment, there are definitely areas of deprivation even in a leafy area such as North Wiltshire, as well as in more obviously disadvantaged areas, such as her constituency.
  Hon. Members have already asked whether we should adopt what many describe as the bricks-and-mortar approach to the disadvantaged areas of Britain, or whether there should be a much broader approach to correcting deprivation. Of course, the latter approach must be the right one to take. We must consider crime, traffic, education and health. All those are vital, and there is no point in having a regeneration strategy unless due account is taken of those difficult problems. But I fear that I shall fall into the traditional trap and address myself only to the bricks-and-mortar approach because, as the hon. Lady said, if we do not get that approach right, it is no good putting the other things in place. Hon. Members will expand on those other areas in a moment.
  I should like to think from scratch for a second. The problem with planning and regeneration over the years has been that we have not paid attention to the obvious and basic physical fact that we are 55 million people living on an extraordinarily small island. We do not have the advantages of America, for example, where planning restrictions are lax and people can build and regenerate as much as they like. We cannot do that; we are incredibly short of space, especially in the south-east and south-west of England, although perhaps less so in the north. Our planning policies in the post-war years have resulted in some of the worst areas being in the north of England, as well as in the south.
  The key to regeneration, not only in our inner cities but in the suburbs and rural areas, is to realise that, given the an ever-increasing population—55 million, but growing—and, more importantly, an ever-increasing number of households, we need to find a way for those people to live in the style to which they wish to become accustomed or to which they are accustomed already. They will often live in more densely populated inner cities than has traditionally been the case. We need to provide them with the sort of infrastructure, educational facilities and so on that we now all have a right to expect.
  In the past 20 or 30 years, a curious mindset among town planners has prevented the regeneration and the high-density building in the inner cities that we all demand. That results from the fact that the British people seem to believe that the ideal place in which to live is a cul-de-sac. For many years, town planners have drawn their street plans and dotted the houses around the streets. The streets are therefore entirely dominated by the motor car.
  In the Prince of Wales's interesting development in Dorset, that approach has been turned on its head. He has put all the houses along the streets, with facilities for the cars behind the houses. Mixed in with the houses are schools, shops, factories, churches and the rest of it. To some degree, the development has replicated the excellent model of an English village, which has a variety of different houses. There are big and small houses for rich and poor people altogether in one place. The car is not given priority; it is relegated to other places. Rather than creating more and more suburbs that consist entirely of cul-de-sacs with houses dotted round them, we should perhaps adopt the approach that the Prince of Wales's planning gurus have promoted over the years.
  1184
  If we adopted such an approach, we would create a mixed environment in which the young, single mothers and the elderly would be able to do what they often want, which is to live in small flats on the same level as the shops. We cannot do that at present, because our planners have traditionally expected us to leave the inner cities and to move to the suburbs and to bigger and bigger houses that we might not need. Planners do not provide the accommodation that we need in town centres.
  The approach taken in this country stands in sharp contrast to what occurs in many European cities, such as Paris. The more prosperous people move into the centre of Paris. Strangely, the outer suburbs are the poorer areas while the centre of Paris is the richest part of the city. In Britain, the opposite is the case.
  The figures tell us starkly what has occurred. In 1951, 19.3 million people lived in conurbations, but the figure has gone down to 17.3 million today. By contrast, the number living in out-of-town areas—in the south, in particular—has gone up from 3.4 million in 1951 to 4.8 million today. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions acknowledged that when it said that migration flows have
  "principally … been down the urban hierarchy"—
  as it rather patronisingly calls it—
  "from the bigger urban areas to the suburbs, the smaller urban areas and the shire towns and rural areas".
  We are progressively allowing our people to move from the inner cities. One of the first messages that we should learn from the debate is that we should seek a way of reversing that trend if we are to save areas, such as mine, from extensive rebuilding and extensive use of greenfield sites. If we are to provide the housing that people want, we must find a way of building it in the centre of towns.
  Lord Rogers clearly sent that message and one of the great disappointments of the Labour Government is that, having appointed him to produce a first-class report with about 130 recommendations, they have—principally, I suspect, because of the Treasury—decided that they are unable to implement his proposals. Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions might argue passionately in favour of Lord Rogers' proposals in Cabinet Committees, but they are constrained by their colleagues in the Treasury. We must consider Lord Rogers' views and seek to create his image of an urban renaissance in the nation.
  We should be extraordinarily worried by the destruction of greenfield sites. North Wiltshire is already suffering from Labour's regional house building policy, which means that an estimated 1.5 million buildings will be constructed on greenfield sites during the next 20 years. To put that figure into context, that is the equivalent of building 40 towns the size of Slough. I would not be as unkind as Mr. Betjeman in calling for friendly bombs to fall on Slough. However, if 40 Sloughs were replicated across the nation, friendly bombs might have a role to play.
  As the hon. Lady said, we face the problems of declining schools, closing shops, rising crime and wrecked cars on the streets. We should be concerned about such problems, which form the centre of this debate. I have already mentioned the Prince of Wales's development at Poundbury in Dorset. It is an exemplar that we should follow. We must find a way of rehousing

  1185
  our young and elderly people in cities as much as possible. That is the first lesson that we must learn from this debate.
  Docklands was mentioned earlier, but the Barbican was the first such development after the war. Different kinds of housing with the appropriate infrastructure were built on a huge bomb site. The windy corridors of the Barbican are perhaps an example of how not to solve the problem, but a good attempt was made to do so.
  Another such development is likely to take place shortly and I should declare an interest in that my flat overlooks the area. I hope that the Government will act shortly to remove the ghastly Government buildings in the three huge tower blocks in Marsham street and replace them with something that can be considered best practice. It should be a mixed development with different kinds of housing, shops and business. We should try to use the development in Marsham street to show what can be done to regenerate a pretty scruffy area. The buildings have been vacant since I was a special adviser there seven years ago, but I hope that the Government will move quickly to get rid of those ghastly excrescences on the landscape and that they will construct something that will act as an exemplar for the rest of the nation.
  I accept that there are problems with the approach that I have outlined and I wish to touch on a couple of them. In many inner cities and deprived areas, there is a pattern of diffuse ownership. We do not know who owns the properties. One individual may own one patch of a site and someone else may own other bits. I therefore hope that the Government will consider changing the arrangements for compulsory purchase orders so that we can find a way of bringing land together and creating a worthwhile scheme as a result.
  VAT on housing constructed on the derelict areas of inner cities has been mentioned and it is an important point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that he intends to act. If he can bring the rate of VAT for such housing down to at least 5 per cent. and if he can persuade his colleagues in the European Union to do what he has not so far allowed them to do—which is to bring the rate down to zero—that would be great. It is bizarre that our Chancellor can put the rate of VAT on a particular good or service up but, if he wishes to abolish it, he cannot do so. That is a strange aspect of European law, but he should be ready to bring the rate of VAT on regeneration projects down to zero.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend describes the situation as bizarre. It is particularly bizarre since the VAT rate for such schemes in most European countries is in single figures. This country faces a peculiar anomaly.
  Mr. Gray: Indeed, we face a strange anomaly. I hope that the Government will address the issue.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which Chancellor raised the rate of VAT in this country from 15 to 17.5 per cent? That happened after the rate had been raised from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. in 1979. Will the hon. Gentleman remind us who did that?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the thrust of my remarks. I was not talking
  1186
  about the rate of VAT, but he is right to suggest that we raised it to 17.5 per cent. He will recall that we did that to do away with the poll tax. Perhaps he would prefer the poll tax still to be in existence and VAT to be at 15 per cent. My remarks had nothing to do with the level of VAT. I was referring to the differential in the rate of VAT for rebuilding on inner-city sites and for brand-new building on greenfield sites. That differential has remarkably unfortunate effects on planning decisions.
  I know that my hon. Friends will focus on other issues, but I should like briefly to focus on the problem of housing. If we can get the bricks and mortar right, we can get the rest right. The Labour party has been bold in its comments about what it will do for housing. When I was a special adviser to a Minister with responsibility for housing, we were constantly placed under pressure because people said that we were not building enough council houses. Shelter and others shouted at us, and Labour Members spent much time telling us how disgraceful our housing policy was.
  However, the House will recall that, between 1993 and 1996, we built precisely 150,600 new social dwellings. In the equivalent three years between 1997 and 2000, the Labour Government have built 95,500 new social dwellings. Their provision of social housing has fallen by 37 per cent. compared with ours, but they said that the figure that we achieved was lamentably low. If that is their view, they must put their money where their mouth is.
  We have housing problems throughout the nation. People with homelessness problems come to my surgery all the time. The Government are not building new housing. They say they are doing all sorts of things and they blame us for the problems. The truth is that we have a significant homelessness problem and the Government are doing nothing to address it.
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman may be about to tell us what the Government are doing about it.
  Mr. Harris: I am delighted that the Conservative party has suddenly discovered the value of social housing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have a major problem with council house stocks because his Government sold off so many council houses and refused to allow local councils to use the receipts to build new ones?
  Mr. Gray: The country will note that the hon. Gentleman opposes the right to buy. Some 2.5 million families now live in a house that they own. Previously, they would have been tenants of pretty useless landlords in Labour local authorities. They will have heard what he said and will be thankful to the Conservative Government for allowing them to determine their own future.
  Ms Oona King: Although everyone would agree that it is proper that people, and low-income families in particular, have the right to buy their houses, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should move towards the equity-based approach that the Government are trying to introduce? Although 3,000 new houses were built in London last year, 11,000 were sold off through the right to buy.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady makes my point for me. It is a disgrace that the Government are building so few new houses. She is right and must address her remarks to her Front-Bench spokesmen. We cannot understand the situation. In our years in government we built countless new social housing units, but her Government are failing to do so.
  Tom Brake rose—
  Mr. Gray: I have taken enough interventions. Labour Members do not seem to understand that they are not building sufficient social housing.
  The Labour party is also failing badly with regard to empty council houses. All the time that we were in power, we were under attack by Labour Members who said that it was scandalous that so many council houses were empty. The fact is that when they came to power, there were 81,200 empty council houses in England. In April 2000, there were 87,186 empty council houses. The figure has increased enormously. One has only to glance at the political control of the local authorities where those empty homes are to discover that in Conservative-controlled councils 1.5 per cent. of the stock is vacant and in Liberal Democrat-controlled councils, to do them a favour, 1.9 per cent. is vacant. Labour-controlled councils, however, have 2.7 per cent. management vacant, as they are called. I suspect that the local authority that covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), Tower Hamlets, is one of the worst offenders.
  Mr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray:I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has intervened twice, neither time with much effect.
  Ms Oona King rose—
  Mr. Gray: I shall give way to the hon. Lady as I mentioned her constituency.
  Ms King: To put the record straight, Tower Hamlets has one of the lowest voids of properties in London.
  Mr. Gray: I accept the correction, and no doubt we can look at the figures later on. It is true, however, that Labour authorities across the nation, perhaps partly because of the type of authority that they are—
  Mr. Harris rose—
  Mr. Gray: Oh, all right.
  Mr. Harris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of Labour local authorities. Does he think that they could learn from the example of Dame Shirley Porter?
  Mr. Gray: That is the hon. Gentleman's third intervention. He seems to think that this is a party political debate. I do not think that it is. We must find a way to accommodate 55 million people in this small island of ours in the most satisfactory way. To make constant party political points reduces the level of debate unnecessarily.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps I can bring the debate back to a more sensible level. My hon. Friend will know
  1188
  that we introduced large-scale voluntary transfers, a policy that this Government have continued. Is he aware of the Library figures? They state that between 1998 and 1999, the stock transfer of 400,000 council houses has resulted in £5.9 billion of private investment being levered into the housing sector. Despite that huge amount of money, the Government have managed to build fewer social housing units than we did.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The excellent Westlea housing association in North Wiltshire is a key example of what can happen when we transfer housing from bad local government landlords into the hands of true housing professionals. That was a great triumph of the Conservative Government.
  We have mainly talked about inner cities, but rural areas also have problems. It is easy for people to look at North Wiltshire and think that we have it easy. They see it as full of millionaires and people who live in leafy suburbs. It is easy for them to think that people there are lucky and that people in inner-city areas are disadvantaged. Labour Members would be surprised by the cases that come into my surgery in Chippenham. They often involve problems with housing and benefits. Although we do not have as much overall deprivation, our individual cases of deprivation are as severe.
  Ms Shipley: Will the hon. Gentleman take if from me that Labour—myself excluded, because I represent an urban constituency—is well represented by MPs for rural constituencies? I believe that we represent more rural constituencies than the Conservatives and my hon. Friends have held their seats through two general elections because their constituents know what it is like to be under a Conservative Government. It is our rural MPs who are fighting to regenerate those rural areas that the Conservative party failed so badly.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady may well be right about constituency representation. I invite Labour Members who claim to represent rural constituencies to put their hands up, because there are not an awful lot of them. Remarkably few Labour Members of Parliament truly represent rural seats. For example, on the list of so-called rural seats are my neighbouring constituencies of North Swindon and South Swindon. No one who really knows about the countryside would describe them as rural. However, Labour does represent some rural constituencies in the north of England. I welcome the fact that her hon. Friends who represent them are ready to argue the case on behalf of rural deprivation just as much as her urban colleagues are prepared to argue the case on behalf of urban deprivation. Rural deprivation is just as bad in many ways.
  We know about agriculture. Tourism in my area was decimated by foot and mouth disease. As I mentioned in Prime Minister's Question Time this week, Malmesbury, which is a Cotswold town that one would think was in a prosperous area, has been decimated. Lucent Technologies has closed, with 150 jobs being laid off just before Christmas. In addition, Mr. Dyson laid off 180 at Christmas and has announced that 820 more jobs are to go because he is moving his manufacturing base to the far east. Some 1,200 to 1,500 jobs have gone in the past few months in a town with a population of 4,500. I hope that we find ways to avoid the worst effects of that, but I

  1189
  anticipate a significant level of poverty and difficulty in the town, which on the face of it seems an extremely pleasant place to live.
  That problem is compounded by something that the Government can put right, but they are taking a lamentably long time to do so. We heard how the standard spending assessment grant in London has been reduced by £100 million, but the grant in the rural shire areas has been reduced by £300 million. North Wiltshire spends £2,500 per secondary pupil per year. The neighbouring county of Berkshire and a similar county such as Kent spend about £3,500 per pupil per year. In inner London, about £5,000 is spent per pupil per year. Although those figures are indicative rather than accurate, about twice as much is spent on educating children in central London than is spent in North Wiltshire.
  The SSA system is badly skewed. It needs to be put right. The Government have said that they will do that, but the review is taking a long time. When it is complete, I hope that they will find ways to take funds back from some of the areas that do not need them, in the inner cities and elsewhere, and return them to the shire counties that have been so badly treated for such a long time.
  My hon. Friends will have things to say about the fragmented nature of what the Labour party is trying to do with regard to the inner cities and funding, which is very low. After four years of a Government who came to power with such great claims that they would put right the wrongs and the ills of the inner cities, it is disappointing to see the figures that demonstrate that things are significantly worse since then. I say, "Come back, the Conservative Government. All is forgiven. What you did in the inner cities was a great deal better than what this lot are doing." All Labour Members are good at is initiatives and spin, and targets and bragging. The only regeneration that our inner cities have seen was in the 18 years when we were in power.
  11.49 am
  Mr. Iain Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I shall talk briefly about a major Government-funded regeneration scheme in my constituency, which is in year 1 of its 10-year programme, and discuss briefly the issue of regeneration for London.
  The regeneration scheme that I want to talk about is one of the 39 new deal for communities projects located in various areas of the country. The NDC for north Fulham is home to a population of 8,000. It lies in the west of the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and has 4,000 households, which are predominantly in social housing. As for the exact geographical location, the area is bounded by the nice, discreet and posh Queens tennis club, Barons Court underground station to the west, Earl's Court to the east, Talgarth road to the north and Fulham broadway to the south.
  The area has five quite large housing estates, which were built between 1912 and 1977. Housing tenure in the area is 67 per cent. social housing, 13 per cent. privately rented and 19 per cent. owner occupied, and the average price of a two-bedroom flat or maisonette is £190,000.
  1190
  That compares with a borough average of £206,000 and a rate of owner occupation of 43 per cent. Much to my regret, the area has been in long-term decline and the rate of unemployment is well over 10 per cent. Twelve per cent. of households have an annual income of less than £5,000, and 25 per cent. of households have an annual income of under £10,000.
  I am talking about a highly mixed area, much like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), where high levels of poverty and deprivation mix somewhat uneasily with wealth and significant affluence. By itself, that brings particular problems that are complex and difficult to manage. Thirty-five per cent. of households in the area have an income of over £25,000 a year, and many have a great deal more than that. That distorts the average income in the NDC area to one of £23,000 per annum per household, which is obviously well above the regional and national average.
  Nearly 15 per cent. of the families living in the area are headed by single parents. The area has a significant non-white population, well above the Greater London and national average. Eighteen per cent. of the population have English as a second language, of whom 15 per cent. have no or very little English. Educational attainment in the area is significantly below the borough and the regional average. Interestingly, while at key stages 1 and 2 attainment is in line with the borough average, there is a noticeable drop in performance at key stage 3. Thirty-six per cent. of residents of working age have no recognised qualification compared with a borough average of 15 per cent.
  I am trying to paint a picture of the area. Crime is high—nearly 50 per cent. higher than the regional average. Victims of crime are much more likely to be elderly, black or from an ethnic minority. Poor health is another fact of life for far too many people in the NDC area. The social services mental health case load is substantial, and the area has a disproportionately large number of children on the child protection register. As a result of poor diet, very high levels of smoking and drug and alcohol abuse, life expectancy is well below the national average.
  When after careful consideration the local authority selected the area for its bid for funding under the NDC programme, the first task was to put together the key elements of the bid—the delivery plan for north Fulham. At this stage, a steering group, comprising a range of local partners, residents and tenants' representatives and other interested agencies was formed, and I chaired it. It met on a fortnightly basis for several months.
  Consultants were employed by the local authority to prepare the bid and, after considerable debate and more than a few problems and interesting discussions within the steering group, the bid was submitted to the Department last year. As I have said, the bid was for a 10-year programme of £44 million. I am pleased to report that the bid was successful in achieving that level of funding.
  Having secured the funding, we formed a shadow community board consisting of community representatives drawn from a number of small geographical areas. The community representatives meet monthly and elect one or two representatives to serve on the shadow board, which I now chair.

  1191
  A number of strategic partners who also sit on the board are drawn from key local agencies such as the local authority, the health service and the Benefits Agency, and include the chief executive of a major local registered social landlord. There is also a representative from the local black and ethnic minority forum. All those representatives have voting rights at the shadow board. Again, the board meets on a monthly basis and considers a range of issues related to the implementation of the NDC programme. These include recommendations from appraisal panels, which meet to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of different funding proposals.
  Community representatives on the board have attended training programmes to assist them with the monitoring and evaluation of those proposals. The management of the staff employed to date by the NDC has comprised consultants and secondees from agencies such as the local authority and the national health service. I am pleased to report that last week the permanent director of the programme was appointed, and the recruitment of the rest of the permanent delivery team will commence shortly.
  The success or otherwise of the NDC programme for north Fulham will not be possible to evaluate for several years to come. To be frank, our early spending programme has been modest but has included the recruitment of a team of five extra police officers, headed by a sergeant, to work exclusively in the north Fulham NDC area. Their role is to act as a highly visible police presence in the area, where the fear of crime has been constantly raised as a major concern for local residents. Early signs are that the level of crime has been significantly reduced.
  Three new learning mentors have been funded to work in the local primary schools that score highest on levels of deprivation. One of these primary schools has 78 per cent. of children in receipt of free school meals, and in another primary school, 39 separate languages are spoken. We have also agreed proposals to appoint special co-ordinators in the areas of health, youth and employment. The NDC, in partnership with the local authority, has funded a project called Operation Fresh Start, which has provided for projects to undertake a major clean of the streets in the NDC area, the removal of fly-tipped items and a service offering one-off removal of all unwanted household goods and the removal of graffiti. It has also provided for two refuse service enforcement officers to patrol the area, which suffers the dumping of all sorts of detritus.
  Early feedback has been positive. A business network development programme has been set up and a community chest fund started for small grants for which local community groups can bid. A highly successful community carnival was held last year and a shop frontage improvement grant has been established. These are early days, but we have had a successful year in that we have spent 95 per cent. of our projected budget in the first year of the programme. In time, we will need to establish a full community board with democratic elections for all community representative posts. For the next two years we have set a much more ambitious programme of spending, including at least one major new capital scheme for the area.
  The NDC programme has not been without its problems, its tensions and its rows; but so far we have been largely successful in establishing a genuine spirit of community engagement in the area. For far too long this
  1192
  part of an affluent area—indeed, it is one of the wealthiest in London—has been neglected. Many people have been left isolated and vulnerable and the area has fallen into decline. The NDC programme represents the best opportunity for the poor and the socially excluded to have a share of what they deserve but have been denied for too long.
  Too many regeneration projects in the past dealt with the physical fabric of the local area and failed to challenge social problems in the community. Fear of crime, poor health, lack of access to proper facilities and a high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse have allowed areas such as north Fulham to lose confidence. The NDC represents a new approach to tackling decline. It genuinely seeks to allow the local community to work in partnership to challenge that sense of lethargy and helplessness. It is an exciting time to be in north Fulham.
  North Fulham is a classic example of many areas in London where there are huge disparities between economic and social prosperity. Too often, out-of-date notions about the north-south divide mask the reality. It is not a matter of geography: the real issues are poverty, deprivation, unemployment and social exclusion.
  The real picture on the ground is far more complex then some regional indicators may show. However, hon. Members may be surprised by a few of them. London has the highest number of unemployed people of all UK regions. There are more unemployed people in London than in Scotland and Wales combined. Of the 74 parliamentary constituencies in London, 20 have employment rates of 65 per cent. or less and nine have employment rates of less than 60 per cent. In addition, 26 per cent. of the London-employed work force have very low qualifications and 40 per cent. of the unemployed have no qualifications. Three out of the five most deprived boroughs in England are in London, and 2.7 million London residents live in one of the 20 most deprived wards in England. Those stark facts show that parts of London are far different from the exclusively affluent picture that some may wish to paint.
  I recognise the problems that my colleagues representing other regions may face. I sympathise with them and I would not deny them the support that they deserve, but it is the duty of Members representing constituencies with high levels of need and deprivation to argue our case in the coming months and years, and we believe that we have the facts to back up our call for our share of the regeneration cake.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Let me say in his absence how much of a pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley). He need not worry about having made such a late maiden speech. Historically, new Members were told not to make a maiden speech for at least six months to a year. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has let himself down and I appreciate why he has not spoken before. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman shares his predecessor's fondness for toads—or newts—but I hope that he will be as independent as his predecessor and not become just another Labour toady, but we shall have to wait and see.
  It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman). I lived happily in Fulham for many years. I enjoyed my time there

  1193
  greatly, but one thing I could never say about Fulham was that it was an exciting place. It was very nice, but I would hardly describe it as one of the country's hot spots. I am glad to hear that it is doing well.
  The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the high rates of unemployment in London. This brings us to the theme of today's debate. Everyone knows that our capital city would not function without the large numbers of people coming from abroad to work here—many of them asylum seekers or refugees working illegally. New Zealanders, South Africans and Australians are found serving in many pubs in London. The city is drawing in tens of thousands of workers to help it survive, yet there is enormous unemployment among the native population. That skills gap needs to be addressed. It is nonsensical that people should come from abroad and get jobs, while people in the east end of London and other problem areas such as north Fulham remain unemployed. Solving that problem is a challenge to us all.
  In reading out her prepared text, rather hurriedly, the Minister broke a convention of our Friday debates, which we try to make more thoughtful and restrained than our mid-week ones. Once again, she promoted the myth that all the problems that exist today are something to do with 18 years of Tory misrule. That is absolute nonsense. Every commentator knows that the tough economic decisions taken by Conservative Governments in that time laid the foundations for the prosperity that we have today.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) may laugh, but independent commentators will substantiate that.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's remarks are an insult to the good sense of the British people, who elected, re-elected and re-elected again Conservative Governments, presumably because they thought that they were doing rather a good job?
  Mr. Atkinson: Indeed, that is precisely why the British people re-elected Conservative Governments. They knew that they were taking tough decisions that needed to be taken.
  I can see those Governments' legacy in my region in the north-east of England. Under our stewardship, failing industries closed and derelict land was cleared. Newcastle upon Tyne now has one of the best cityscapes in this country, because of the Tyne and Wear development corporation, set up by a Conservative Government, which did so much to regenerate a rundown area on the riverside. The development corporations were good and efficient organisations, and the Government should learn some lessons from them when they redraft their regeneration projects.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Labour Members always denigrate our record on urban regeneration. He has mentioned the west end of Newcastle, but many other major city sites were
  1194
  transformed by the urban development corporations, including the centre of Glasgow, Leeds, London docklands and the Albert dock in Liverpool.
  Mr. Atkinson: Yes, our record is extremely good indeed, and we had a much tougher time, with much greater problems to deal with, than the present Government.
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) put her finger on it when she mentioned Canary Wharf. Here was a tremendously successful urban regeneration scheme cheek by jowl with pockets of extreme poverty. That is the problem that we face. It is the same in the north-east of England. People say that the north is depressed, and it is true that we have a lower than average percentage of gross domestic product and some more social problems, but to write it off as a depressed area gives the wrong impression entirely.
  Much of the region is affluent, with content, healthy and well-educated people, and we have a most beautiful and wonderful landscape, but there are pockets of severe deprivation, especially in the old coalfield areas, that certainly need help. Are the Government targeting the areas of poverty efficiently? I suggest that they are not. I had hoped that the Minister would give us some better ideas about what they intend to do, but all I heard were the usual words: "top-down strategy", "framework", "planning".
  Ms Keeble: I mentioned £24 million being spent on one development, a regeneration trust to deal with a whole range of refurbishment and a housing trust. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything that the Conservatives did for the coalfield areas other than shutting the pits?
  Mr. Atkinson: Yes, I can. We invested millions and millions of pounds in clearing —
  Ms Keeble: You shut the pits.
  Mr. Atkinson: Was the hon. Lady going to keep them open? She has her history utterly confused. She may remember that it was her former colleague, Tony Benn, who closed more collieries in the north-east of England than anyone else: more than 1,000 collieries were closed by a Labour Government because they were uneconomic. We did precisely the same thing. Is she saying that she and her Government would have kept all those pits open?
  Ms Keeble: We are talking about what we have done to regenerate the coalfields, the pits having been shut down by the Conservative party. We have taken action, while the Conservative party profoundly did not.
  Mr. Atkinson: Nonsense again. The Minister clearly has not been to the north-east for a while; if she had she would have seen the regeneration effected under a Conservative Government in those coalfield areas. If she drives down to the coast from the city of Newcastle, she will see the industrial landscape on both sides of the Tyne, transformed as a result of Conservative initiatives. To say that we did nothing is nonsense: we did immeasurably more than the Labour Government have done. As far as I can see, we have a plethora of initiatives with very little happening on the ground.

  1195
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to rural poverty and disadvantage. I have a striking example of that in my constituency: a community called Haltwhistle, a little settlement midway between Newcastle and Carlisle. It is actually in the centre of Britain, a feature the local tourist board makes something of.
  As well as being a very old border town, Haltwhistle was also a small industrial town. It made a living off the local coalfield—which more or less collapsed in the 1930s—but it had an industrial base. In the last few months, there have been job losses in the town, with the consequence that, according to the local press, nearly half the working population of a town of 3,500 people is either currently unemployed or will be unemployed in the next few months. A paint factory that has been there for generations is closing and production has been moved away. The last coal mine is closing down, with 100 jobs going, and a construction company has gone bankrupt. All the associated jobs, in transport and elsewhere, are suffering and that is devastating for a town such as Haltwhistle.
  I was hoping to find out from the Minister what the Government will do to address the problems of rural areas. We have the rural development plan and the market town initiative, neither of which is capable of reviving a town such as Haltwhistle unless the Government make some proper infrastructure improvements. Isolated communities depend on infrastructure.
  Because of the Government's continual refusal to upgrade main highways in the north-east of England, such communities are hugely disadvantaged. We ask for the roads to be improved but the Government reply that traffic flows do not justify it in value-for-money terms. However, it is value for money if we build roads to open up and develop areas that need that. I appeal to the Government, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Highways Agency to make the improvements to the roads for the community of Haltwhistle.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the deregulation of bus services in 1996 had a catastrophic effect on the travelling public? Would he like to see some modification of that, such as the franchising of local bus routes?
  Mr. Atkinson: I would not, and I disagree fundamentally with that idea. I know that the hon. Gentleman—who likes to intervene so much—was a Labour spin doctor for many years, but he must look at the facts. Deregulated bus services have vastly improved services in city areas, but in areas such as mine—the most sparsely populated constituency in England—running buses is an impracticality. It is not practical to leave Haltwhistle to travel 13 miles by bus to work and then return that day. Jobs need to be found for people in the areas where they need them, which the Government are singularly failing to do.
  I wish to refer to the regional development agencies set up by the Government. The situation reminds me of the old joke about the lost traveller who asks the rustic for directions to the nearest town and is told, "If I were you, I would not be starting from this point." Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would not be starting from this point because we oppose regional development agencies.
  1196
  It was wrong to spread a network of agencies across the whole of the country. It is important for disadvantaged areas such as the north-east of England to get some additional advantage by having development agencies, and we used to have a development corporation. But if every area has a development agency, it simply means that other parts of the country will compete for funds out of the same pot, to the disadvantage of the genuinely disadvantaged areas.
  I have no complaint about the staff or the board of my local agency, One NorthEast, which does the best job it can. However, it has no real power. Every decision it takes depends on somebody else. It has no power over education, planning, economic policy or highways. All the action needed to regenerate an area depends on somebody else doing something. The agency does not have enough priority. If we are to make the RDAs better, they should concentrate on fewer things, such as economic regeneration, and not on peripheral things that local authorities can do better.
  Finally, I want to discuss regional government, which is another threat to the north-east. As we know, many Labour Members are frightfully keen on regional government. They want to balkanise England and turn it into a series of regions—an idea that is being pursued with great vehemence in the north-east. Fortunately, as I understand it, the move towards regionalism was torpedoed by No. 10 Downing street. According to leaked reports, the Government's White Paper will insist on dismantling an entire tier of local government if regional government in the north-east is to go ahead. That will involve abolishing Durham and Northumberland county councils.
  I should tell the House and the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) —he is not allowed to speak because he is a Whip—that people in the north-east will not vote for a regional assembly in those circumstances. They do not want their local county councils or district councils to be taken away and replaced by a regional assembly that is located far away from their communities. We should bring government closer to people, not move it further away. In effect, the Government have sabotaged regionalism—probably deliberately—by demanding the withdrawal of an entire layer of local government.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In spite of what my hon. Friend said, Opposition Whips are allowed to intervene, fortunately. I recently asked the Minister for Local Government how many letters he had received requesting the introduction of regional government in the south-east, and the answer was not a single one.
  Mr. Atkinson: There we are. That is right—the British people are not at all anxious to go down that path.
  Regional government in the north-east has been a monstrous distraction. The northern assembly, which has taken on a self-appointed role as a campaigner for regional government—funded, of course, by the taxpayer—would do far better to concentrate on regenerating the region and addressing bread-and-butter problems such as under-achievement in education. That is what the people of the north-east want; they do not want regional government consisting of another talking shop, full of Labour cronies.
  12.17 pm
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, because the regeneration of disadvantaged areas is certainly crucial to the people of Great Yarmouth, whom I represent. My comments will probably mirror what could be said of many other seaside resorts around the country.
  If this Government are to be judged, as they should be, on whether they deliver improvements to the quality of life of those in greatest need, Great Yarmouth is precisely the type of place in which they must deliver such improvements. It gives me no great pleasure to say that Great Yarmouth suffers from one of the highest unemployment levels in this country, and from some of the worst social deprivation. There are a number of reasons why, some of them historical, and others more connected to the present. Among the historical reasons are the ending of the herring fishing industry, and the decline of the traditional seaside holiday destinations in the face of competition from cheap foreign package deals. Although the offshore oil and gas industry remains a major employer in the borough, it is a mature industry, rather than the rapidly growing enterprise of the 1970s.
  A shortage of skills in certain areas definitely numbers among the current reasons for economic and social deprivation in Great Yarmouth. All too often, local employers in the engineering sector have told me that they have had to look far beyond Great Yarmouth for employees with the necessary training and qualifications. However, in my view the single biggest factor negatively affecting Great Yarmouth is its totally inadequate transport infrastructure. Great Yarmouth is often referred to in terms of its peripherality, which is both real and perceived, but the fact is that poor transport links are severely hindering economic development and job creation in the town, and there is an urgent need for real improvements. I shall return to that issue later in my speech.
  Before I talk about the Government initiatives that have already helped the regeneration process, and their future role in regenerating my constituency, I want to describe the current situation there. Hon. Members will be aware of the travel-to-work-area method of measuring unemployment. According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics for December 2001—the most recent figures available—Great Yarmouth had an unemployment rate of 6.6 per cent., the third highest travel-to-work-area rate in England. There, as in other towns with a large seaside holiday industry, unemployment peaks in the winter months and falls in summer.
  Recent history has shown that the unemployment rate in Yarmouth usually reaches its maximum in February. When this month's figures are eventually released, we may well regain our unwanted spot at the top of the English league table for unemployment. The borough had the unwelcome distinction of being top of that table between December 2000 and March 2001. The availability of short-term summer jobs removes a number of people from the unemployment statistics who return a few months later. That undoubtedly masks the true picture of long-term unemployment in the borough.
  It is now widely accepted—I certainly believe it to be the case—that unemployment and economic deprivation have a direct causal link to social problems. The
  1198
  Government have endorsed this view by making their drive to improve employment opportunities and to make work pay a central plank of their policy to fight poverty. I agree with that approach, but Great Yarmouth unfortunately remains a prime example of that link, and has a range of social problems to mirror its economic ones.
  Those problems were highlighted by the national index of multiple deprivation drawn up by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1998 and in 2000. This study examined 8,414 borough council wards in England, using the following indicators: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation; education, skills, and training deprivation; housing deprivation; and geographical access to services. In the overall ranking, the borough of Great Yarmouth was the fifth most deprived borough in England, placing it alongside the worst and most deprived of the major inner-city areas that have been well documented today. In fact, I have often heard Great Yarmouth described as the equivalent of an inner-city area, but without any of the surrounding suburbs.
  The situation regarding deprivation in education, skills and training is particularly acute in Great Yarmouth. Half the council wards are in the bottom 10 per cent. for education nationally, and one fifth are in the bottom 1 per cent. Our Regent ward is rated the 19th most deprived ward in England, out of 8,414, and Nelson ward is rated 37th. Great Yarmouth also has problems in areas that were not used as indicators in the DETR's study, such as drugs, crime, high rates of teenage pregnancy and environmental concerns such as litter, rubbish in the streets and abandoned cars.
  I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members the disparity between Great Yarmouth and other parts of East Anglia. Much has been said recently about the disparity between regions, particularly in the context of the north and south. But a classic example of how these disparities can exist on a smaller scale within regions is the comparison between Great Yarmouth, Norwich and Cambridge.
  When I draw attention to the economic and social problems of Great Yarmouth, I sometimes feel that people think I am exaggerating. After all, Great Yarmouth is part of East Anglia, and it is widely accepted that East Anglia is a relatively wealthy region with high employment and a good standard of living. However, the latest unemployment figure for Great Yarmouth is 6.6 per cent. of the population, while the figure for the county of Norfolk is only 2.6 per cent. and for East Anglia as a whole, 2.2 per cent. In other words, unemployment in Great Yarmouth is three times the rate for the rest of the region.
  Conditions in the city of Norwich, only 20 miles from Great Yarmouth, are very different. Norwich is a booming city that has had hundreds of million of pounds of inward investment in the last few years and is renowned for its quality of life. A further 50 miles south-west is the city of Cambridge, whose economy is growing almost exponentially and threatening to overheat. While Great Yarmouth is the fifth worst borough in England in terms of social deprivation, Cambridge ranks 204th on the same list. I do not for a moment begrudge Norwich and Cambridge their success, but the contrast between them and nearby Great Yarmouth is indeed stark.

  1199
  Having spoken of the present situation in Great Yarmouth and its regional context, I also want to consider what has happened in the recent past. From the outset, it must be said that things have improved significantly in the past few years, particularly in respect of employment. For example, in January 1997, the rate of unemployment in the borough stood at more than 10 per cent., as opposed to 6.6 per cent. today. There is no doubt that the Government's new deal programme has been a major factor in reducing unemployment in Great Yarmouth in the past few years.
  It is far harder to quantify the figures across the range of indicators for social deprivation. None the less, I am hopeful that when the next study is carried out by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the situation in Great Yarmouth will have improved.
  As for education, where Great Yarmouth has had particular problems, I am happy to say that exam and test results for pupils across the borough last summer showed a step forward in quantity and quality—a tribute to both the pupils and their teachers.
  The situation is far from one of doom and gloom. I wish to pay tribute to the support and resources that Great Yarmouth has received from the Government to help alleviate some of the problems that we face. The funding comes in a variety of guises, with the largest single grant being the £4.5 million that the borough received from the neighbourhood renewal fund. I know that the "no strings attached" nature of the grant was appreciated locally and that discussions are under way as to how this large sum of money can best be spent.
  Another Government initiative from which Great Yarmouth has benefited has been sure start. Funding started in 1999 and has already been extended until 2004, making a total cash injection of £4.2 million. Initial research has shown that sure start in Great Yarmouth is already succeeding in its goal of working in a new way with families who have children under four to give them the best possible start in life. Next week I will be attending the opening a new £500,000 nursery on one of Great Yarmouth's most deprived estates, which is part of the sure start initiative.
  Only this week it was announced that from April 2005, Great Yarmouth's education action zone will become an excellence cluster. As a result, it will receive about £1.8 million a year in funding, compared with the present total sum of £150,000. Those in charge of the education action zone are particularly pleased with this early commitment, as it allows them to plan for the long term.
  There has been some controversy over the achievements of education action zones in some parts of the country, but the one in Great Yarmouth has been a great success. Key stage 3 and 4 results are now higher than the national average, attendance levels have improved at many schools and 80 per cent. of pupils have shown measurable progress in reading. The Great Yarmouth education action zone has also been successful in setting up partnerships with a number of local businesses for sponsorship and workplace training.
  I have highlighted three major funding boosts that Great Yarmouth has received from the Government, but there have been many others. They have included assisted area status and single regeneration budget moneys for Regent, Nelson and Colholm and Lichfield, three of the
  1200
  most deprived wards in the area. In addition, the East of England development agency has invested about £3.6 million in projects in the town since 1997, with more to come.
  We have also received one of the largest grants for closed circuit television in response to the need to reduce crime. It has been a huge success, and I hope that more bids from other parts of my constituency will be looked on favourably by the Minister at the appropriate time.
  The borough has benefited recently from a number of major lottery funding awards, such as that given to Tower Curing Works, a museum that will celebrate Great Yarmouth's rich maritime heritage. Heritage regeneration has also been boosted by grants from the heritage economic regeneration strategy and the town heritage initiative. These, together with a range of public and private funding partners, have paid for the Nelson museum, a major new attraction which will open on the town's south quay in April.
  Finally, there have been funds from Europe in the shape of objective 2 and objective 3 grants. For example, £771,000 was given in October last year under objective 2 towards the Innovation Centre, a high-quality and high-tech centre for the energy industry, currently under construction on the South Gorleston business park.
  Improvement must come from within the area, and that is happening in Great Yarmouth. Perhaps the single most important example is the development of the Great Yarmouth outer harbour. Should the project go ahead, it will undoubtedly safeguard thousands of jobs in Great Yarmouth and, I hope, create hundreds of new ones. The scheme has been talked about for more than 30 years, but today I believe that it is closer to becoming a reality than at any other time.
  A company called EastPort has been set up to drive the project through. It is talking with four private operators which have tendered to run the ferry service from Great Yarmouth to Holland three times a day. The bulk of the cash for the project will be raised by the private sector, with some money coming from public sources. I am pleased that the Government have agreed that public funding for the outer harbour can be considered, so long as certain conditions are met.
  Great Yarmouth is closer to Amsterdam than to London, and the port has a long history of trade with Europe and Scandinavia. Development of the outer harbour will, I hope, be a catalyst in establishing Great Yarmouth as a gateway to Europe as well as creating new jobs in a regeneration area.
  The sea front partnership is another important local initiative. That joint bid, under the heading "InteGreat Yarmouth", is intended to invigorate and upgrade the town's seafront and town centre, improve the local environment, and stimulate tourism. It is a comprehensive plan that covers building improvements, traffic management, public spaces, the beach, the town centre's heritage, the environment, and information and communications technology. A funding package of £32 million—again both public and private money—has been proposed, and it will, if it goes ahead, provide a massive boost for tourism and the Great Yarmouth economy.
  Those are two of the major local projects but there are many others, including the Great Yarmouth recommissioning partnership, a body formed to try to

  1201
  ensure that Great Yarmouth has the infrastructure and skills base to deal with recommissioning and decommissioning of huge oil and gas rig structures as they reach the end of their working lives in the southern part of the North sea.
  The Scroby sands wind farm project is another exciting local development. It will provide up to 38 wind turbines on a sandbank about two miles off the Great Yarmouth coast. The plan is already well advanced, and if the scheme goes ahead, it will be the largest offshore wind farm in Great Britain, generating clean, green power and creating new jobs.
  In spite of Great Yarmouth's serious problems, much is being done, both by the Government and by the people of the area. An issue remains, however, that could be characterised as a spectre at the feast. Our transport infrastructure is one of the most important matters that the Government must address if they are to help with further regeneration. For many years, Great Yarmouth has been the largest seaside town and resort not to be connected to the national motorway network by a dual carriageway. That is exacerbated by the fact that the rail connection between the town and Norwich—the nearest city—is mostly single-tracked.
  Improvements have been made to various parts of the road network over the past few years, but the overall picture is patchy. One section of the network has become a cause for significant local concern. The dualling of the section of the A47 that links Acle with Great Yarmouth, commonly called the Acle straight, is probably the single biggest issue facing the area. Discussions about dualling that stretch began in earnest in 1971: today, it remains a single carriageway. The overwhelming majority of my constituents feel that that is not good enough.
  The Acle straight is about eight miles long. It is not much different today than it was when it was built in the 19th century. It is particularly narrow for an A road, and it is banked on both sides by water-filled dykes. It is totally inadequate for the volume of traffic that uses it. Regrettably, its safety record over the years has been poor. Judging the distance and speed of oncoming vehicles is notoriously difficult because the road is so straight and because it has no landmarks on either side to act as reference points. Accidents on the Acle straight are not a lot more common than on other roads, but when they occur, they are often head-on crashes that result in death or serious injury.
  The terrible safety record is not the only concern about that stretch of road. Delays are commonplace. That is particularly true in the summer months at the height of the tourist season, but it happens at any time. The overwhelming opinion of the people of Great Yarmouth is that the report commissioned by the Government from the consultants Maunsell failed to draw a sensible balance between environmental concerns and safety, economic regeneration and social concern. Huge weight was given to the marshland environment beside the road, but little to the population of 90,000 people. I have received 177 letters about the report from people in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk and further afield. Of those, 175 supported dualling the road, and two were against it.
  Among the supporters of dualling the road are all the local authorities in Norfolk as well as the local chamber of commerce and Norfolk police authority, which believes
  1202
  that there is a strong case on safety grounds for making the Acle straight a dual carriageway. Surely they cannot all be wrong.
  Recently there have been further developments. At its meeting on 17 January, the east of England local government conference considered the issue and instead of endorsing the consultants' report in full called for further studies to consider the economic, social and environmental impact of dualling the Acle straight. Although the prospect of further delay is frustrating, I generally support that decision, because any study that objectively considers all these matters cannot fail to support dualling. I will do all that I can to continue making that case, and I hope that when the matter finally reaches my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, he will come to the same conclusion.
  Much has already been done to regenerate the town of Great Yarmouth but sadly there is still much work to do. There is no better place for that work to start than on the Acle straight and the development of our new harbour.
  12.35 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). I know that part of the world very well, and I can well understand the problems to which he refers. I was particularly interested to hear his remarks about the A47. I know the stretch of road to which he refers. It is indeed a bad stretch. It reminds me of the A36 that runs through my constituency.
  This debate will inevitably focus on the regeneration of disadvantaged urban areas but cities do not exist in isolation. What goes on in them affects small towns and the countryside, whether it is the middle classes relocating from decaying city centres, or highly mobile criminals fleeing closed circuit television and the lean pickings of their urban bases. We must not suppose that disadvantage is an exclusively urban phenomenon, or that the effects of urban deprivation are confined to city centres. I was pleased to hear comments to that effect by my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
  I intend to slate the Government for their unfair treatment of Wiltshire and for their failure to lift deprivation in my constituency but I am happy that the Government are attempting, so they say, to deal with urban deprivation, by which they largely mean deprivation in city centres, I think.
  Ms Keeble: The deprivation strategy that I set out applies to every area.
  Dr. Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up that point. In west Wiltshire, it sometimes seems that that is not the case. I shall explain our concerns over things such as homelessness, which is a particular problem in my district.
  West Wiltshire does not exist in a vacuum. Our interests interdigitate with those of urban areas. To that extent I have a parochial as well as a general interest in the regeneration of large urban areas.
  If cities have high crime rates, badly performing schools, unacceptable pollution, high mortality and poor morbidity, people who are able to will choose to live

  1203
  elsewhere, particularly when they are sold leafy life styles by developers, who will be delighted by the Government's recent Green Paper, which will give them carte blanche to develop in the countryside against the wishes of local people. Urban deprivation leads inexorably to pressure on rural areas and more concrete countryside.
  In November 2000, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions put out a useful publication called "The State of English Cities". It suggested that migration trends reinforce the picture of decline in our cities, with only four moving in for every five who move out. We are told that there are two flows of migration: flows from the north to the south; and down the urban hierarchy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has already referred, from cities to suburbs to shire towns and the countryside. In most conurbations, rates of net migration are highest for high-status professional, technical and managerial workers. That is certainly evident in the south-west.
  Clearly that has implications for house prices in rural areas, pricing out those who wish to live in villages not because they are searching for a developer-fuelled rural idyll but because of work or family ties. That leads to the ludicrous situation whereby poorer rural dwellers are obliged to swap places with well-off commuters from the cities. The incomer rarely gets the satisfaction that he desires from his moving, because it destroys the very thing that he is trying to achieve for himself and his family—life in a rural area. The ex-villager also loses out because he is cut off from work, family and social ties.
  That all adds more grief to a creaking transport system and means that formerly healthy and vibrant communities in city centres are increasingly socially polarised. In a written answer I was informed that
  "332 households in west Wiltshire were accepted as being homeless in 2000–01. As at 31 March 2001 there were 90 households in temporary accommodation and 15 households in bed and breakfast accommodation." —[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 374, c.731W.]
  Homelessness, especially priority homelessness, has risen in England during the past four years, but disproportionately so in my constituency.
  The true picture may be worse than the official statistics show. Homelessness charities claim that people were put in hostels or even threatened with arrest overnight while counts were being made in order to meet Government targets. The charity Shelter observed:
  "During the election, a lot of attention was given to improving education and health services. We hear much less about the thousands of families stuck in grotty B and Bs … The current crisis-driven approach to homelessness is not working."
  Homelessness charities in and around my constituency would echo those remarks.
  I represent green and pleasant Wiltshire, a beautiful part of the country that many Labour Members might suppose to be untouched by their problems of homelessness and deprivation. The problem faced by my constituency, in common with many others with a similar urban-rural mix, is that although we are by and large spared the remorselessness of vast post-war estates, our deprivation is scattered. It is there for sure, but because it is diffuse it is hidden and is difficult and relatively expensive to get at, so it is ignored.
  1204
  The ludicrous local government funding formula that acts against the interests of shire counties in general, and mine in particular, as well as the Government's manifest failure to act—despite their admission that there is a problem—strongly suggests that the Government cannot or will not rid themselves of the mindset that holds that constituencies such as mine are populated exclusively by the well-to-do and must be tapped to distribute largesse to what are seen as more needy urban areas.
  When I was listening to some of the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) I thought that I had heard them somewhere before. Indeed, I and many hon. Members have heard them before, because they were in this morning's mailbag in a letter from the Country Land and Business Association.
  The third paragraph of that letter is especially apposite, and sums up quite well the attitude towards deprivation that is held by many people who live in rural areas. It states that
  "rural poverty and deprivation is all too often sidelined while the inner-city slums and estates grab the headlines. Homelessness exists in rural areas, a lack of adequate (indeed a basic lack) services and facilities—education, transport, policing—pervades many rural areas. Such problems are less visible and therefore more easily ignored."
  I fear that that is what is happening.
  A local primary school head teacher told me this week that at a recent conference she had bearded the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the funding formula for Wiltshire. We should remember that at the beginning of last year we heard in the House that funding for Wiltshire was inadequate. When faced with my primary school head teacher the right hon. Lady apparently threw up her hands, rolled her eyes to the heavens and said, "Do not ask me to defend the indefensible with respect to Wiltshire."
  Well, I ask the Government to defend their position. When Secretaries of State admit an inequity but carry on regardless, disadvantaged people in my constituency have every right to ask what on earth is going on. Is not the truth of the matter that spending Ministers, for all their warm words and good intentions, are merely onlookers who are powerless to act against the shire-county-averse long screwdriver of the Treasury?
  12.44 pm
  Ms Oona King: Given the crucial importance of regeneration, it is amazing how easily it can send us all to sleep. I am delighted to detect some signs of consciousness among the remaining Members in the Chamber, although I fear for those in the Public Gallery. However, I shall press on because, in my view, no British Government have ever invested as much time and energy as the present Government have in tackling, reducing and eradicating poverty and deprivation. That is reflected in the Government's regeneration policy, which leaves no stone unturned in its search for a comprehensive and effective route out of poverty.
  We have learned some lessons. We have learned over the last two decades that simply changing the way that communities look will not change the way that communities live. However, failing to change the poor and brutal quality of the built environment condemns disadvantaged communities to live in concrete cages, which is equally deplorable and unacceptable. Therefore it is crucial that we have a balance.

  1205
  In Tower Hamlets, inner-city regeneration is make or break. Unfortunately, during the '80s and '90s, many people felt that regeneration broke apart, and even supplanted, their local communities. As the Minister said at the start of the debate, there was too much emphasis on physical regeneration and not enough on communities, and even when physical regeneration did take place it often went over the heads of local people, who remained untouched by the money that was ploughed in. In fact, the '80s and '90s were the greatest period of degeneration that this country's housing estates have ever known.
  We have done two things since. First, we have massively increased investment in the fabric of those estates. Secondly, we have recognised that local problems best respond to local solutions, not Whitehall prescriptions. That means local people deciding where the money is ploughed in and having responsibility for disbursing public money. Regeneration policy also focuses on better delivery of mainstream services to disadvantaged areas, and there is no better example of that than the new deal for communities programme.
  I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). However, my experience as chair for two years of the new deal for communities programme in Tower Hamlets was utterly different from that which he described, because our NDC programme genuinely engaged local communities. Do not take my word for it—obviously, the hon. Gentleman never would—but take the word of the people who have engaged in the programme themselves.
  Tom Brake: I would just like to ensure that the hon. Lady understands that those comments were not mine but those of the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, which is at the coal face of delivering regeneration strategies.
  Ms King: I would just like to ensure that the hon. Gentleman understands that no single programme has made a bigger difference to the life of people on one of the poorest estates in the country than the NDC programme. It was introduced on the Ocean estate in Tower Hamlets to improve the life of more than 6,000 residents there. We had one of the highest rates of infant mortality in Britain, and the sure start programme—which is integrated with a range of other programmes to challenge and reverse those appalling statistics—is making inroads. I have been honoured to work with many people who used to be in permanent confrontational mode with every form of authority, and I have found it incredibly inspiring to see their energy transformed into constructive engagement in the decision-making process.
  There were problems, however, and one of the biggest problems that we had in our area surrounded the right to buy. Although the Government allocated Ocean NDC £56 million, as soon as people on that incredibly run-down estate heard that literally loads of money would be pumped into their estate after they had received nothing—not a bean—for decades, the first reaction for many of them was to make a right-to-buy application because they thought that they could make money on their properties.
  One estimate is that, as a result, 80 per cent. of the £25 million earmarked for the housing element of the project will have to be spent buying up houses sold under
  1206
  the right-to-buy scheme. I do not believe that any hon. Member—whether in the Opposition or the Labour party—could possibly think that a good idea. I hope that, in the interests of regeneration, the Minister and the Government might consider suspending the right to buy in regeneration programmes if that right negates the entire regeneration programme so that no one is enabled to have a better quality local environment.
  On right-to-buy schemes, I tell Opposition Members that I agree with the sentiment behind giving people, many from low income families, the opportunity to buy their houses. I fundamentally disagree with them that the price of handing over that opportunity is to remove vast swathes of social housing. Hon. Members will know that, for whatever reason—I shall try to say this diplomatically—after 20 years during which many present Conservative Members were in government, we were left with a £19 billion repair backlog.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suggested that fewer houses have been built under Labour. That is not true. Hon. Members should remember that the right to buy is about social housing, and more social housing units are being built in London than were ever built in any comparable time frame under the previous Administration. However, we are having to spend a huge amount of money repairing the damage that occurred as a result of degeneration. That is where a lot of money is spent.
  It is appalling to think that, last year, 11,000 social housing units were sold off, but only 3,000 have been built to replace them. We need to take measures to deal with that problem. The maximum right-to-buy discount could be limited to £25,000, and the time before people were able to sell on those properties for a quick buck could be lengthened. Those sales create more sink estates. For example, people in Tower Hamlets are selling on their right-to-buy properties to rather disreputable private landlords. There are many reputable private landlords, but those properties have been sold to companies that put leaflets through the door, saying, "Let us buy your property", because they know that house prices in Tower Hamlets have exploded.
  A year and a half ago, a four-bedroom terraced house in Wapping sold for £600,000. The same property was inhabited by a teacher in the 1970s—not even a Member of Parliament could afford it now, never mind a teacher. So we obviously have to consider key-worker housing in our regeneration strategies. Most of all, we have to increase the provision of affordable housing, so that those people on average and below average incomes can afford to live in areas such as Tower Hamlets.
  What has the council done? It has engaged in many specific regeneration projects. It has also engaged in a variety of private-public sector partnerships with Canary Wharf. I gave an example earlier of the skills match employment brokerage agency, which has helped 1,500 local people into jobs in the last year alone. I also mentioned the Will Crooks estate, which is one of the estates closest to Canary Wharf—it is within spitting distance. Of the 400 adults of employment age living there, only two have managed to obtain employment in the metropolis that overshadows them. The local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick)—two Members represent Tower Hamlets—is working hard to ensure that people on that estate enjoy the fruits of regeneration.

  1207
  That takes us back to the issue that we discussed earlier. How do we enable local people who live in the shadow of vast regeneration projects to benefit from them? One of the answers is through community-led regeneration organisations such as the Isle of Dogs community foundation and the Bromley-by-Bow centre, which is a nationally recognised social enterprise that serves as a role model for many newer voluntary and community organisations gaining a foothold on the regeneration ladder. I pay tribute to Tower Hamlets education and business partnership, which is nationally recognised as a model of good practice.
  I also want to mention some of the innovation that has been taking place. There has been a great willingness to test out new approaches and take risks. For instance, networks of community-based access and vocational training providers offer courses that reflect the specialist finance, banking and knowledge economies of Canary Wharf and the City fringe. Specialist enterprise support agencies have emerged and they range from the cultural industries development agency to the ethnic minority enterprise project. Such agencies have helped more than 250 businesses to start up and grow. I also pay tribute to the work of the Prince's Trust in east London. It has helped many young people who have often been in long-term unemployment into jobs, which is a wonderful achievement.
  I hope that the continuing wave of regeneration will take into account the needs and wishes of local communities. Some huge projects are involved and they have an influence far beyond Tower Hamlets or east London. For example, the Bishopsgate goods yard, to where the East London line will be extended, will open up transport opportunities for an entire region. In Spitalfields, another very large regeneration project has yet to receive the support of all residents, although many local businesses write to me to say how much they welcome such new development. However, an equal number of correspondents who are local residents are terrorised by the idea of this development project. We do not need more bland, enormous, dehumanising slabs of corporate office blocks, which add no character to the neighbourhood. We need projects that bring together the community's aspirations and reflect some of the community's character. Unfortunately, that has not happened in the past.
  I want to sum up by looking at how much has been achieved. In Tower Hamlets in 1997, the unemployment rate was 16.6 per cent. As a result of the projects, local efforts—especially by the local council and the community—and the Government's strategy, our unemployment rate has fallen in five years to 11.6 per cent. That is a fantastic achievement. However, we still have one of the highest unemployment rates in London and, indeed, in the country.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) made the case for London. I know that people outside London get infuriated because they think that all its streets are paved with gold, but I wish that they would recognise this one fact: there are more poor people proportionately in London than in any other region. That fact seems to have been lost in the same way as Londoners once did not recognise the extent of rural poverty, which we must acknowledge. I hope that people outside the capital realise that although some of the richest people in Britain live in London, some of the poorest also
  1208
  live here. We must ensure that our regeneration policy takes that into account. We must use planning gain agreements—section 106 agreements—to promote the regeneration that helps the poorest people.
  I hope that the comprehensive spending review will give a significant boost to investment in social housing. The Labour Government have trebled the amount of money for social housing and, as I said in a debate on Tuesday, we are millions of pounds better off under Labour. However, we also know that we need more. We have to ensure that regeneration benefits all stakeholders—residents, businesses, schools and school children, faith organisations and the voluntary sector—because we have to eradicate the poverty that stalks the capital and this country.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I declare an interest as a director of a family building and property company, in case anything that I say relates to that.
  The debate is important; we know that from the number of hon. Members present and from what they have said about their communities. Regeneration impacts on all of us. Hon. Members on both sides of the House come into politics to do some good or make a difference. Political action on regeneration, especially in disadvantaged areas, can make a difference providing that it is sensible and measured and that it involves the communities.
  We have heard much about the built environment and individuals in communities. The key factor is that community leaders need to have a vision and set out the way forward. We all know about cycles of decline: firms move out of an area, housing deteriorates and the most enterprising people decide to leave; public services are not at their best, and people struggle with inadequate health, education and transport infrastructures. That creates terrible problems, resulting in crime and lawlessness. It is frustrating for people who live in such areas, and who have known their communities in better times, to see that happen. Ministers and politicians have to put regeneration high up the political agenda. It must be a priority. We need to put our efforts into ensuring that we provide leadership and a vision so that communities can pull themselves out of those circumstances.
  A few years ago I visited the Heritage Foundation in Washington. I talked to some fairly right-wing individuals who said that for a long time they were relaxed about the fact that most of America's problems were in the ghettos and inner cities until they realised that being indifferent to them meant that they spread. The problems had a cultural impact on adjacent districts, and the rising crime rates spread there. It is beneficial for everyone in society to tackle such problems because they can easily move into other areas. Sometimes that will require more public investment, but overall that would be to our benefit.
  In most of our major cities—Manchester, Birmingham or wherever—many of the prosperous suburbs feed off what happens in the city centres. There is great interlinkage. No politician can be indifferent about the fate of people who are left in our inner cities.
  The Government have a surprisingly wide range of measures to deal with the matters that we are discussing; indeed, I agree with those who say that there are probably too many measures that are too complex. Perhaps much more should be done to publicise all the grants and other

  1209
  schemes that are available. I was unaware of many of the schemes that could be accessed, and I suspect that many people in many communities are similarly unaware.
  There are some measures that I welcome. In the past, I fought the seat of Walsall, North. In doing so, I noticed that there were many contaminated sites. The accelerated tax credit of 150 per cent. to encourage owners and investors to get contaminated land back into the system is a positive move. The private sector will not do that; however, it can take advantage of the scheme for the benefit of communities.
  I welcome also the 100 per cent. capital allowance for putting flats over shops. One of the problems is that when people move out of cities, we cease to have communities. People are no longer looking down the street to see what is going on. We must repopulate some areas of our cities. Some business districts depopulate in the evenings, which is not good. Anything that encourages more people to live over the shop may be good for the general community.
  I am not enthusiastic about the recent Budget announcements of reductions in stamp duty for people who buy houses in some deprived wards. It is a rough-and-ready approach. There is expensive and prosperous housing in some extremely deprived wards. People will have to apply for discounts in areas where they are likely to be available, and the scheme will be a minor part of any regeneration activity.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the reduction of stamp duty in deprived areas, which will ghettoise them. That will be one effect of the scheme. Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government bring forward their seller's pack proposals, they will replicate the ghettoising, making it even more difficult to sell houses in some areas?
  Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Stigma is important. People's perceptions of an area can do an area a great deal of harm.
  I have concerns about what the Government are aiming to do following publication of the White Paper on local government. For example, they are aiming to introduce corporate performance assessments of local councils. They have four classifications: high performing, striving, coasting and failing. That system takes no account of whether a council is trying to improve, for example. It is a broad-brush approach. I fear that an authority that may be improving will still be classified as failing. In an inner-city area, that in itself may lead to stigma and send out the wrong signals to a potential investor.
  We must be careful about targeting measures such as tax relief on an area because that area is perceived as being deprived. We must be careful also about measures that the Government have in mind to try to improve the performance of local government. That could lead to concern that local government in some areas is not working as well as it is.
  I know that the Government whom I supported were keen on league tables, but those tables and classifications can confuse as much as inform people. I have concerns about the direction the Government are taking. Although the language concerning change in local government is
  1210
  one of freedom of opportunity, there is still a substantial degree of ministerial control. We seem to be going down the road of rather more specific grants, which will diminish local autonomy.
  I spent a long time in local government. One of my deepest regrets was that the Conservative Government did not trust local government more but sought to interfere. The present Government, despite the language, seem to be moving in the same direction. If we had let local authorities have more freedom, I doubt whether some of the problems in some major conurbations would be as great. In the great days of local government—the Victorian era—a great deal was produced and built by local business men and leaders of local communities who had a great deal of independence and authority. The way forward is to give local government a lot more support and latitude and to encourage local leaders to get involved in local government.
  Like many of my hon. Friends, I am not a great enthusiast for regions. I can see no great benefit in the South West of England regional development agency. No doubt one day I shall change my mind and surprise myself. I would prefer the emphasis to be at local government level—with the people on the ground who know their communities—and I hope that the Government will give local authorities more support.
  We are dealing with a complex matter. We may not be able to solve all the problems of inner cities, but we should do our best to improve local communities.The Economist has drawn attention to current trends. The economy is growing and there is evidence of repopulation of many of our inner-city areas. Houses are being done up and there is a certain vitality in many parts of central London as young people move in and there are more nightclubs and so on. There are, however, problems in certain suburban areas that are not as well served by transport links and do not offer the opportunities that people saw there 20 or 30 years ago. There is a trend whereby people are moving back into inner cities, but, as has been pointed out repeatedly today, there is a great deal of inequality. There are extremes of wealth and poverty and many local job opportunities are taken by Australians, New Zealanders and others travelling across the world. We have to do more to improve the skills base to match local potential with the jobs available, instead of looking to people who travel long distances to take advantage of the opportunities in London.
  London Members have highlighted the problems facing London. London has always had high unemployment and areas of deprivation, often in areas that are a little off the beaten track—the ones that we do not see on the way into town. We have a great opportunity for the renaissance of our capital. Hon. Members see a great deal of London and we can do more to reverse these trends, but we have to make it a priority.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out when he described the regeneration in Newcastle upon Tyne, there are many opportunities for improvement providing that there is vision, that the private sector and local communities are involved and that there is a long-term strategy so that people do not think that politicians will walk away. I do not have to tell Labour Members that politicians are often tempted to change schemes and to rebrand and relaunch

  1211
  them, but this can undermine regeneration schemes as people think that they are here today and gone tomorrow. Long-term commitment is required.
  We are discussing an important issue. As a Conservative I feel strongly that as one nation we have to do the best for all our citizens, particularly those who do not have the ability to help themselves. With leadership, vision and Government help, and by enhancing the great talents of our people, I believe that we can create a better Britain in which all our people can be proud of their communities.
  1.14 pm
  Phil Hope: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I represent 60 villages in my constituency, together with the town of Corby. I have often spoken on rural policy, but today I shall focus on the urban regeneration that is so desperately needed.
  It was interesting to hear Conservative Members talk about a non-partisan approach, promptly criticise the Government and Labour councils for failing to tackle the problems that we have inherited and then complain when we remind them of the cause of those problems—18 years of Tory rule.
  It does not help when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) declares himself to have been a political adviser to the Tory Government on those policies. In sharp contrast, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), made a very different kind of one-nation Conservative speech, praising a lot of Labour policies and criticising those of the former Conservative Administration. We will not let the Conservatives airbrush out their record of abandoning our disadvantaged areas, because we, in government, now have to clear up the mess that they left behind.
  I listened carefully to the proposals. Let us have some constructive options, said the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). What did he offer? He said that we should streamline the money and appoint another Minister, have some more tax cuts, and protect greenfield sites. In my book that does not add up to much of a policy for improving disadvantaged areas.
  Perhaps we should not be surprised that Madame Tussauds has today decided not to make or display a waxwork model of the Leader of the Opposition—arguably, we already have one here—and said, "We've always done the three party leaders, but we thought, hang on, is this guy really going to provoke any excitement in the people?" Clearly, as with the absence of any regeneration policies, the answer is no.
  We must recognise the problems, and the work that the Government have done to overcome them. Our programmes are providing tremendous opportunities for towns such as Corby, hit hard in the Conservative 1980s and 1990s with massive unemployment and disinvestment in housing, health and education. The local economy is now recovering. With Labour, the spirit of Corby has come to the fore. We are all proud of our constituencies, but Corby really is special. It is the town that would not die, despite the tremendous challenges that it faced. I hope that, with Government help for regeneration, it will not just survive but flourish and grow.
  We have problems, though. We have low unemployment—less than 3 per cent., as a result of the Government's policies—but we have a low-skill,
  1212
  low-wage economy. Public transport is still woefully inadequate: we are possibly the largest town in Europe without a passenger railway station. We have more than our share of health problems, with the highest incidence of coronary heart disease in the country. The legacy of poor 1960s urban design has left us with rundown housing estates and a town centre in urgent need of new investment.
  We have done a good deal, but we cannot be complacent. I want to set out some particular highlights and challenges. As part of the massive extra public and private investment in our first term, children in Corby have benefited from the education action zone, which the Government have just extended with £5 million of extra investment targeted on schools and children in the areas of greatest need.
  Education is a mixed story in Corby: we have one of the top-performing comprehensives in the country, but we also have a few schools struggling to give pupils the best start in life. The education action zone is pulling those schools together to get co-operation and common endeavour in the interests of all the children in Corby, not just a few.
  I want to record my appreciation of the tremendous commitment and dedication of teachers, classroom assistants, ancillary staff, and especially the heads, who are working together to raise standards. We are now giving them the tools to do the job: repairing the roofs, providing new equipment for science laboratories and building new classrooms and facilities. Results are improving as a consequence, particularly in the primary sector, and now increasingly in the secondary sector, too.
  A key feature of the debate about regeneration is having what the Deputy Prime Minister called a progressive universalism in our approach. We need to fund education and health for the whole community while taking a progressive approach and doing more for those people and areas that need it most. That is what we are doing through the new deal for communities. That targeted help is raising standards and pulling people together in a way that no other scheme has achieved.
  The urban regeneration company and the neighbourhood renewal strategy are further examples of how we are doing something for everyone but more for those who need it most. Sure start has been mentioned today. We have an excellent scheme in Corby, targeted at children and families in some of our poorest neighbourhoods. We have good nursery and playgroup provision for three and four-year-olds but sure start targets the most disadvantaged areas and gives them an extra boost just when they need it most.
  One of Corby's greatest success stories is the Pen Green centre—my own children went there, some 15 or 16 years ago—which is now a centre of excellence, working with children and families. Sure start is based at that centre, working in the most disadvantaged communities. I describe it as a success story, but I have concerns that my county council, in reshaping its budget, is proposing a significant reduction in funding for Pen Green. I am having a good dialogue with the council—officers and members—to ensure that they listen to my representations not to proceed with that cut and to listen to the hundreds of local parents who rely on the centre for support.

  1213
  In regeneration, it is the holistic approach that really counts. In Corby, we have established an urban regeneration company called Catalyst Corby. Ministers know of our regeneration plans; the Deputy Prime Minister visited Corby a year ago this month and launched the company. Since then, the Minister for Employment and the Regions, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), and the Minister for Sport have visited Corby to see our successes. These include Rockingham Speedway, a massive new investment of £48 million in an Indy-style racetrack—one of the first of its kind in Europe—which is located in Corby.
  Catalyst Corby is building on that investment. In every sense, it is a public-private partnership, directly involving on the board the private sector, regional government agencies, local councils and the voluntary sector. It is a board that I am proud to be a member of as well.
  We have some small ambitions for our town. We want to double the size of Corby and introduce a far wider range of housing. We want to transform Corby town centre and provide a much better shopping centre and a fuller range of leisure opportunities. Crucially, we want to secure the re-opening of a good-quality train service to put Corby on the map and open up its potential as a place from which to commute to London and elsewhere. We want to widen the employment base by ensuring an adequate supply of land and by using some of the tax credits that have been mentioned by Conservative Members—another effective Government measure to promote regeneration.
  We need a new image for Corby, and we need to promote it throughout the country as a place of growth and regeneration for the future. The board is up and running and we have a group of talented individuals. Our baseline study has been completed and staff are working to deliver the process.
  One issue that is related to public confidence in Corby is public transport. Corby's bus services are clearly inadequate and have reached a level where they are no longer viable. I have had lengthy discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my noble friend Lord Falconer, the Minister of State responsible for regeneration, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is on the Front Bench today. I know that there is a willingness to assist.
  I know also that there are many demands on Ministers, particularly in relation to transport, but it is absolutely vital that we get this right. I am looking to Ministers to help to make sure that the Government play their part, along with the county council, to ensure that we have a viable integrated transport network of buses and trains in the town. Without that, we cannot succeed in our endeavours.
  The regeneration of a town such as Corby is a microcosm of what we want to achieve for the country. We are putting together public and private sectors; involving the community in decision making; identifying key areas for strategic investment; and backing that all the way with political will and Government resources to achieve outcomes. We are working on that in Corby and we are moving forward. I hope that we can hear good news from Ministers in the weeks to come as Corby goes into the future.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: Although my constituency is not deprived and the region in which it is located is not poor, I have a particular interest in today's topic because of my background. I was born and brought up in the north-east of England. I lived there for the first 18 years of my life before coming to London to attend university, and I have a strong commitment to what I consider my home region.
  The north-east is the most deprived region in this country, as measured by household disposable income. In 1998, disposable income per head was £8,080, or 86 per cent. of the UK average. The local newspaper, The Northern Echo, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), described the scale of the problem when it recorded that, according to almost every key economic and social indicator, the region is lagging behind other UK regions.
  One important way to tackle the problems in deprived areas in the north-east and elsewhere is through education, which provides a ladder, enabling people to rise from a background of low skill and poor education and improve themselves. I know that the Government share the view that education is important to regeneration. In a White Paper published in July 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the importance of education as a means of regeneration.
  Reference has been made to the many schemes that the Government have introduced, such as education action zones, to which the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) referred. However, my concern is that those schemes have not been successful in narrowing the gap in exam results between poor and wealthy areas of the country—a point that was highlighted in this week's report on the north-east by Ofsted. I shall quote some figures from it that perhaps illustrate the point, but I should first declare an interest, in that in 1997 I stood as a parliamentary candidate in South Shields, which formed part of south Tyneside.
  In terms of 15-year-olds who achieved five or more A* to C GCSE grades, the gap between south Tyneside and the rest of England in 1997 was 9.4 per cent. By 2001, that gap had widened to 10.9 per cent. In 2001, some 39.1 per cent. of children in south Tyneside achieved five or more A* to C grades, but in England as a whole, 50 per cent. achieved the same result.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways to address the regional disparities that he is outlining is through an elected regional assembly for the north-east?
  Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made particular reference to the role of regional government, but I chose not to intervene as I did not wish to steal his thunder. I visit the north-east, where virtually all my family live, some four or five times a year and, as I said, I stood as a parliamentary candidate in South Shields in 1997. However, in my many visits I have heard nobody demand an extra layer of regional government. Nobody has told me that they want a regional assembly in the north-east. People are not rioting on the streets of the north-east, demanding a regional assembly to address the disparity in regional performance. The argument that a regional assembly can improve regional performance is bogus.

  1215
  I took care to check that south Tyneside was not an isolated example of those regional disparities in exam results, and was not the only area affected. In Newcastle, for example, the gap has widened from 13.5 per cent. in 1997 to 14.3 per cent. in 2001. Indeed, in the north-east as whole the gap has widened from 7.3 per cent. in 1997 to 8.5 per cent. in 2001. The gap in results between the most deprived region and the country as a whole is therefore widening.
  The Government have introduced a number of schemes such as excellence in cities and the education action zones, and we hope that they will produce results. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) identified the achievements in his constituency arising from the EAZs. I shall quote from the Ofsted report that was published earlier this week to give its perception of the success of the zones. Mike Tomlinson states:
  "Effective initiatives have contributed to an improvement in primary schools in the zones, although attainment remains generally below the national average … the gap between schools in zones and schools nationally"—
  at key stages other than key stage 1—
  "has not reduced significantly."
  That is a sad indictment of the policy introduced by the Labour Government to improve education in those areas. It certainly is not working for the country as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Corby mentioned the success of education action zones, but we know that they have not achieved the financial results that had been hoped. They have not raised the amount of private money that they had been targeted to attract, which is why some have been closed and rolled into the excellence in cities programme. An announcement to that effect was made by the Government last year.
  The excellence in cities programme has not achieved that many improvements itself. The Ofsted report states of schools in the programme:
  "At this early stage, the initiatives had not yet resulted in rates of improvement in attainment, attendance or teaching quality significantly higher than in schools nationally, although improvement in Key Stage 3 results in mathematics were encouraging."
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that education is part of an overall picture in the inner cities, and that one of the reasons that it is so important is that it can encourage potential investors into this country? For example, Toyota created a huge number of jobs in Tyne and Wear, and the knock-on effect for the regeneration of the north-east was very large.
  Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, although it was Nissan, not Toyota, that invested in Sunderland. The contribution that that has made to the region has been enormously beneficial, and a number of other businesses have moved to the area to service that industry. It is important, when attracting inward investment, to have a pool of talented, skilled employees. We need to focus on that, because—as my hon. Friend says—education is one of many facets of regeneration. It is a particularly important facet for individuals, but for the entire north-east it is vital for achieving economic success.
  One of the problems that the Government are trying to resolve by tackling the educational problems in the north-east is the historical legacy not of 18 years of
  1216
  Conservative Government but of the fact that the local education authorities—all of which operated under a high degree of autonomy while we were in power, although that autonomy has subsequently been eroded by this Government—were Labour-controlled. The results in education authorities such as South Tyneside, Newcastle and Sunderland are a consequence of years of Labour control. There is much to be done to improve the results in those areas, and I am not sure that central Government initiatives are the only way of achieving that.
  We need to ensure that there is more choice in schools. We must move away from a monochrome mix of schools towards more variety and innovation, to attract teachers into schools in deprived areas. The Ofsted report comments that it is difficult to attract teachers to schools in those areas. Perhaps we need to be more innovative in terms of the type of education that those schools offer, to excite and challenge teachers to come and work in them.
  We also need to consider parental choice in deprived areas, where there is, unfortunately, not a wide diversity of choice in terms of the range of schools on offer. People in the north-east who can afford to do so will send their children to the private schools. I attended a comprehensive school in Durham, and I benefited from that. Escaping poor schools should not be an opportunity open only to those who can afford to go to private schools. We must therefore ensure that the state schools system is attractive and that we can offer more choice to parents on low incomes. One of the retrograde steps taken by the Government in their first term was to abolish the assisted places scheme, which had provided an opportunity for parents to escape the state sector and for those in less well-off areas to benefit from a different type of education.
  In the United States, George Bush has focused on the need to allow parents in areas where schools are poor to have an effective choice in education through a form of education voucher. It will be interesting to see the product of that reform and how it will change the lives of the people in those areas.
  I am conscious that time is short and many Labour Members wish to speak. I do not wish to deprive them of that opportunity, but I have one more point to make. The other aspects of policy to which we need to pay close attention are planning and development, which have been touched on frequently in the debate. Living in the south-east and representing a seat in Hampshire, which will see a great increase in its population in the next 10 to 15 years, I am acutely conscious that by building more homes in the south-east, we are in danger of encouraging economic migration from the north to the south. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) referred to the migration population being primarily among skilled and senior technical staff in businesses.
  My concern is that by increasing significantly the number of houses to be built in the south—an increase significantly greater than that in the north-east—we are in danger of impoverishing the north-east by dragging its skilled, technically able people to the south. Although I wish my constituency to develop well economically, I do not want that to happen at the expense of the one nation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred in his remarks. Our planning and development policies need to reflect and consider the impact of greater house building in the south-east on the impoverishment of areas in the north.

  1217
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to community-led initiatives. The Portsmouth housing association is trying to develop a bond to finance a project called Fusion. It will combine public and private investment in a wide range of skills to tackle the poverty and deprivation that exist along the south coast, in Portsmouth and the neighbouring boroughs, including Fareham. I welcome that scheme, because it demonstrates the need to look at the fabric of our environment and to provide the education and skills that people need to lift themselves out of deprivation. It also demonstrates how the public and private sectors can work together. To use a housing association as a facilitator is an excellent idea.
  In conclusion, we must ensure that all the Government's policies are directed towards improving the lot of those living in deprived areas. I am concerned that their policies on education and planning will work against the interests of those people, not in their favour.
  1.38 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) started his speech with an appeal for a bipartisan approach. I am not sure how his ancestor, whom I am informed was a former Speaker of the House, would have viewed the hon. Gentleman's definition of bipartisan. However, in the spirit of his redefinition of the word, I should like to respond to the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who said that the message the Conservative party is receiving from the electorate is, "Come back, all is forgiven." I am not a theologian, but my understanding is that for forgiveness to be offered it must be asked for, and not one Conservative Member has apologised for a single policy adopted by the previous Tory Government. Therefore, I cannot see forgiveness being offered or forthcoming from the electorate.
  I am one of nine Members—at the moment, anyway—representing the city of Glasgow.[Laughter.] There is no hidden agenda in my speech.
  Glasgow is Scotland's first city, though not its capital. I need not go over in detail the often tragic history of Glasgow's 20th century decline from being a city of more than 1 million citizens and the home of the world's finest shipbuilding industry to a city of barely 600,000 people with high unemployment and some of the worst ill health and deprivation in the country. If poverty was Glasgow's only problem, however, the plight of some of my constituents would be less serious than it is. As Labour Members know, poverty leads to many other social ills, a fact repeatedly denied by the Conservative party when it was in Government.
  Poverty leads directly to crime, drug abuse and poor health. As unemployment and poverty in Glasgow have reached new heights, so have crime, drug abuse, drug dealing, money laundering and violence. I served for three months—it felt much longer—on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Many of its provisions will tackle those who seek to capitalise on others' misery, but grinding poverty can be tackled only by giving people real jobs.
  The House should be in no doubt about the seriousness of Glasgow's predicament. I referred earlier to Glasgow being Scotland's first city, but not its capital. I should
  1218
  prefer Glasgow to be the capital of Scotland, and I feel an early-day motion coming on. It may not be helpful if I go down that road now; others might follow me, and I can imagine my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) making a strong case if we give him half a chance. That said, Glasgow is the first city of Scotland, capital or not, and Scotland cannot thrive while its largest city struggles. Just one example of the problems is the fact that 19 per cent. of the working age population claimed sickness or disability benefits in August 2000.
  I do not want to dwell entirely on the negative side of my city. A great deal is happening that is positive, and I pay tribute to the members of Glasgow city council and their energetic leader, Councillor Charlie Gordon. A sense of optimism can be felt in a large part of the city. The council inherited a difficult situation when it was created from the ashes of Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow city council in 1996. The administration has shown imagination and creativity in addressing Glasgow's problems. The prospective wholesale transfer of the council's housing stock is a good example of that.
  Notwithstanding the mess that resulted from the then Tory Government's utterly cynical reorganisation of local government in 1996, Governments of different political persuasion have contributed to a gradual, if fitful, regeneration of the city over the past 30 years. I welcome, as did the city council, the abolition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November of stamp duty on all residential and business property transactions worth between £60,000 and £150,000 in designated disadvantaged areas. Castlemilk in my constituency has benefited from that, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his imaginative initiative.
  That said, I must agree with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that the benefits of the initiative may not be widely felt, at least in the short term. Glasgow city council concluded that
  "while Stamp Duty exemption may be seen as an additional incentive, considerations such as access to markets and suppliers and high quality transport links, are likely to prove of more fundamental significance".
  Glasgow benefits from better transport links than anywhere else in Scotland. West-central Scotland has the largest commuter rail network in the UK outside London. Glasgow underground, operated by my former employer, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, carries 15 million passengers a year.
  Even so, bus services, which are crucial to the mobility of any work force, remain the most popular form of public transport in Scotland. The Government have an opportunity to make a real difference and a major improvement in that respect. The Conservative Government's deregulation of the bus industry in 1986 was an unmitigated disaster for the travelling public, though I accept that it was not so for those who own shares in private bus companies. There is no evidence yet that quality partnerships—voluntary agreements between local authorities and private bus companies—can deliver the improvements in local bus services that are essential to the economic well-being of our country. That is a particular problem in Glasgow, where car ownership is well below the national average.
  I hope that this Government—I cannot speak for the Scottish Executive—have not missed the opportunity to introduce quality contracts: exclusive franchises to give

  1219
  ordinary members of the public a proper, regular and dependable bus service. Glasgow is rare among post-industrial British cities in that it has inherited a decent road network, despite having depended on its rail network for many years. I welcome the building of the M74 motorway extension because of the number of jobs that it will create and because there is a missing link in the motorway network around Glasgow, which must be filled if we are to regenerate the city.
  Computer models have shown that the chance of creating local jobs for local people beyond a three-mile radius decreases exponentially, so one of the keys to unlocking the potential for job creation in cities such as Glasgow—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Poole—is derelict land reclamation. Writing in the "Oxford Review of Economic Policy", one of my constituents, the economist David Webster, points out that cities' brownfield land is
  "the great asset that most areas of high unemployment have in abundance."
  He refers to the success of Leeds, which, although it is known for its service industry, has done remarkably well in attracting manufacturing jobs. That is no accident. It is because of its proactive policy on land reclamation.
  The key is bringing derelict land back into use, particularly contaminated land. Nine per cent. of Glasgow's total land area is currently vacant or derelict, yet unfortunately the importance of that issue has been downgraded by Scottish Enterprise in particular and by the Scottish Executive. It is crucial that we not only identify those parts of the city but invest enough money to rehabilitate them. That is the only way in which to get new companies to come into cities to set up factories and distribution centres that will employ local people.
  As I have said, Scottish Enterprise is the main agency in that respect. It needs to push land reclamation to the top of the local economic agenda. I accept that it will involve serious amounts of money. I hope that the Government will see it as a serious enough problem to contribute that money.
  I understand that there is a lack of time in this debate and I want to give colleagues a chance to speak. Not only am I extremely proud of the history of my city but I believe that it has a great future. Politicians leading it at city council and national levels are committed to it. We can look forward to a brighter economic future.
  1.47 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) talked about the optimism for the future of his constituency. I want to say a few words about the experience of regeneration in my constituency and some of the principles on which that is based, and to underline the optimism there.
  Gravesham has a proud history. As I take every opportunity to remind the House, Dickens lived there and Pocahontas died there. It has the oldest cast iron pier in the world and the oldest chartered market in the south of England. People used to come in their droves to Gravesham to promenade along the river or in Rosherville gardens, but for much of the previous century it went through a sadder time. The older heavy industries, such as paper manufacturing and cement quarrying, declined, unemployment rose, prosperity fell and the local environment suffered. During the 1980s and 1990s the
  1220
  area was hard hit by both rising unemployment and negative equity. Now things are changing. There is growing prosperity in that part of north Kent, in particular in Kent Thameside. Crime has fallen by 10 per cent. in the past year alone. It has become one of the most dynamic areas of the country.
  Gravesham borough council has won beacon status for its work in town centre regeneration, which was based on several principles. The first is partnership, which has been mentioned by several speakers. As my hon. Friend the Minister underlined in her opening remarks—I apologise for missing the first few moments of her speech—regeneration used to be something that was done to local people and local communities; it was not done by them and with them. Before embarking on the regeneration of Gravesham town centre, Gravesham borough council and its partners in the private sector, the voluntary organisations and the public services undertook a major public consultation exercise to find out exactly what people wanted from their town centre and their borough.
  The main message that came through was that local people are proud of their history and heritage, but ambitious for their future. Regeneration of Gravesham as a whole, and of the town centre in particular, was based on plans to revitalise that heritage but also to ensure that we have a living and vibrant community, with repopulation of the town centre to bring the whole borough back to life.
  We are proud of our history, but we are not nostalgic. We shall ensure that we can build that vibrant and prosperous future. Many of the challenges that we have faced recently have stimulated our determination to do that—not least the fact that two of the largest shopping centres in Europe are close to our borders. Thurrock is just across the river, while the new Bluewater shopping centre—the largest in Europe—is five miles away along the A2.
  In Gravesham, we could have rolled over and said, "Well that's the end of our town centre in Gravesend." The competition with our retailers could have been seen as a threat: we saw it as an opportunity. Every year, 30 million people visit Bluewater, but the 1,750 people who work in the complex provide the mechanism for bringing regeneration and spending power into the borough.
  We have worked in partnership, not only locally with the private, voluntary and public sectors in Gravesham, but with those key strategic elements that are so important in the Government's approach to regeneration. We are making sure that we build a future that meets the needs of local communities and local people.
  We are not talking only about economic regeneration. The second important principle is social regeneration. In the past, regeneration too often left local communities and local people behind. Sustainable development requires the benefits to be shared throughout the community.
  One of the reasons that my constituency—like those of many Members on both sides of the House—has experienced growing prosperity is due to the range of national policies that helped to ensure that the poorer sections of the community were able to share in that general rising prosperity. The national minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the new deal and the new tax credits that we debated yesterday all ensure not only that the proceeds of regeneration are more fairly shared,

  1221
  but that, due to the extra spending power of those sections of the community, regeneration itself becomes a driving force for sustainable economic renewal.
  Economic, social and environmental regeneration are all important. Lord Rogers pointed out that
  "urban policies are not just about bricks and mortar, but about improving the prosperity and quality of life for the people who live there".
  I warmly welcome the Government's emphasis on ensuring that, wherever possible, new housing developments are on brownfield sites and we avoid developments on greenfield sites. In my constituency—as in Glasgow—we have more than enough brownfield sites for those developments. By using town centre sites for social housing and for housing for our much-needed key workers we can revitalise the town centre while ensuring that we do not eat further into greenfield sites and thus into the quality of life of people in the community as a whole.
  My constituency is a mixed rural and urban community. It is mainly urban, but there are some important rural parts and many attractive villages. We need to preserve the quality of the rural areas, for both parts of the community. As many hon. Members have said, we must ensure that, in debate on this subject, we talk about rural as well as urban regeneration. There is not a trade-off between those two. To bring about sustainable regeneration, they must go hand in hand.
  We also need to improve the quality of the environment and the quality of life for those living in urban areas, which is why schemes such as home zone are so important. I am pleased that a £400,000 home zone project was recently announced for one of the most deprived parts of my constituency, in Denton and the Northcourt estate. It will mean environmental improvement, better play areas, traffic calming and a general improvement in the quality of life for people living in that area.
  Finally, as other hon. Members have suggested, regeneration is also about the quality of public services. Transport, as we all know, is important. One of the driving forces of regeneration in my part of the country will of course be the channel tunnel rail link. Its Ebbsfleet station, which will be in my constituency, will be a major source of economic dynamism in the years ahead. Local transport projects such as fast track will ensure that we have accessible and affordable transport links to draw together the different parts of Kent Thameside and to ensure that everyone can share in prosperity.
  Regeneration is also about other forms of public services, such as the health service. Many hon. Members have spoken about education. Regeneration is about the healthy living centre that we are about to establish, the new community hospital that we are in the process of building, and the new medical centre. All these things are a way of ensuring that regeneration has a real impact on the quality of people's lives.
  With the optimism that I spoke about at the start of my speech, we can look forward in our part of Kent—previously a deprived area—to real dynamism, growth and prosperity in the years ahead, and a real improvement in the quality of people's lives, assisted by £14 million of European Union urban funding. We will ensure that that
  1222
  funding is spent in such a way that it meets the needs of local people and communities, and ensures regeneration not only of the economy but of the environment and the community.
  1.57 pm
  Jon Cruddas: Today's discussion covers important territory in terms of the needs of the people whom I represent in Dagenham. I want to examine the issues with reference both to my constituency and developments across east London.
  Let us consider some of the basic characteristics of the community that I represent. It is the lowest-wage economy in Greater London and one of the most deprived boroughs in the capital. Adult numeracy is the second lowest in the country, literacy the fourth lowest. The number of residents with higher educational qualifications is the lowest in the country. Heart and lung disease, infant mortality and life expectancy are among the worst in the capital. Fear of crime dominates all community surveys. Police numbers are chronically low.
  Questions surrounding public services cannot be separated from issues of regeneration. The national public services strategy is starting to have an effect locally. The borough has some of the most improved schools in the country. The early-years agenda has resulted in major investments. A new private finance initiative hospital in Romford is expected to open in 2005. Seventy-nine new police officers are to enter the borough in the next 18 months. Overall we are starting to witness change, yet the needs of the community are immense.
  However, the real challenges in east London are more profound. The analysis contained in the London development agency's London plan shows that for 30 years after the second world war, business and populations emigrated from London through new town development. By 1983, London's population had dropped by some 1.2 million. What followed was a fall in housebuilding and an abandonment of strategic planning in London. Therefore, as London developed rapidly over the past 20 years, it was ill prepared to handle growth in terms of strategic guidance, infrastructure, housing, transport and public services.
  The population is set to grow by another 1 million over the next 10 to 15 years, and the London plan sets out two options: either we witness a new period of externalisation out of London or we accept that economic growth and create an adequate infrastructure to enable the city to achieve sustainable development. The plan proposes the latter.
  Huge issues are thrown up by that conclusion. How do we handle some 500,000 extra households over the next 15 years? Where is the brownfield development? Where do we physically build the houses? Where are these new communities employed? What are the consequences for education, health and transport?
  When we consider how London will strategically manage those changes, we see that all roads lead east. Dagenham sits at the centre of the sub-region that will have to accommodate much of that growth—the Thames gateway. East London is an exciting place to be at the moment. In terms of London's economic development, the centre of gravity is moving eastwards. The Mayor talks of shifting priorities from west to east and of building a new city to the east.

  1223
  In Dagenham, the sheer scale of brownfield land will lead to massive development in the next 10 years. For example, one site in the borough, Barking Reach, will handle some 6,000 new homes—a population of 12,000 to 15,000 people. To the south of the borough, including in parts of Beckton, we have a regeneration site the size of Islington. That has huge implications for public services in the borough. The new communities will require schools and health care, and they will have to be policed. Many of the people who will live in these new communities will be public sector workers. They must be transported into and throughout the city. They cannot just start their cars and turn left on to the A13.
  The proposed crossrail, for example, should not just shuttle commuters in and out of London; it must link new communities in London with key job generation sites. For example, it is estimated that some 40,000 people will be employed in the Royal Docks and 100,000 in Canary Wharf in 10 years. That is only part of the regeneration agenda. So far I have mentioned housing, public services and managing growth in this city. We also have to rebuild the manufacturing and economic centre of east London.
  As I have said, Dagenham sits at the centre of the Thames gateway—an increasingly integrated area covering 13 boroughs and 2 million people in some of the most deprived areas in the country. Historically, because of the location of the Ford Motor Company, Dagenham has been the centre of manufacturing for east London. We must, and we are, rebuilding that, in partnership with the Government, the devolved agencies and local authorities.
  On 20 February, the last Fiesta will roll off the line in Dagenham—the end of car assembly in the area. That will be a sad day. However, as one door shuts another opens—soon, a new high technology engine manufacturing plant will be built. It will be one of the most modern manufacturing facilities in Europe. Annual engine production will rise to about 900,000 units by 2004. Car assembly will end, but more than 5,000 people will still be employed on the Dagenham estate. It will continue to be London's largest industrial centre and will become Europe's premium manufacturing facility for diesel technology.
  In addition, a new supplier park will be created in Dagenham, on London development agency land, to support that new diesel facility. That will attract small and medium-sized, high-tech businesses, on top of which a new centre for manufacturing excellence on the Ford estate will provide education and training, from basic skills right through to advanced postgraduate degrees for local people.
  To rebuild east London's manufacturing base, we need more infrastructure. The scarcity of river crossings over the east Thames remains a major impediment to successful economic regeneration. The proposed package of three new river crossings will have a major impact, by creating employment and development opportunities.
  The channel tunnel rail link, which will go underground in Dagenham, is vital if international and domestic connections to London and the south-east are to be created and major hubs for new investment established. I hope that the docklands light railway will be extended into the borough, linking it to the major job generation sites to the north of the Thames.
  Overall, we are engaged in a genuinely radical attempt to confront deprivation and boost public services in this city and this country. The task that faces us in London is
  1224
  massive—to build a new city with a new economic centre to the east, with the infrastructure and services needed to build strong communities. That will involve the Government working hand in hand with the devolved agencies to forge an agenda for change that will materially alter the lives of the people whom I represent.
  The process cannot descend into a financial dogfight, based on simplistic assumptions of the north-south divide, while ignoring the economic outflows from London to the rest of the United Kingdom. The people whom I represent deserve mature political governance by our national figures and the devolved agencies. That should be based on a clear understanding of the economic and social problems that confront London, not on a partial analysis of its economic prosperity forged in the Westminster beltway.
  There are some promising signs. For example, the strategic partnership in the DTLR for the Thames gateway is creatively confronting some of those issues. This is a key turning point for the Government and London. All the participants should rise to the challenges that will be produced, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute today.
  2.4 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), who cut short his remarks, and other hon. Members for the opportunity to take part in this debate.
  Regeneration in Preston requires both public and private finance along with a vision of economic development underpinned by major employment prospects, educational and skills opportunities, community development and partnership with the local authority. I pay tribute to Preston borough council—under the stewardship of its leader, Councillor Ian Hall, and the portfolio holder for regeneration, Councillor Veronica Afrin—and to the businesses, voluntary groups and local communities that have an important role to play in the regeneration process.
  Preston sees its future economic growth coming from three main sources. The first is its establishment as the major regional shopping centre for the north-west outside the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations. The Tithbarn project will bring in £300 million of private investment to Preston for the development of shopping facilities and the town centre generally. The second is as the tertiary education centre for the sub-region, and the third is the establishment of the town as a centre for art, culture and design.
  Preston's assets include a relatively young and expanding population, its role as an access gateway into much of the sub-region and region, and the fact that it is a private and public decision-making and administrative centre and a seat of learning that is seeking to develop its expertise in the technologies of the future and to take advantage of its locational attributes. Taken together, those assets contribute to the development of a competitive business environment and of an area that is potentially attractive to investors in the high value-added, knowledge-based sectors of the economy that are at the centre of the regional economic strategy as well as national economic policy.
  Economic development and regeneration are key aspirations of the local Preston partnership. To achieve long-term and effective regeneration, it is necessary to

  1225
  recognise and minimise the constraints affecting economic development. The constraints include the increasing polarisation of growth in the large cities and towns. Such growth is due in part to the huge improvement in the facilities in, and the environment of, major town centres; the economic growth that acts as a magnate for the young professional and entrepreneur; the concentration of the "ideas" culture in the cities and towns; and the cosmopolitan lifestyle now available because of the rapid growth of city centre and residential areas. If those trends continue unabated, there will be a growing population and employment shift to the regional cities and that will result in the economic, social and cultural decline of their urban hinterlands.
  If regional towns such as Preston are to prosper in the new century, they need to develop into micro-cities that incorporate many of the benefits of the mega-city and blend them with the unique feature of a large town. The economic regeneration of Preston in the years up to the next Preston guild in 2012 will take place in an unprecedented period of organisational change and new initiatives. The Northwest development agency's regional prospectus of October 2001 said:
  "The Northwest Development Agency, with an office based in Preston, places the town as one of the key hubs of North West development. Regeneration is a key element of NWDA's activities."
  The Government, through their single regeneration budget funding and neighbourhood renewal strategy, support and will continue to support organisations throughout the community. Areas of Preston receiving significant amounts of support are Fishwick, Ribbleton, Deepdale, St. Mathew's, Brookfield, Avenham and Central wards.
  An example of an agency in Preston working towards regeneration is the Avenquest community regeneration trust, the annual general meeting of which I shall attend next week on Thursday 14 February. It is a community-led organisation that is working towards the economic and social regeneration of one of the most deprived areas in the north-west, with many poor and deprived white and ethnic minority residents. The trust is developing a range of programmes, partnerships and initiatives to tackle deprivation and to build the capacity of individuals, households and communities to participate effectively in, and to benefit from, the process of regeneration.
  The trust is working with Avenham ward residents to create opportunities and pathways away from poverty and disadvantage and into jobs, education and training. The trust has been in existence for almost two years and it has made significant progress. The focus of current activity is to target those communities that have not been able to access mainstream opportunities. The goals are: creating employment, promoting community education and developing training opportunities. The chief purpose of the trust is to attack the root causes of poverty by meeting the problems of unemployment and providing assistance and support to those who seek employment, together with the advancement of education, training or re-training and the provision of work experience.
  The trust works in the community by providing drop-in facilities in information and communications technology, arts activities, volunteer activities, informal education, support activities and enabling opportunities. Key projects
  1226
  include local labour in construction, the health for all partnership, the new Avenham centre, community access to ICT and a community resource room. Success is coming from partnerships that are committed to new ways of working with different communities. The trust's future priorities are job creation and job growth; developing training opportunities; working with communities and agencies; developing volunteers and activities; becoming financially self-sufficient; and continuing to be community-based and accountable.
  In addition, Preston borough council has developed a policy in pursuit of establishing Preston town centre as an economic development zone. The projects and information compiled for the bid will act as guiding messages for a 10-year action plan, whether the EDZ application is successful or not. The improved wealth shown by improvements in gross domestic product will be brought about only by the growing ambitions of existing and new start-ups and inward investing companies. The competitiveness of the Greater Preston economy depends on the concerted and co-ordinated actions of the local partners, as well as a city region that both companies and residents are proud to belong to and represent as ambassadors.
  Preston is in the process of developing and consulting on targets for regeneration. Suggested starting points for discussion with partners are improvement of GDP from £9,000 to £18,000 a year over the period of the strategy; unemployment in the priority 2 area to be reduced from 1,700 to under 1,000; workspace provision to be improved by 400 workspace units; the number of creative businesses in the Preston area to increase by an agreed amount; museum visitors to increase over a fixed period by a certain amount; transport improvements to increase non-car movements by a target amount; graduate retention measures; and an inward investment measure. Those are the targets of an ambitious town hopefully, one day soon, to become a city and the third major conurbation in the north-west after Manchester and Liverpool.
  Preston is a thriving town and the pockets of severe deprivation will be dealt with by the measures that I have outlined. I look forward to a bright future for that proud town.
  2.12 pm
  Ms Keeble: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
  We have heard a wide range of speeches in what has been an important and excellent debate that highlighted the policies and initiatives that the Government are using to give hope to millions. Hon. Members also set out the difficult issues with which we have to grapple as we regenerate different regions and communities. For many, protection against poverty is created by a strong and stable economy, which the Government have produced through careful economic management. Our regeneration policies will ensure that all regions and local communities benefit from that sound economy. What a contrast that is to previous policies that sometimes dealt with the symptoms but not the causes of poverty and economic disadvantage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Daisley) made a welcome and outstanding maiden speech. I pay tribute to his work as a council leader in which he had to deal with some of the difficult issues that have been raised today. That role will have given him an insight into the needs of disadvantaged communities and the way in which we can regenerate them.

  1227
  My hon. Friend spoke in particular of health and its role in regeneration. I agree that that is often overlooked, but the Government have identified it as a key policy. Our substantial efforts have included providing £100,000 to Hyndburn as part of the neighbourhood renewal fund to tackle the high level of coronary heart disease in that community. It is fundamental that sound health is the basis for a stable community and a sound economy. The Labour party has always supported that approach. That is why we set up the national health service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) was one of a number of Members who set out the case for London. London Members have been outstanding in their advocacy on behalf of their city. My hon. Friend showed the breadth of the measures that have been taken by the Government to tackle disadvantage—for example, sure start and the new deal. There are many other such programmes. She raised two specific points about the needs index, one being about crime. Currently, we have a lack of standardised data, but the neighbourhood renewal unit is working on that with the Home Office.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned mobility. Sometimes mobility can be difficult to interpret. A lack of mobility can be a symptom of people being trapped in a cycle of poverty. She is right to say that the needs of London are different from those elsewhere. All Members who have contributed to the debate have spoken about the needs of their communities. The Government recognise that different communities have different needs. That is why we have proposed a strategy that ensures that particular needs are recognised and met.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) spoke eloquently about the economic changes in the area that she represents, and the good results that are being achieved by partnership working. I assure her that the Government have a ministerial design group. We also have good practice guides to reinforce the important role that good-quality design has to play in regeneration. There are some outstanding examples, such as the library in Peckham, the art gallery in Walsall, public art in Birmingham, the new school on the Greenwich peninsula and some demonstration housing projects in Liverpool. These examples underpin the role of good design.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) spoke of the excellent work that is being undertaken by the new deal for communities. He underlined the scale of disadvantage in London.
  I pay tribute to the work that a number of London boroughs have done through imaginative and innovative regeneration policies and programmes. In many respects, they have pioneered some of the work in turning around disadvantaged areas. They have taken on some of the macro problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) spoke, as well as some small-scale schemes that will turn their areas around.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) spoke of the impact of the education action zones, sure start and European money. He demonstrated that there are a plethora of schemes, and that can itself be a problem. I shall come to that later. These schemes are designed to turn difficult areas around.
  1228
  The Government recognise the problems of some seaside towns. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend and other Members who represent seaside towns are undertaking to find solutions to some of the problems that affect their constituencies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made a typically eloquent speech. She rightly identified the need for community involvement. Her chairing of her local partnership for the new deal for communities is well recognised as a major factor in its success.
  My hon. Friend talked about housing and its role in regeneration. She will know that today a conference is sitting that is considering the housing strategy for London. I am sure that there will be a lively and informative debate. I hope it will deal with some of the strategic needs for housing in the capital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who is my close parliamentary neighbour, spoke of the success of Government strategies. He was one of several Members who identified the importance of transport for regeneration. His constituency did well in the rural bus challenge. Work is continuing to find solutions to the transport needs of the town.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) outlined developments north of the border where a social justice strategy prioritises the elimination of child poverty and the establishment of full employment. Regeneration work in Scotland is being undertaken by the new housing and regeneration agency, which emphasises, among other issues, the partnership working that we have supported so strongly in London.
  I assure my hon. Friend that local authorities can introduce quality contracts. The Government recognise the importance of local transport, particularly bus transport, to regeneration, combating social exclusion and giving people access to jobs. That is one reason why we have put money into the rural and urban bus challenges, which have produced imaginative schemes.
  We have also provided financial incentives for land decontamination, an important issue that was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, and one that is crucial for successful brownfield site development.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) gave a good example from his own constituency of the way in which town centre development can act as a driver for regeneration. He gave a careful analysis of the role played by work undertaken in his locality in improving the whole borough. It is well recognised that retail-led regeneration can be very effective. That is one reason behind the proposals for business improvement districts, which we hope will be on stream by 2004 as they require primary legislation. In some areas people are already building partnerships and introducing measures that will pave the way for successful business improvement districts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham referred to the grim statistics of failure and underlined the need for mainstream services to address those disadvantages, setting out the enormous scale of the task of regenerating east London. Essentially, he made the case for the regional dimension in economic development and pointed out that east London represents a major development project. That has been well recognised by the Government—less so by the Conservative party—through

  1229
  the establishment of the regional development agencies and the careful work that is being undertaken in relation to the development of the Thames gateway. We recognise the importance of providing a sound transport infrastructure.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister referred to a plethora of schemes relating to regeneration. Is she therefore admitting that there are too many schemes; and if so, will she undertake to study the whole regeneration process and simplify it?
  Ms Keeble: I shall address that in my response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). There is an issue about the number of schemes. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in my opening speech I did not refer to them all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) referred to the important development of the regional economy and gave an effective rationale for and defence of the regional development agencies and the important role that they can play in partnership with local authorities and the private sector.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that poverty did not begin in 1979 and end in 1997 and of course he is right. We recognise that there is still too much poverty in Britain today and it is one of our primary aims to eliminate child poverty in particular. Our argument with the Conservatives is that when they were in government their policies contributed to the distress of the impoverished communities and failed to put in place policies that tackled the structural inequalities in our society. They failed to do that because it was not a priority for them, but it is a priority for us.
  In 1979, 10 per cent. of children lived in households with below half the average income, and in 1994–95 that had risen to almost a third.
  Mr. Gray: Why are Labour's policies not working?
  Ms Keeble: There are no quick fixes to regenerating communities, eliminating poverty or dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham raised. We have set a 10 or 20-year target, because we recognise that it will take more than a generation to end the cycle of disadvantage that has blighted the lives of so many people and communities.
  Mr. Gray: Of course more households had less than half the average wage in 1994–95 than in 1979. That is because the average wage became so much higher. More people had more money then than they have ever had under Labour.
  Ms Keeble: All the agencies that deal with child poverty and similar issues recognise that by the end of 18 years of Conservative government the proportion of children growing up in poverty was an absolute scandal. That has been well recognised by this Government, and we are determined to end it.
  1230
  Virtually all the policies proposed by the hon. Member for Cotswold are already in place: fiscal incentives for regeneration; use of the planning system to prioritise redevelopment of brownfield sites; involving the business community; and creating partnerships. We are very much committed to those policies. Our argument with the docklands and UDC model is not that it locked businesses in—which of course it did—but that it locked the communities out.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about rural crime and disadvantage, which indeed we recognise. Throughout my opening speech, I stressed the fact that we do not say that disadvantage is the exclusive preserve of the towns and cities. It can have a terrible impact on the lives of people in rural communities, too. Our policies are designed, through the role of local partnerships and the assessment of local needs, to ensure that the needs of all disadvantaged communities are properly met.
  The hon. Gentleman also outlined the impact of low demand. He was right to bring up the appalling scale of low demand and the tragedy of all those empty properties. All sectors of housing are affected in similar ways by low demand, be they housing association, council or private sector. We are currently considering proposals for a market renewal fund to deal with those issues. We are also considering targeting. We have national minimum floor standards but we are also trying to ensure that communities assess and meet their own needs.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) talked about the need to get the built environment right. He is absolutely right about that, although we may disagree on the details. We are actively pursuing the urban renaissance. The Rogers report recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) also spoke about rural poverty. I remind him that we have provided extra funding for rural housing and transport and dealt carefully with issues of rural planning.
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) highlighted the problems of homelessness. We have set up a homelessness directorate.
  I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Poole, who spoke about the plethora of schemes. We are working to simplify the current range of schemes and to ensure that they are better known and that the communities can get involved.
  To the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) I would say that we have also recognised the importance of education in regeneration and made it one of our key targets.
  It is by results on the ground that our strategy to transform our poorest neighbourhoods must be judged. We know that there is still a lot to do. We believe that our strategy and our goals are right and that, working in partnership with our poorest communities, we can defeat poverty and regenerate the most disadvantaged areas of this country.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the future of Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears)—who I am delighted to see in her place—will know that Stoke Mandeville has a national and international reputation, the latter deriving in particular from the record of its famous spinal injuries unit.
  But to my constituents, it is, above all, their local hospital; the district general hospital on which they rely for their treatment and that of their families. I should declare a personal, as well as a constituency interest, as my family use Stoke Mandeville, although I have now reached that stage of family life when my visits are no longer to the maternity unit but more to the accident and emergency and paediatric units.
  The hospital employs more than 2,000 staff, making it one of the biggest employers in my constituency and in Buckinghamshire as a whole. I want to spend most of my speech talking about the proposals for the future redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville hospital, but first I want to refer briefly to some serious allegations made in The Observer on 27 January.
  Much of that article dealt with matters that were to do with the employment of individual doctors or with the removal of previous executives and directors of the trust. Those matters either still are, or have recently been, the subject of disciplinary proceedings or an industrial tribunal. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on those in any detail now. The point is that, as the Under-Secretary will know, the article made public and serious allegations that patient safety within the accident and emergency unit was at risk.
  The Under-Secretary will know that I have received assurances from the trust management that those allegations have been thoroughly investigated and that no evidence has been found to suggest that patients are at risk. I should be grateful for her assurance this afternoon that the Department is also satisfied that everything possible has been done to give patients confidence that they will continue to be well treated in the accident and emergency unit.
  I wish to refer to the rebuilding project for Stoke Mandeville, something with which I feel I have been living ever since I was first elected to the House a decade ago. Stoke Mandeville is renowned, but it still relies, in part, on isolation units that were built in the 1940s. The hospital as a whole occupies a ramshackle complex of buildings spread out over a vast site. Patients and staff often have to walk—or, in the case of some patients, be transported—long distances between one unit and another. Inevitably, this means that the quality of treatment is not what one would expect in a modern 21st century hospital, despite all the professionalism and efforts of the staff, to whom I am most willing to pay tribute.
  The site also creates economic inefficiency because the costs of heating, cleaning and maintaining such a ramshackle spread of buildings add to the unit costs of
  1232
  the treatments provided by the hospital. That inevitably has an impact on the health care that the hospital can offer to local people within the money allocated to it. The present plan, which is slowly moving forward, is for a £25 million redevelopment to include new medical and paediatric wards, a day procedures unit, an admissions ward and assessment unit and the refurbishment of other trust buildings. The rebuilding is long overdue.
  There has been some new building on the Stoke Mandeville site, under this Government and their predecessor, but the current plan for major redevelopment has been subject, over the last decade, to repeated delays, causing increasing frustration to staff and the wider local community. It might be helpful for me to sketch in brief the chronology of the story during my time as Member of Parliament for Aylesbury.
  As far back as 27 June 1994, the Department of Health said that the business case for a Treasury-funded scheme for Stoke Mandeville's redevelopment had Government approval. A written answer in 6 June 1995 informed me that the scheme
  "has received full business case approval." —[Official Report,6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 34W.]
  Yet in the late summer of 1995, the trust was informed that the Treasury scheme had to be tested against a PFI alternative. By October of that year, the trust was informed that no Treasury money could be forthcoming, and that it must look to a PFI scheme or to nothing.
  In 1996, the first PFI consortium collapsed and the project was re-advertised. By the summer of 1997, the trust had reconstituted its bid and was ready to proceed to preferred bidder status with the second consortium. At that stage, of course, a new Government were elected, who decided to put all PFI schemes on hold, at least temporarily, pending a reassessment. After a period of reassessment, 12 were allowed to proceed as a first tranche, but Stoke Mandeville's scheme was not included.
  In 1998, when I last secured an Adjournment debate on this topic, Stoke Mandeville was allowed to advertise for the third time for a PFI partner. By March 2001, the trust's annual report was able to say:
  "Construction of the new facilities is due to begin in 2002 and will take two years to complete."
  Last autumn, however, the Government picked Stoke Mandeville as one of three pilot projects for the new policy of contracting out the management of ancillary staff at acute hospitals. That has led to yet another delay.
  The trust hopes to move to the next stage in March, but the Minister needs to understand that, in the light of events under Governments of both major political parties—I am being non-partisan—there is considerable cynicism among the general public, and among staff and the wider medical community in Buckinghamshire in particular, as to whether this much-needed and much-wanted redevelopment will ever take place. A great deal of money has been spent, but to little conspicuous purpose. About £3.5 million was spent on new internal roads and utilities, and on a brand-new roundabout outside the hospital that is ready to serve the new buildings, for which we are still waiting. In the past eight to 10 years, a considerable sum must also have been spent on consultancy fees, let alone on trust management time, as four different schemes were worked through.
  Inevitably, those events have demoralised the hospital's doctors and nurses. General practitioners have told me that, in their view, there is a hidden agenda to run down

  1233
  Stoke Mandeville and make it little more than a cottage hospital—an outpost of either Wycombe general hospital or one of the Oxford hospitals. Despite repeated assurances from the health authority and the NHS regional executive that that is not their agenda, I must tell the Minister that such assurances are received with scepticism because of what has happened in the past 10 years.
  To raise morale locally, the bulldozers need to be on-site as soon as possible, so that reconstruction can get under way. I hope that the Minister can assure me that that will happen soon and that the Government do indeed treat the redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville as a priority. I hope, too, that she can offer a time scale, so that my constituents will know when work on the site will begin and when the new services will be completed and in operation, providing modern health care for the people of Buckinghamshire.
  Local concern has also been aroused by the way in which the goalposts for the redevelopment scheme have been shifted from time to time to take account of real changes in the administration and organisation of health care, or in the development of clinical practice. I hope that the Minister will take account in her response of some of the issues that continue to cause worry.
  One is the future nature of the relationship between the Stoke Mandeville hospital and Wycombe general hospital, which is part of the South Buckinghamshire NHS trust. A review of acute services in mid-Buckinghamshire is being carried out at the moment, and I understand the clinical reasons for that, including the arguments being put forward by the royal colleges, and the new deal on junior doctors' hours. It is right to examine how services are provided and what the correct configuration should be over the next 20 or 30 years. We must not be hidebound by the pattern of provision that was best in the past.
  I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to assure me that the review and the pending decision about a possible merger between the trusts will not cause any further delay to the redevelopment at Stoke. I also hope that she will be able completely to deny the suggestion that these reviews and discussions conceal a secret agenda to move acute services away from Stoke and to concentrate them in High Wycombe because, locally, some people believe that that is what is going to happen.
  I hope that the Minister will also tell me where the Government stand on a possible merger between the two trusts. My understanding is that a decision has been on the Secretary of State's desk for two or three months now as to whether to go out to public consultation over a trust merger, and I would be interested to know the Government's view on that proposal.
  The second cause for concern relates to the creation of the new strategic health authorities and the consequent abolition of Buckinghamshire health authority. I am worried that the new SHA might wish to go back to square one, to re-examine anew the case for Stoke Mandeville's redevelopment, and to review acute services provision on a sub-regional Thames Valley basis, rather than accepting the agenda as it has developed over the last decade. I hope the Minister will say that that is not the case, and that the SHA, when it comes into being, will remain committed to a good district general hospital in Aylesbury, and give its full backing to the Stoke Mandeville redevelopment plan.
  1234
  I want to say something about the financial resources available for health services at Stoke Mandeville and in Buckinghamshire generally. I also want to question the Minister about the number of beds provided for in the current redevelopment plan for Stoke Mandeville. A recent written answer that I received from the Minister, confirmed that Buckinghamshire will still get some £12.2 million less in the forthcoming financial year than the Government's formula—the so-called weighted capitation formula—suggests that the county ought to receive from the NHS pot. That is a continuing source of concern and frustration locally. I understand that the Government are now considering replacing the weighted capitation system altogether. I would like to hope that that means that our deficit will not simply be brushed aside and forgotten, and that the problem of Buckinghamshire getting less than the Government's formula suggests it should receive will be addressed by the funding reforms.
  On bed provision, Buckinghamshire health authority's consultation document published in 1998 envisaged that redevelopment would mean a fall in the number of acute beds from 378 to 320, and a fall in the number of spinal beds from 115 to 108. Again, I acknowledge that there are clinical reasons for different judgments about bed numbers being appropriate now, compared with 20 or 30 years ago. Advances in day surgery and improvements in anaesthetics are two obvious reasons.
  Against that, we must balance the increased demand that will be placed on Stoke Mandeville by the major increase in the local population, particularly in the town of Aylesbury, envisaged in the local plan. We are looking at the prospect of the population of Aylesbury increasing by about one third over the next 10 years or so. Will the new-look Stoke Mandeville have adequate bed capacity under present plans to deal with those numbers of people, or will the Government review the situation?
  The need for a review is made even more marked by the conspicuous pressure on beds. I know from a constituency case that on one day at least this week, Stoke Mandeville hospital was on divert. Patients were being sent to Wycombe general, which was itself on red alert and finding it difficult to accommodate all the patients whom general practitioners wished to refer there. I have been told of at least one weekend last month when Oxford was diverting to Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes was diverting in part to Stoke Mandeville, which was in part diverting to Wycombe general, which again had to close its doors to some additional patients whom doctors wished to refer there. There is great strain on accident and emergency provision, and I hope that the Government will examine the issue, particularly in the context of Stoke Mandeville, but also in the sub-regional context.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give my constituents cause for hope and optimism. For example, a large chunk of the Stoke Mandeville site is in the ownership of the Secretary of State and designated for housing development. I hope that at least some of the capital receipts that the Department will gain might be used for the provision of services to my constituents.
  Above all, I go back to the previous debate on this subject on 29 January 1998. It may be some consolation to the Minister to know that the junior Minister who had the dubious privilege of replying to me at the time is now Secretary of State for Health. The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) said then:

  1235
  "Stoke Mandeville is a hospital with a bright future. It has the strong support of its local population and of the Government"—[Official Report, 29 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 618.]
  The hospital still has the very strong support of the local population in and around Aylesbury. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that it still has her support and that of the Government.
  2.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing the debate. It is a matter of considerable importance to him, to other Members and, most importantly, to the people of Buckinghamshire. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the issues that he would be raising. That always makes it easier to have a more focused debate. I hope that it will provide his constituents with reassurance, hope and optimism, and confirm to them the original comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) that Stoke Mandeville hospital has a bright future.
  The hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in the hospital. He is, quite rightly, eager to ensure that the highest possible standards of health care services are secured for his constituents. I assure him that the Government are committed to providing high-quality services for everyone, no matter where they live.
  More than 35,000 patients were admitted to Stoke Mandeville hospital last year, 11,000 of whom were emergency cases. Some 39,000 patients attended the accident and emergency department and 76 per cent. of those were seen in less than four hours. More than 200,000 patients were seen in out-patient appointments last year, with 93 per cent. seen in less than 30 minutes. Those figures reflect the nature of Stoke Mandeville as a typically busy and hard-working hospital.
  The future of the hospital has been the subject of extensive debate. as the hon. Gentleman said. I am delighted to put on record the Government's plans for the future, not just of Stoke Mandeville but of acute services across the sub-regional area.
  On the private finance initiative scheme, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that contracts will be signed later this year and that building works will commence either late this year or very early next year. I understand that the building works will take some two years to complete, so the new facilities for local people should operate from 2005 if everything goes smoothly and according to plan. That perhaps offers a firmer timetable than it has been possible to give before. I am also delighted to say that the advent of the new strategic health authority will not take us back to square one. Planning is well under way, and the scheme is much wanted by local people.
  Plans for services are still subject to consultation, and I want to ensure that no comments that I make can be taken to pre-judge that consultation, on which a decision will be taken shortly. Buckinghamshire health authority and the Stoke Mandeville and South Buckinghamshire NHS trusts have proposed that the two trusts should merge. Those who support the merger have advanced good reasons for it. First, they refer to the need to protect and develop clinical services at the two trusts. Hospitals, such as Stoke Mandeville, that serve relatively small populations may find it increasingly difficult to meet
  1236
  standards set by the royal colleges, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is felt that a merger would give the successor organisation more scope to meet and maintain those standards so that local people may be assured that they will receive excellent services.
  Secondly, there can be no doubt that maintaining and developing high standards depends crucially on the recruitment and retention of staff with the right skills. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, skilled NHS staff are a scarce resource, particularly in the south of England. There is evidence that more people are likely to be attracted to organisations that offer personal opportunities for professional development. The feeling that they are participating in the development of excellent clinical services is a real draw for staff. New staff need enough variety and experience to allow them to develop their potential to play a key part in providing good services in future. Larger organisations sometimes find it easier to recruit and develop staff than small organisations that may find it difficult to offer the same development opportunities. That is not the case in every organisation; some excellent smaller organisations take the trouble to develop their staff, but it is usually true that if there is more going on, there are more opportunities for staff.
  Technology is developing at an incredible rate. New drugs, therapies and equipment are being used, and that means more training and specialisation for the staff involved. Increasing specialisation can create problems for smaller hospitals that work in isolation. Specialist units need a regular stream of patients to keep staff skills at a high level.
  It has been suggested that a merger could maximise the efficient use of resources. I understand the parties involved to mean that having two trusts ties up significant resources in running parallel management structures and processes. A merger could offer the opportunity to reduce those costs, and any consequent saving could be reinvested in direct patient care, which is a matter of concern to us all.
  I reassure local people that the proposal relates only to management arrangements, not changes in clinical service provision. The three hospitals—Amersham, Stoke Mandeville and Wycombe—will continue to provide the same range of high-quality services that are now available. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is certainly no question of a secret agenda or conspiracy to take away services. The proposal has to do with building up local services and acknowledging both that there are pressures on capacity and that people in Aylesbury are entitled to a high-quality national health service. The proposal would not affect the configuration of primary care services. Over the next few years, primary care will become increasingly significant in the configuration of health services in every area.
  I reassure the hon. Gentleman with regard to bed numbers in the private finance initiative scheme. He mentioned the review of the local authority plan. Originally it was predicted that there would a growth in population of 3 per cent. over the next six years. I understand that the prediction now is that Aylesbury's population will grow by 10 per cent. but that there will be a corresponding 10 per cent. drop in the population of the rest of Buckinghamshire. Therefore, there is an increase in the population not of Buckinghamshire overall but of parts of it.

  1237
  The proposals are still under discussion at local authority level, but clearly Stoke Mandeville is considering their impact and remodelling its plans within the context of the whole of Buckinghamshire. The outcome of the remodelling will be reflected in the full business case. If necessary, plans can be adjusted.
  Where there are significant changes in capacity, it is sensible and logical to look at that. Perhaps one reason why there is such strain on many NHS organisations is that planning in previous years was not as closely aligned as it should have been. Getting the right beds in the right place at the right time, with the right number of staff to give people appropriate treatment, is the biggest challenge that all of us face.
  I am pleased to deal with the investment issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. Investment in Stoke Mandeville has been considerable in the past few years. The trust has had an extra £302,000 to increase capacity, some of which is to provide 15 extra beds in the hospital to help to reduce the number of cancelled operations. A total of £73,000 has been allocated this year for extra nurses in the accident and emergency department, and an extra £300,000 will be made available for extra A and E nurses next year, recognising the pressure there.
  There is extra investment to meet waiting times for in-patient treatment. The trust will receive a share of the £713,000 for delayed discharges in Buckinghamshire. Next year that money will be more than doubled. A total of £413,000 has been provided to modernise diagnostic facilities, including X-ray equipment in A and E, and £165,000 has been spent to improve cataract services. Various other sums have been made available to improve the physical environment and to modernise services, particularly in relation to booked admissions, so that patients get an appointment that is convenient to them and that meets their needs.
  In relation to investment in Buckinghamshire, I note what the hon. Gentleman says about Buckinghamshire's distance from the capitation formula. That must be set in the context of the vast increase in resources that
  1238
  Buckinghamshire, with every other health authority in this country, has received during the past four years. Since 1997, I understand that funding for Buckinghamshire has literally doubled, a massive increase in resources. Although I take the point that he makes about the comparison with others and the formula, investment in Buckinghamshire has resulted in real improvements for local people.
  I wish to put on record the improvements at Stoke Mandeville. Obviously the trust has struggled. It received a zero star rating and under-achieved on five of the nine targets, but in the past few months in-patient waiting lists have been down, waits of more than 12 months have been reduced by 58 per cent. and waits of more than 15 months by 71 per cent. Last-minute cancelled operations are down to below the regional average of 2 per cent. Good progress has been made in tackling delayed transfers of care. In the past two months, the hospital has appointed a discharge co-ordinator and the number of blocked beds has been reduced from 28 to 17—quite a dramatic improvement. I thank the staff and managers who have been involved in achieving those improvements.
  I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I can give the final assurance in relation to patient safety, which he raised. That matter has been considered by an independent review. All the evidence has been examined. I understand that agreements have been reached for the future smooth running of the department. I and the interim chief executive do not believe that patient care has been compromised. Current practices are in line with A and E faculty guidance. The service is, I understand, working well.
  I hope that what I have said has confirmed that Stoke Mandeville hospital has a bright future, and will serve its constituents by providing high-quality and excellent NHS services. It is right that we all pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of the staff. I hope that the hospital continues to serve patients in such a good way for many years to come.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent by his office on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27404]

  The Prime Minister
  No expenditure has been made by my office on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for special envoys to represent him on visits to(a) Latin America and (b) Asia. [31685]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to send special envoys to Latin America or Asia at the moment.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement defining the duties of the Deputy Prime Minister. [31846]

  The Prime Minister
  As First Secretary of State the Deputy Prime Minister continues to deputise for me as required, drawing on the resources of other parts of the Cabinet Office as necessary. He oversees the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, which reports to me through him. He is also responsible for the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the nine Government Offices for the Regions. I have also asked him to be responsible for a White Paper on Regional Governance, in close liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and in co-operation with other Cabinet colleagues.

  On international matters the Deputy Prime Minister supports me. He continues to play a role in international climate change discussions and negotiations on my behalf. More recently, I have also asked the Deputy Prime Minister to take on a similar role in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg in September 2002. In addition he sees visiting dignitaries and undertakes overseas visits on my behalf; and oversees the work of the International Public Service Group. He also carries ministerial responsibility for the British-Irish Council and will deputise for me as necessary at meetings of the Council.

  The Deputy Prime Minister chairs Cabinet Committees on domestic affairs and on the nations and regions; and Sub-Committees on social exclusion and regeneration and on energy policy. He also chairs the newly established Ministerial Group (MISC18) on WSSD and continues to chair the Committee on the environment.

  RMT
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relationship with the RMT union. [32062]

  The Prime Minister
  The relevant Ministers and officials meet stakeholders in the railway industry, including the RMT, as appropriate. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code.

  Lords-lieutenant
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he uses to appoint(a) lords-lieutenant and (b) deputy lords-lieutenant; if he will list the names of deputy lords-lieutenant for each county; and what his estimate is of the average number of official engagements per week of (i) lords-lieutenant and (ii) deputy lords-lieutenant undertaken for each county. [32581]

  The Prime Minister
  In England, consultations which help to inform the appointment area are carried out by the Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consultations are carried out by the relevant Administration or Department. Those appointed as lords-lieutenant are people of standing in their local communities, most frequently on account of their record of voluntary activity for the good of the community.

  Deputy lieutenants are appointed by the lord-lieutenant at his or her discretion, subject only to Her Majesty not disapproving of the grant of the commission. As of July 2001 there were approximately 2,720 deputy lieutenants

  It is not possible to estimate the number of official engagements for each lord-lieutenant or deputy lieutenant, which will reflect such matters as the size and population of the county or area concerned, the demand for such engagements, and the views and judgment of the lords-lieutenant themselves.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister how many lords-lieutenant he has appointed for each county since assuming this responsibility. [32575]

  The Prime Minister
  Lords-lieutenant are appointed under current legislation by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. In the case of Scotland and Wales the Prime Minister is himself advised by the relevant First Minister and in Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State. Since 2 May 1997 31 lords-lieutenant have been appointed.

  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  David Cairns
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Commissioner for Public Appointments is to be reappointed at the end of her term. [33651]

  The Prime Minister:
  I am pleased to be able to announce that Dame Rennie Fritchie has been reappointed for a further term of three years when her current appointment comes to an end on 28 February. Dame Rennie has fulfilled her role as regulator of the public appointments system in a resolute and distinguished manner over the last three years. She has made a major

  569W
  contribution to raising standards in this area and I am sure that this will continue during her second term. She will continue to serve as a Civil Service Commissioner.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the remit given to the Performance and Innovation Unit to make a study of the Government's sport strategy. [33650]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) to carry out a joint study with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport examining long-term sports policy. The project team will consider the roles and responsibilities of Government, and the private and voluntary sectors in helping sport better achieve the objectives of increased grassroots participation in sport and elite sporting excellence. The project team will clarify the roles and responsibilities and interventions of Government to help sport better achieve its own objectives. They will develop an overall strategy for guiding Government's decisions on sports policy (including major events), and review the existing institutional and financial arrangements, in the context of Government's own wider objectives. The initial scoping note for the project is available on the PIU website http:///www.piu.gov.uk/2001/sport/scope.shtml. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be the Sponsor Minister for the project. The unit aims to complete its study by summer 2002.

WALES

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31034]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since the Wales Office came into being in July 1999 it has incurred no such expenditure.

  In the period from April 1998 to July 1999 the former Welsh Office spent some £770,000 on consultancies relating to the PFI aspect of the A55 road in North Wales; there were also two secondees into the Welsh Office during that period advising on PFI matters.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32017]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  At present I estimate that some 42 per cent. of the Wales Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 is being spent on pay and pensions.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has(a) to help promote the National Assembly for Wales, (b) to help improve communications between the National Assembly for Wales and Whitehall Departments and (c) to make the National Assembly for Wales work more effectively and efficiently; and if he will make a statement. [32412]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Wales Office's Departmental Report (Cm 5121) in respect of parts(a) and (b) of his question; and to the Assembly's Performance Report in respect of part (c).

  Departmental Leave Entitlement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31748]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Until August 2000 the leave entitlement for Welsh Office or National Assembly for Wales staff (including those seconded to my Department) was a minimum of 22 days a year rising to a maximum of 30 days. Since August 2000 it has been a minimum of 25 days rising to the same maximum of 30 days.

  My Department also contains a small number of secondees from other Government Departments and local government; these staff retain the leave entitlement of their parent organisation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the public service agreement target for bench marking a single unit cost measure for operational work to establish an interim figure by April 2001 was achieved. [21284]

  Angela Eagle
  The Public Service Agreement was launched in April 2001.

  The Home Office does not have a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for benchmarking a single unit cost measure for operational work to establish an interim figure in April 2001.

  Video Recordings (Criminal Prosecutions)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use is made of video recordings made on public transport vehicles in the prosecution of criminal offences including traffic offences by the Metropolitan police; if he plans an extension of such use; and if he will make statement. [30329]

  Mr. Denham
  Images from closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras on public transport vehicles are used primarily to tackle crime on the vehicles themselves. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that CCTV is a key element of Operation Seneca which is currently targeted at reducing crime on selected bus routes. It has led to a number of arrests for crimes such as robbery, disorder, drugs possession and weapons offences, and has also resulted in a considerable decrease in reported crime on the routes concerned.
  571W
  CCTV cameras are also used to identify bus lane infringements, although these are not criminal offences. Traffic offences are enforced by means of speeding and red light cameras.

  Any plans to extend the use of CCTV on public transport vehicles in London would be an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Community Group Funding
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what initiatives the Government have taken to(a) reorganise and (b) simplify access to state funded competitive grant schemes for (i) community and (ii) voluntary groups; [29930]

  (2) whether a particular Minister has been given specific responsibility for rationalising and simplifying access to state funding for voluntary and community organisations; [29925]

  (3) how the Government will measure the success of their initiatives to simplify access to state funding for voluntary and community organisations; and how progress will be monitored and reported; [29924]

  (4) what research the Government have conducted into the administrative requirements on voluntary and community organisations making applications to the system of state funded competitive grant schemes. [29926]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: In drawing up the Compact on Relations between Government and the voluntary and community sector in England, Funding Code, the Home Office took note of the report of the Commission on the future of the voluntary sector, published in June 1996, entitled "Meeting the challenge of change: voluntary action into the 21st Century", and provided funding to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to conduct an extensive consultation with the voluntary and community sector and Government Departments.

  The study currently being undertaken by the Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) into improving access to regeneration and community funding consulted over 100 bodies and individuals, examined examples of differing administrative requirements imposed on funded bodies; and considered relevant previous research.

  The recommendations arising from the RCU's study of regeneration funding are designed directly to simplify access to state funded competitive grant schemes for voluntary and community groups. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, is also currently reviewing the scope for improving the co-ordination and delivery of state funded grant schemes for the community and voluntary sectors.

  The success of these various initiatives will be measured by the numbers and quality of applications received for individual programmes, a reduction in the number of ineligible applications, success in reaching targeted groups, such as marginalised and minority ethnic groups, and in the use made of the website. Monitoring will be undertaken by the departments managing individual programmes. The Active Community Unit is currently devising a common evaluation framework by which the success of simplification of small grants will be measured.
  572W
  There is no one Minister with specific responsibility for the rationalising and simplification of access to state funding for the voluntary and community sector, although I have responsibility for the Active Community Unit and will be taking a particular interest in this issue.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in each London borough in each three month period since their introduction. [29364]

  Mr. Denham
  Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are community-based civil orders, which can be applied for by the police or local authority, in consultation with each other against an individual or several individuals whose behaviour is antisocial. Applications are to the magistrates court acting in its civil capacity.

  Information held centrally on the number of Antisocial Behaviour Orders issued up to 31 May 2000 is by police force area. Up to that date there were nine ASBOs issued within the Metropolitan Police area (including City of London).

  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates Courts Committees(MCCs) and are presently designed not to give figures below MCC level. A review of these statistics identified an undercount and my Department therefore undertook an exercise with the police to obtain more reliable figures. As a result of this reconciliation exercise the total number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales up to the end of September this year was 466, 184 more than previously reported. Within this total the quarterly figures for the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority are:

  Period

  Total

  June 2000

  0

  Quarter ending September 2000

  10

  Quarter ending December 2000

  9

  Quarter ending March 2001

  4

  Quarter ending June 2001

  4

  Quarter ending September 2001

  4

  Total

  31

  Mobile Phone Theft
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will compel mobile telephony companies to register the user's home address, e-mail and landline telephone number on their SIM cards. [28951]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Government believe that valid registration can help combat mobile phone theft by identifying the customer with his or her phone in order to authorise the blacklisting of stolen SIM cards or, where technically possible, the disabling of the stolen handset itself. It is already the case that contract phone users are required by all mobile phone operators to register their details and that the Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) card inside each mobile phone identifies the user with a full name, address and landline number (if available).
  573W
  Registration of pre-pay mobile phones is not at present compulsory. This is partly due to the European Community Communications Data Protection Directive 97/66 which encourages the development of telecommunications service options which allow anonymous or strictly private access, and also because compulsory registration may disadvantage low income users, who may be of no fixed abode. Orange is the only operator to require registration details from its pre-pay customers. We are encouraging the other major operators, which all have voluntary registration schemes for pre-pay customers, to enhance take-up of these schemes. We will keep the need for legislation under review on this and other measures.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the terms of reference of the Review of Police Use of Firearms being undertaken by the Police Complaints Authority will enable its members to consider(a) international norms for the use of lethal force set out by the United Nations, (b) the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on 4 May 2001 in Shanaghan v. UK and other cases finding procedural shortcomings in police investigations and (c) experience gained by the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland. [29733]

  Mr. Denham
  To address the terms of reference of the review of recent firearms incidents, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) will consider the key issues in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990) with particular attention to paragraphs 10, 22 and 23, and the key conclusions from the Shanaghan case. The PCA has also written to the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland requesting information on relevant cases and general conclusions from their experience to date.

  Fireworks
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were charged with offences relating to the misuse of fireworks in the last six months; [30269]

  (2) how many complaints were received by each police force in the UK relating to firework incidents during the Christmas and new year period. [30268]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales for 2000 is shown in the table. These data show persons proceeded against for offences where it is possible to identify specific firework misuse. Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  Information held centrally does not enable offences involving personal injury or damage to property from fireworks to be identified, as the circumstances behind any offence are not collected.

  No information is collected centrally on complaints received by police forces relating to firework incidents.
  574W

  Persons proceeded against for offences relating to the misuse of fireworks England and Wales 20001,2

  Statute/offence description

  Proceeded against

  Explosives Act 1875, sec. 80

  Throwing, casting or firing any fireworks in or into any highway, street etc. public place

  61

  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, etc.) Act 1985, sec. 2A(1)

  Being in possession of fireworks etc., in or when entering a designated sports ground

  3

  Total

  64

  1 These data are on a principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed introduction of(a) threshold payments, (b) special priority payments and (c) bonus payments to police officers; and what representations he has received from the Police Federation about the additional payments element of the Police Reform Programme. [30112]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB), on which both the Secretary of State and the Police Federation are represented, reached agreement in principle on 27 December 2001 on a package of changes to police pay and conditions of service. The changes are set out in the Heads of Agreement.

  The changes include a new competence-related payment of £1,002 at the top of each of the federated ranks' pay scales. It is expected that at least 75 per cent. of those eligible—that is, those who have spent at least a year at the top of the scale—will receive the payment.

  Under the new special priority payments scheme, officers could qualify for one-off payments of between £500 and £5,000 a year. Chief officers and police authorities will draw up a local scheme of payments, in consultation with local staff associations, having regard to national criteria and to guidance from the Secretary of State. The national criteria are that posts carry a significantly higher responsibility than the norm for the rank; or are particularly difficult to fill; or have specially arduous working conditions. All parties in PNB recognise that there are a number of specialist posts where long hours are a necessary and integral part of the officers' role rather than due to management failure.

  In addition, chief constables will be able to award bonuses of between £50 and £500 for occasional work of an outstandingly demanding, unpleasant or important nature, such as hostage negotiation, or fingerprinting and searching badly decomposed bodies.

  The Police Federation was party to the negotiations in PNB when it had the opportunity to make representations on all the proposed new payments.

  The Heads of Agreement have to be ratified by the end of February.

  Speeding Fines
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total sum obtained from speeding fines in the last year for which figures are available was; and what the figures were in each of the previous 10 years. [27010]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Information on the revenue raised from speeding fines is not available.

  However, the table shows the total number and amount (£) of fines ordered to be paid following conviction for speeding offences within England and Wales from 1991

  Fines and fixed penalties data for speeding offences, England and Wales, 1990–2000

  Court proceedings

  Fixed penalties

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine (£)

  Number of tickets

  Estimated revenue (£)1

  1991

  155,300

  13,198,000

  85

  449,200

  14,374,000

  1992

  146,800

  12,697,000

  87

  460,100

  17,485,000

  1993

  98,200

  12,475,000

  127

  394,800

  15,790,000

  1994

  103,100

  11,676,000

  113

  472,500

  18,899,000

  1995

  117,000

  12,512,000

  107

  530,200

  21,207,000

  1996

  127,900

  12,904,000

  101

  595,100

  23,802,000

  1997

  130,600

  15,523,000

  119

  712,800

  28,510,000

  1998

  151,400

  20,369,000

  135

  781,000

  31,240,000

  1999

  151,200

  19,978,000

  132

  825,300

  33,011,000

  2000

  139,200

  18,098,000

  130

  1,023,500

  44,351,000

  1'Estimate' based on the following fixed penalty charges—£32 up to 31 March 1992, £40 up to 31 October 2000 and £60 as from 1 November 2000

  Gerald Mutketiwa
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received on the treatment of Zimbabwean citizen, Mr. Gerald Mutketiwa, subsequent to his deportation of 16 December; and if he will make a statement. [26120]

  Angela Eagle
  I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  CCTV (Uxbridge)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many CCTV schemes are operating in the Uxbridge constituency. [28489]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office only holds information about schemes we fund. To date the Home Office has not funded any closed circuit television (CCTV) schemes in the Uxbridge area.

  However, the Hillingdon Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership have been allocated funding under the Communities Against Drugs (CAD) Initiative, in order to tackle drugs markets and drugs related crime and disorder. CAD money can be used to fund a variety of interventions including CCTV where appropriate.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by her 576W
  to 2000. As the majority of such offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty, the table also shows the total amount of fixed penalties ordered to be paid.

  Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.

  All fixed penalty fine revenue is passed to Her Majesty's Treasury. However, in April 2000, eight partnership areas, comprising local police forces, local authorities, highways authorities and magistrates courts, piloted a new 'netting-off scheme. This allows a proportion of the fixed penalty fine revenue from speed and red-light cameras to be re-invested to fund camera enforcement. Fine revenue is used to meet each of the partners' costs in relation to the administration, purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of the cameras.

  Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29415]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]Questions that have not been answered under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information are detailed in the Reports on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions published by the Select Committee on Public Administration (formerly the Public Service Select Committee). The most recent report covers the parliamentary Session 2000–01.

  I understand that copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House and on the House of Commons website at www.publication.parliament.uk/pa.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department have been seconded to jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector in each of the last four years. [31781]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is shown in the table.

  Private sector

  Public sector

  1998

  4

  14

  1999

  3

  16

  2000

  3

  14

  2001

  2

  22

  In answering this we have quoted the number of secondments which commenced, were continuing or completed in the given year.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32011]

  Dr. Howells
  On the basis of the Department's current expenditure limit for 2001–02, salary costs and pension contributions are forecast to account for 1.26 per cent. of the Department's departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Autism
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review(a) disability living allowance and (b) carer's allowance for sufferers of autism and their families. [31883]

  Maria Eagle
  We keep the operation of disability living allowance (DLA) and invalid care allowance (ICA), like other social security benefits, under review. Last autumn we announced a package, worth £500 million over three years, to enhance the current social security provision for carers and improve their financial security. For DLA, we have recently made significant improvements to the claim form, we are currently revising all the forms used to obtain relevant information from doctors, health care professionals and others involved in the care of claimants, and in consultation with organisations representing disabled people, are testing an alternative system for extra-costs disability benefits based on activities for managing life. There are no plans to carry out a review of these benefits specifically directed towards people with autism and their families.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will allow all pensioners and benefit recipients automatic entitlement to a post office card account on conversion to automated credit transfer, with an opt-out for those who choose a bank account. [32730]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No. As my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness explained in his reply on 17 December 2001,Official Report, columns 119–20W, the emphasis of the automated credit transfer migration and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances.

  If customers do not have a bank account, we will provide them with information on the types of accounts available, including standard and basic bank accounts and post office card accounts, and help them make the best choice for their circumstances.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the number of individuals in her(a) Department, (b) related agencies
  578W
  and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26320]

  Clare Short
  For the four years in question the figures are as follows:

  (a)As at 1 April 1998
  One individual had an annual salary in excess of £100,000. No individual had an annual salary in excess of £200,000.

  As at 1 April 1999
  one individual had an annual salary in excess of £100,000. No individual had an annual salary in excess of £200,000.

  As at 1 April 2000
  One individual had a salary in excess of £100,000. Another whose salary was less than £100,000, but who was serving overseas, received a remuneration package which included relocation expenses, a tax free cost of living addition for serving overseas, hardship allowance, and education expenses for children in the UK, which meant their total remuneration exceeded £100,000. No individual had an annual salary in excess of £200,000.

  As at 1 April 2001
  Three individuals had a salary in excess of £100,000. Another whose salary was less than £100,000, but who was serving overseas, received a remuneration package which included a tax free cost of living addition for serving overseas and a hardship allowance, which mean their total remuneration exceeded £100,000. No individual had an annual salary in excess of £200,000.

  (b) DFID has no related agencies.
  (c) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 253W.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent steps her Department has taken to promote the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. [31281]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads on promoting the Ottawa Convention. It does so by playing a full role in the follow-up process, including taking suitable opportunities to lobby States non-party to the convention about the desirability of ratification or accession.

  DFID helps developing countries implement their obligations under the Ottawa Convention. We do this by undertaking programmes of humanitarian mine action, in particular mine clearance, stockpile destruction, raising mines awareness and strengthening indigenous capacity.

  My Department also works to strengthen the international community's capacity, particularly that of the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)— to provide a more coherent, timely and cost-effective response.

  In the current financial year DFID expects to spend approximately £10 million in pursuit of these objectives.

  Tanzania
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department is undertaking to help improve the standard of school facilities in Tanzania. [31671]

  Clare Short
  DFID funded a pilot project to help the Government of Tanzania trial a decentralised system for primary classroom construction. This system has now been adapted and is being used as the mechanism for the major construction programme now being undertaken in Tanzania (15,000 new classrooms a year).

  DFID is now providing support to the education sector in Tanzania directly through the budget. This means that we are assisting the Government of Tanzania to provide additional resources into the education sector, which is then spent on priority activities designed to improve the quality of education in Tanzania. The first success is evident in the dramatic increases in enrolment to the first grade of primary school in January this year.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32016]

  Clare Short
  Our current forecasts show that salary costs and pension contributions will account for approximately 1.4 per cent. of DFID's departmental expenditure limit for 2001–

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether there are United Kingdom-sponsored aid workers operating in areas of Afghanistan subject to recent attacks with cluster bombs; and what guidance has been issued by her Department to aid workers on safety in relation to unexploded sub-munitions. [31637]

  Clare Short
  There are agencies receiving DFID support that are working in areas of Afghanistan where cluster bombs have been dropped. We are aware of the particular dangers that threaten the security of aid workers in Afghanistan, including the threat posed by unexploded ordnance. We are actively supporting our partner agencies in joint efforts to improve the security of their programmes and safety of their staff. This is being done through sharing information available on particular 580W
  threats—including the location of areas where cluster bombs have been dropped—and by supporting field security training and practical security arrangements.

  In addition, we are supporting the Office of the UN's Security Co-ordinator (UNSECOORD) to enhance the security framework for aid personnel in the region. We are also supporting the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) programme in Afghanistan. This includes both the clearance of mines and unexploded ordnance, and an expanded programme of mine awareness initiatives in collaboration with UNICEF and NGOs.

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in her Department in each of the last four years. [31749]

  Clare Short
  It would involve disproportionate cost to the Department to calculate the average leave entitlement of staff for the last four years. The list sets out the leave allowances of staff by grade:

  Grade

  Annual leave

  Senior civil service

  30 working days

  Band A

  30 working days

  Band B

  22 working days rising to 25 days after one year and 30 days after 10 years total service

  Band C

  22 working days rising to 25 days after one year and 30 days after 10 years total service

  These allowances have not changed over the last four years.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council whether the Government intend to improve the explanatory material supplied with statutory instruments. [32387]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I am pleased to announce that, with effect from 1 March, all affirmative statutory instruments laid before the House will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which will be a fuller document than the existing explanatory note. This is intended to assist Parliament in considering the instrument. The new memoranda will be in addition to the explanatory notes, which will continue to be printed with statutory instruments.
  581W

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rolling Stock
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in the replacement of slam-door rolling stock on the railways. [26310]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Orders have already been placed for a total of 1,235 new vehicles to replace Mark 1 slam door stock. We expect a further order to be placed shortly. All these vehicles are due to enter service before 2005.

  New Train Routes
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many proposals for new train routes have been presented to his officials from London local authorities in the last five years. [27705]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have received a wide range of representations, especially in relation to Crossrail extensions to the East London line and rail links to London airports. Precise information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what investment in new train lines is planned in each of the next five years within London. [27703]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan sets out for the first time the committed projects which are being taken forward network-wide over the next 10 years. Copies of the plan have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Passenger Partnership
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much new money has been allocated to the rail passenger partnership in the SRA strategic plan; [28539]

  (2) what proportion of the money announced for the rail passenger partnership scheme has been allocated; [28575]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At December 2001, £45 million had been committed. The rail passenger partnership has now been enlarged with an increased budget of £430 million.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much investment took place in the railways in each year between 1991 and 1997; and how much was met by public funds. [28736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to Table 4.2 of the strategic rail authority's quarterly national rail trends bulletin for an historic series of investment in the rail industry. Government support to the rail industry is shown in Table 4.1 of the same bulletin.
  582W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the total spending on the railways each year between 2001–02 to 2010–11 as(a) allocated in the 10-year transport plan of July 2000 and (b) allocated in the Strategic Rail Authority's plan of January 2002, at (i) outturn prices and (ii) 2000–01 prices. [31202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to Table A3 of the 10 year plan for transport and to the written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on 29 January 2002,Official Report, columns 177–78W

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the total spending on the railways each year between 2001–02 to 2010–11 as(a) allocated in the 10-year transport plan of July 2000 and (b) allocated in the Strategic Rail Authority's plan of January 2002, at (i) outturn prices and (ii) 2000–01 prices. [31201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 871–72W, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on 29 January 2002, Official Report, columns 177–78W

  Channel Tunnel Freight Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many freight services used the channel tunnel in each month since January 2000. [29584]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures for the number of trains are in the following table provided by EWSI, the UK operator of these services:

  2000

  2001

  January

  522

  615

  February

  632

  621

  March

  688

  657

  April

  616

  395

  May

  633

  672

  June

  656

  676

  July

  671

  637

  August

  464

  503

  September

  595

  586

  October

  618

  594

  November

  661

  291

  December

  551

  255

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps
  583W
  his Department has taken to ensure that money received in payments from train operating companies is reinvested directly into the railways; and if he will make a statement. [30346]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All additional receipts received so far from performance regimes will be used to contribute to expenditure within the SRA budget, allowing greater activity to be undertaken than would otherwise be the case.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has received representations from parties other than Railtrack about the funding provision for Control Period 2. [30252]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail funding provision for the first two years of Control Period 2 (CP2) was set in Spending Review 2000 and in the 2 April 2001 agreement between the Government and Railtrack. That for the last three years of CP2 will be set in Spending Review 2002, for which I have received representations from the Strategic Rail Authority who have, in turn, received representations from various rail industry interests.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 784W, on minimum track standards, what proportion of track did not meet the minimum required standard for the (a) 35mm rail top profile and (b) 70mm rail top profile (i) in each year since 1994 and (ii) predicted for each year up to 2011, as illustrated in Figure 26 of the Railtrack Network Management Statement 2000. [31595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's progress in improving track geometry is measured against the target agreed with the Rail Regulator as part of the periodic review for the second control period, which came into effect on 1 April 2001. The measured values reported at the end of the last financial year to enable comparison with the agreed target improvement programme are given in Table 3.2 of Railtrack's 2001 Network Management Statement Part One.

  Train Drivers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many drivers were employed on the railways(a) immediately before privatisation and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [30244]

  Legislation allowing prosecution of:

  Railtrack

  Train operators

  Drivers

  Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Railway Safety Regulations 1999

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  In addition the Crown Prosecution Service can prosecute drivers and employers of drivers for
  584W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 54W.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what parts of Crossrail he estimates can be implemented while Railtrack is in administration. [31026]

  Mr.Jamieson
  The Crossrail project definition work currently being undertaken jointly by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London will continue on the same basis as before Railtrack administration. It has always been expected that a special purpose vehicle would be set up to take forward any scheme which might be developed as a result of the project definition work.

  Rail 10-year Plan
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those projects in the SRA 10-year plan that he estimates can be implemented while Railtrack is in administration. [31025]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no reason in principle why any proposal contained in the Strategic Plan should not be capable of being implemented while Railtrack is in administration.

  Leominster Station
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to install disabled access to the southbound platform at Leominster station. [30976]

  Mr. Jamieson
  While the northbound platform at Leominister station is accessible I am not aware of any current plans to make the southbound platform accessible to those with disabilities. The SRA makes available funding to ensure train operating companies are resourced, where necessary, to implement the requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on access to stations.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the legislation which allows the prosecution of(a) train operating companies, (b) train drivers and (c) Railtrack in relation to passing signals at danger. [31196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety law allowing prosecution following a signal passed at danger (SPAD) is as follows:

  manslaughter, and drivers for being under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
  585W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) date, (b) location and (c) level of penalty of all incidents of signals passed at danger that have resulted in prosecution of (i) train operating companies and Railtrack in each year since 1995–96. [31200]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Great Western Train Co Ltd. was fined £1.5 million at the Old Bailey on 27 July 1999 following a collision due to a signal passed at danger at Southall on 19 September 1997.

  There have been no prosecutions of Railtrack.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 586W, on rail safety, whether the supervision of rail signal boxes will be monitored by the Health and Safety Executive. [31589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The supervision of rail signal boxes is a matter for Railtrack.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps(a) his Department and (b) the Health and Safety Executive have taken to reduce the total number of signals passed at danger within categories three to eight in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [31199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of actions being taken by the rail industry to reduce the total number of SPADs, including serious SPADs, are reported in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) monthly SPAD reports which are held in the House of Commons Library and are published on the HSE website http://www.house.gov.uk/railway/spad/index.htm.

  On 23 January HSE also published three reports which set out the steps being taken to reduce SPADs:Report on the assessment of Railtrack's response to an Improvement Notice covering the "Top 22" signals passed most often at danger (for the period 1990–98); Report on the assessment of Railtrack's management of multi-SPAD signals; and HMRI's inspection of driver management in train operating companies.

  Railway Policy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the roles are of each member of staff within his Department with(a) total or (b) partial responsibility for policy on the railways, (i) as of June 1997, (ii) as of May 2001 and as of January 2002. [31524]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is neither customary nor practicable to publish individual civil servants' job descriptions.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes (1) have taken place since June 2001 in the(a) role, (b) organisation, (c) structures and (d) staff numbers and roles of the Railway Directorate within his Department; and if he will make a statement; [31526]

  (2) in the (a) role and (b) terms of reference of the Railway Directorate within his Department have taken place since May 1997; what changes are planned; and what consultations on changes (i) have taken place since June 2001 and (ii) are planned. [31527]
  586W
  Mr. Jamieson
  In October 2001, the Department's Railways Directorate was divided into two units: the Rail Delivery Directorate and the Railways Restructuring Directorate. The division reflected the increase and refocusing of work following the placing of Railtrack plc into administration on 7 October. There was no public consultation on the change.

  In June 2001, 57 people worked in the Railways Directorate. Seventy-nine people now work in the two directorates.

  Automatic Train Protection Systems
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains were fitted with automatic train protection systems in(a) January 2001, (b) July 2001 and (c) January 2002. [31354]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although figures are not available for the precise months requested, the Health and Safety Executive advises that the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) has been retro-fitted to existing stock on the following basis: 427 trains by May 2001, 1,117 trains by August 2001, 1,993 trains by November 2001 and 2,259 trains by January 2002. All new trains are being delivered with TPWS fitted. British Rail Automatic Train Protection (BR-ATP) is fitted on all First Great Western, Chiltern Line and Heathrow Express trains.

  London Underground
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many meetings he had with London Underground in December 2001. [31369]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions meets bodies with an interest in London Underground on a regular basis.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Transport for London is expected to take over the running of London Underground. [31495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's intention is that London Underground Ltd. will be transferred to Transport for London after the competitions to modernise the underground's infrastructure have been completed.

  Transport Projects (Uxbridge)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what transport infrastructure projects have been given formal approval since 1997 which affect the Uxbridge constituency; and if he will estimate the cost of each project. [31371]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the following information may be helpful.
  587W
  Bus Projects

  Ruislip station: refurbishment of bus stands—£100,000—February 2002.

  Mount Vernon hospital: refurbishment of bus stands—£220,000—April 2001.

  "Countdown" real-time information displays at bus shelters have also been provided at 30 stops in the borough since 1997.

  Source:

  London Buses

  Road related works: London borough of Hillingdon

  £000

  Maintenance of principal roads

  Other: Including safety, local works, traffic signals, 20 mph zones, safer routes to school

  Uxbridge town center

  1997–98

  393

  623

  244

  1998–99

  353

  631

  375

  1999–2000

  294

  558

  350

  2000–01

  342

  613

  —

  2001–02

  380

  756

  —

  Total

  1,762

  3,181

  969

  Road projects within partnerships and London—wide schemes

  Hillingdon would also have benefited from works funded either on a London—wide or sub-regional basis.

  Source:

  Transport for London Borough Team.

  SRB Funding

  The information we have available indicates that in addition there was SRB funding of the following schemes.
  Hayes Transport Hub—Hayes Hub East/West routes £2.1 million for projects and infrastructure.Key Corridors—£1.5 million.
  Source:
  London Development Agency

  Railways (Speed Restrictions)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed restrictions were in place on the rail network in each week since 23 October 2000 in(a) Great Britain and (b) each Railtrack operating zone (i) in total and (ii) caused by gauge corner cracking. [31585]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 12 December 2001,Official Report, columns 869–70W. At the end of December 2001 there were 644 temporary speed restrictions on the network.

  Central Heating
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households were without central heating by region expressed as an(a) percentage and (b) total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures in the latest year for which figures are available. [30585]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]The information requested is provided in the following table.588W

  Whether household has central heating: 2000–01

  Thousand

  Region

  In all living rooms and bedrooms

  In some rooms but not all

  No

  Total

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1,701

  134

  320

  2,154

  North-west

  2,229

  163

  400

  2,792

  South-west

  1,637

  182

  259

  2,078

  West midlands

  1,692

  153

  260

  2,106

  London

  2,612

  135

  288

  3,035

  South-east

  2,874

  217

  271

  3,362

  East midlands

  1,531

  116

  121

  1,768

  East

  1,940

  177

  137

  2,255

  North-east

  1,013

  54

  41

  1,107

  England

  17,229

  1,330

  2,098

  20,658

  Whether household has central heating: 2000–01

  Percentage

  Region

  In all living rooms and bedrooms

  In some rooms but not all

  No

  Total

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  79

  6

  15

  100

  North-west

  80

  6

  14

  100

  South-west

  79

  9

  12

  100

  West midlands

  80

  7

  12

  100

  London

  86

  4

  9

  100

  South-east

  85

  6

  8

  100

  East midlands

  87

  7

  7

  100

  East

  86

  8

  6

  100

  North-east

  91

  5

  4

  100

  England

  83

  6

  10

  100

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, DTLR

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 181W, if he will list the occasions he used the railway service in connection with his official duties prior to 16 November 2001; what station he left from and what the destination was; and when he next expects to use the railway in his official capacity. [32605]

  Mr. Byers
  My arrangements for official travel are made in line with guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code and the accompanying guidance document travel by Ministers, using the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations. Future travel arrangements will be in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

  The occasions I travelled by train on official duties since my appointment as Secretary of State are as follows:

  16 November 2001:London St. Pancras to Derby

  9 November 2001:Leeds to Newcastle

  8 November 2001:London Kings Cross to Leeds

  6 November 2001:London Euston to Birmingham New Street

  Birmingham to London Euston

  26 October 2001:London Paddington to Exeter St. Davids

  Exeter St. Davids to London Paddington

  19 October 2001:London Kings Cross to Cambridge

  14 September 2001:London Waterloo to Brussels (returning on 15 September)

  589W

  1 August 2001:London Victoria to Mitcham

  Mitcham to London Victoria

  6 July 2001:London Kings Cross to York

  4 July 2001: London Kings Cross to York

  Harrogate to London Kings Cross

  19 June 2001:London Victoria to Brighton

  Brighton to London Victoria.

  I also travel by train regularly when not on official business, most recently on 28 January when travelling from Newcastle to London.

  Widford Bridge (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1046W, on Widford Bridge, if he will increase the width to make it easier for larger cars and vehicles of under three tonnes weight to travel over the bridge. [31694]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 6ft 6in width restriction imposed on Widford Bridge is required for safety reasons to prevent vehicles of over three tonnes in weight from using the bridge. The Highways Agency would not wish to see any increase in the width of the restriction, as it would increase the likelihood of over weight vehicles attempting to use the bridge.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the Iranian Government in relation to the UK's proposed new appointment for ambassador to Iran. [32140]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 4W.

  Brussels Process
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 37W, on the Brussels Process, if he will place the minutes of meetings under the Brussels Process in the Library. [32729]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 31 January (UIN 30671).

  Talks under the Brussels Process are confidential. We have made clear the aims and timetable of the Brussels Process. We placed the communiquée from the last Brussels Process ministerial in the Library of the House. We have kept the House fully informed at every stage, most recently in the Government Adjournment debate on 31 January, and we will continue to do so.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the responsibilities of Ministers in his Department. [33647]
  590W
  Mr. Straw
  Following the appointment of the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) as the Government Representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe, I have reallocated responsibilities as follows:

  Peter Hain

  European Union, Central Europe, Southern Europe.

  Baroness Symons (also a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry)

  British trade promotion and policy, North America, Britain Abroad Task Force, inward investment.

  Ben Bradshaw

  Middle east, North Africa, South Asia, South-East Asia, former Soviet Union, international security, non-proliferation and security policy issues, counter-terrorism, visas.

  Denis MacShane

  Latin America, North-East Asia, China and Hong Kong, South-East Europe, drugs and international crime environmental policy, United Nations, human rights, aviation, maritime and energy, science and technology, public diplomacy, cultural relations, central administration and resources.

  Baroness Amos

  Africa, Commonwealth, Caribbean, overseas territories, consular issues, personnel.

  Ben Bradshaw covers for Baroness Amos' portfolio in the Commons (with the exception of Africa). Denis MacShane covers Baroness Symons' portfolio in the Commons (and also Africa).

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Spanish fishing vessels have infringed upon Gibraltar's fishing waters; how many times action has been taken against Spanish fishermen in each of the last five years for infringing upon Gibraltar's fishing waters; what action has been taken; and what discussions have taken place regarding fishing rights in Gibraltar under the Brussels Process. [31534]

  Peter Hain
  The Government resumed talks with Spain under the Brussels Process in July 2001: these talks continue. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels Communiqué of November 1984, the talks are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis. The numbers of incursions into Gibraltar's waters by Spanish fishing vessels over the last five years were as follows:

  1997: 54

  1998: 520

  1999: 440, of which 195 were breaches of the 1999 Fishing Agreement between the Government of Gibraltar and the Spanish Fisherman's Association, which permits small numbers of Spanish fishing boats to fish in Gibraltar's waters.

  2000: 196, of which 92 were breaches.

  2001: 196, of which 118 breaches.

  On most occasions when Spanish vessels are advised that they are in breach of the Fishing Agreement and requested to leave, they do so. However, the Gibraltar authorities have taken court action against the crews of Spanish fishing vessels on four occasions.
  591W

DEFENCE

  Service Pay
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the proportion of(a) non-pensionable specialist pay and (b) basic pay is as a proportion of total remuneration for all service men and women. [29236]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of these types of pay shown as a proportion of the total remuneration for all regular and reserve service men and women is as follows:

  (a) non-pensionable specialist pay: 1.6 per cent.

  (b) basic pay: 82.5 per cent.

  The remaining 15.9 per cent. of the total remuneration is attributable to other forms of non-specialist pay and compensatory allowances. These figures are based on estimates for financial year 2001–02.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30068]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following figures relate to surplus property on the Defence Estate earmarked for disposal in each of the last three years; (figures for 1997–98 are not available).

  £ million

  Year

  Value

  Cost

  1998–99

  1—

  21.4

  1999–2000

  214

  21.9

  2000–01

  273

  21.4

  1Not available

  The costs identified include the cost of works undertaken to prepare empty sites for sale and the marketing costs in addition to the routine upkeep of the empty property awaiting disposal.

  The cost and values of other empty property, including that in the course of refurbishment or redevelopment, are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armed Forces (Marital Status)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy have changed from Maristat One in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 into marital category (1) decree absolute, (2) separated and (3) annulled; what proportion of each service strength this represents in each year; what proportion of each service married strength this represents in each year; and if he will make a statement. [27675]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Information on marital status is held on a different system for each service. It is not possible to answer the question exactly as phrased, as the categories specified cannot be isolated in every case. The available information is as follows.
  592W

  Table 1: Total strength of Army and the numbers who have changed from "married" to other marital status in financial years

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Strength as at 1 April

  109,722

  110,052

  109,531

  Married strength as at 1 April

  53,473

  51,983

  50,786

  Decree absolute

  947

  905

  634

  Annulment

  3

  2

  3

  Widow/er

  22

  17

  10

  Total

  972

  924

  647

  Proportion change from strength (%)

  0.9

  0.8

  0.6

  Proportion change from married strength (%)

  1.8

  1.8

  1.3

  1 Data for 2001–02 are to 1 December 2001

  Table 2: Total strength of RAF and the numbers who have changed from "married" to other marital status in financial years

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Strength as at 1 April

  55,213

  54,715

  53,699

  Married strength as at 1 April

  33,318

  31,915

  30,670

  Divorced absolute

  3

  11

  6

  Divorced nisi

  1

  10

  5

  Widow/er

  16

  26

  10

  Separated

  1,153

  1,036

  717

  Annulled

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  1,173

  1,084

  738

  Proportion change from strength (%)

  2.1

  2.0

  1.4

  Proportion change from married strength (%)

  3.5

  3.4

  2.4

  1Data for 2001–02 are to 24 January 2002

  Table 3: Total strength of Naval Service and the numbers who have changed from "married" to other marital status in financial years

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Strength as at 1 April

  43,701

  42,849

  42,421

  Married strength as at 1 April

  21,441

  19,094

  18,438

  Widowed, divorced or separated and providing care for children living with them

  align="right"30

  19

  12

  voluntary maintenance/child support

  430

  387

  239

  maintenance/child support by court order

  2

  4

  1

  Other

  272

  249

  127

  Total

  734

  659

  379

  Proportion change from strength (%)

  1.7

  1.5

  0.9

  Proportion change from married strength (%)

  3.4

  3.5

  2.0

  1Data for 2001–02 are to 15 January 2002

  Warships
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the ability of the Royal Navy to meet its commitments when HMS Sheffield goes into reserve in 2003. [30788]

  Mr. Ingram
  The placing of HMS Sheffield at extended readiness will not prevent the Royal Navy from meeting its commitments.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace HMS Coventry. [30790]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision to withdraw the Batch 2 Type 22 frigate HMS Coventry from service on 31 December 2001 was part of the reduction in overall numbers of frigates and destroyers presaged by the Strategic Defence Review. There are no plans for a direct replacement, but HMS St. Albans, the final Type 23 frigate, which has considerably superior general purpose capabilities, has been accepted from the builders and is currently conducting sea trials as she prepares for full operational service later this year.
  593W
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the fleet has been reduced to 31 ships. [30789]

  Mr. Ingram
  The fleet has not been reduced to 31 ships. There are currently 36 major surface ships in service with the Royal Navy. This figure excludes submarines, mine counter-measures vessels, survey ships, patrol craft and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

  Service Numbers
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) current strength is of (i) 1 East of England Regiment, (ii) the Royal Marine Reserve, (iii) the RNR/RNVR, (iv) the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and (v) the Honourable Artillery Company. [31610]

  Dr. Moonie
  The figures are as follows:

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 East of England Regiment

  549

  1590

  Royal Marine Reserve

  1,070

  2921

  Royal Naval Reserve

  3,850

  23,215

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  2,156

  21,607

  Honourable Artillery Company

  408

  1524

  1 As at 28 January 2002

  2 As at 1 January 2002

  Note:

  The RNVR no longer exists

  Asbestos
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compensation claims from his Department's ex-service personnel for asbestos-related

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Service

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Royal Navy2—Wastage rates

  Officers

  Overall

  —

  19

  —

  19

  —

  16

  —

  13

  —

  —

  Phase 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  4.5

  Phase 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  10

  Ratings

  Overall

  —

  26

  —

  25

  —

  30

  —

  27

  —

  —

  Phase 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  551

  23

  Phase 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  245

  14

  Royal Marines—Wastage rates

  Officers3

  phase 1

  15

  37

  7

  16

  11

  28

  17

  38

  3

  5

  ORs4

  Overall

  534

  57

  511

  49

  567

  53

  528

  48

  455

  49

  Army—Wastage rates

  Officers

  Overall

  —

  —

  117

  16

  57

  14

  99

  15

  59

  14

  Soldiers

  Phase 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  2,586

  21

  2,111

  17

  Phase 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  270

  3

  180

  3

  Royal Air Force—wastage rates

  Officers6

  (IOT)

  27

  5

  28

  5

  22

  4

  10

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  IST7

  —

  11

  —

  14

  —

  6

  —

  9

  n/a

  n/a

  Airmen8

  Phase 1

  —

  10

  —

  13

  —

  8

  —

  10

  —

  8

  Phase 2

  —

  5

  —

  8

  —

  11

  —

  10

  —

  4

  594W
  diseases contracted before 1987 have been refused (a) in each year since 1987 and (b) since 1972; and if he will make a statement. [31203]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold the information requested by the hon. Member as claims for compensation from service or ex-service personnel involving asbestos related diseases have not traditionally been recorded separately. The Ministry of Defence does produce a Claims Annual Report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House. This document contains additional information on all aspects of common-law compensation claims against the Ministry of Defence, including asbestos-related claims.

  Recruitment and Wastage
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the numbers of servicemen who have left at each stage after initial recruitment and before being added to trained strength in each of the last five years. [31483]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Those details which are available are set out in the following table. This shows the actual numbers who left during initial recruitment training and this number as a percentage of those who started training. The wastage rates quoted include voluntary withdrawal, medical discharge, discharge by purchase and discharge Services No Longer Required.

  For the Royal Air Force, the IST wastage rates in the table refer to Officers in the ground branches and do not take into account pilots, navigators and aircrew. Training for these groups can take many years and so final wastage rates for these years are not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member with full details of RAF Officer IST wastage rates and I will place a copy in the Library of the House.
  595W
  1 All figures for 2001–02 cover the period up to 31 December 2001.

  Royal Navy

  2 RN recruits join the trained strength after completing Phase 1 and Phase 2 training. Phase 1 training is one year for officers and eight weeks for ratings. Phase 2 training averages around 18 months for officers (but up to five years for Aircrew), three years for Artificer Apprentices and eight months for non-technical ratings.

  Royal Marines

  3 The figures for RM Officers show the wastage rates while undergoing Phase 1 training at CTCRM Lympstone. No figures are available for failures in Phase 2 training; failures during this nine months phase are rare.

  4 The majority of the RM Other Ranks training wastage consists of those who voluntarily withdraw (historically approximately 65 per cent. of the wastage figure) the remainder being split between those who are unsuitable and those who are medically discharged.

  Army

  5 Army Officers are considered to have joined the trained strength after leaving Sandhurst when they become part of the UK Trained Army Personnel. Consolidated figures are available only from 1998–99. Soldiers join the trained strength on completion of their Phase 2 trade training. Full details of the number of soldiers who left during initial training are available only from 2000–01.

  Royal Air Force

  6 RAF Officers, on completion of Initial Officer Training (IOT) which last for 24 weeks, go on to Initial Specialist Training (IST). No IOT or IST wastage rates figures are available yet for 2001–02.

  7 The OST wastage rates in the table refer to Officers in the ground branches and do not take into account pilots, navigators and aircrew. Training for these groups can take many years and so final wastage rates for these years are not readily available.

  8 Airmen/airwomen join the trained strength after completion of both recruit training (Phase 1) and trade training (Phase 2). Recruit training is seven weeks. Trade training averages around 40 weeks and can last anything up to two years for specific trades. The percentage figures quoted for trade training wastage in years 2000–01 and 2001–02 give the position as at 31 December 2001; at this date there were still 755 to complete training started in 2000–01 and 1,832 airmen/airwomen who have started in 2001–02.

  Cluster Munitions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out by his Department into alternatives to cluster munitions for replacement of the BL 755 when it reaches the end of its service life. [31633]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence keeps under continuous review its capability requirements in this area. To date, studies have concluded that the roles currently met by BL 755 are likely to be carried out by a range of different weapons in the future. Some of the roles will be met by existing or planned systems such as Maverick and Brimstone. This work has also concluded that cluster bombs will still retain some utility, particularly against area targets such as storage depots and concentrations of lighter armoured vehicles. No other weapon is currently available to meet the same military objectives. To fulfil the same role as cluster bombs with unitary bombs would require a far greater weight of explosives, which would risk far greater damage than using cluster bombs.

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether guidance on the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan is issued by each coalition member for its own armed forces; and what standardisation has taken place. [31636]

  Mr. Hoon
  Guidance on the handling of prisoners is properly a matter for the individual detaining power. There has therefore been no standardisation of guidance within the coalition.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been given to HM forces on the status to be given to any persons they capture and detain in Afghanistan. [32295]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 392, to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen).
  596W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the guidance on the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan issued by his Department takes into account the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. [31635]

  Mr. Hoon
  Yes.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of Her Majesty's armed forces are operating in areas of Afghanistan subject to recent attacks with cluster bombs; and what guidance has been issued to personnel on safety in relation to unexploded submunitions. [31632]

  Mr. Ingram
  Years of conflict have left a wide variety of unexploded ordnance in Afghanistan. Before deployment, members of the armed forces are routinely given advice about the types of munitions they may encounter.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether guidance on the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan was updated after the uprising at Qala-I-Jhangi fort. [31634]

  Mr. Hoon
  No.

  ASRAAM
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what extra expenditure has been incurred by his Department as a result of the failure of the advanced short-range air-to-air missile to achieve its original in-service date; and if he intends to claim back the extra expenditure from the manufacturer; [31099]

  (2) what the new in-service date for the advanced short-range air-to-air missile is; and if he will make a statement. [31098]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]The Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) entered service in January 2002. As a result of a delay in the In Service Date, the Ministry of Defence has incurred additional costs of approximately £7 million. These include extra intramural expenditure and costs arising from the need to maintain Sidewinder missiles in service.
  597W
  During the period in question we have also been without the additional capability provided by the ASRAAM missile. Liquidated damages associated with the late delivery of the missiles are being claimed from the manufacturer. Overall, the total procurement cost of ASRAAM remains less than the original approved cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the series of improved software releases to enhance MBDA's advanced short-range air-to-air missile will cost; when the final improved software releases are expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [32156]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of the additional software releases to achieve ASRAAM's Full Operational Capability will be borne by the contractor, MBDA UK Ltd. (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics), and is a matter for them.

  The company's aim is to deliver the required missile performance by the end of 2003. If that is not achieved, our agreement with MBDA UK allows for a further software release.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the UK owns nuclear weapons other than the SLBMs. [31707]

  Mr. Hoon
  No. As the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999) made clear, Trident is our only nuclear weapons system.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what US nuclear weapons are in the United Kingdom. [31708]

  Mr. Hoon
  Some US nuclear weapons remain based in the UK in accordance with long-standing NATO policy. Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and North American members of the Alliance. I am withholding any further details under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of a replacement to the Trident deterrent when it goes out of service. [31709]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have no current plans for a replacement for Trident, and no decision on any possible successor system is yet needed.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many SLBMs the UK owns; and how many warheads are contained in each missile. [31705]

  Mr. Hoon
  The 1998 Strategic Defence Review concluded that the 58 Trident missile bodies already purchased from the USA would be sufficient to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent posture. While I am withholding information on the number of warheads deployed on each missile under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I can confirm that, when on deterrence patrol, Trident submarines carry 48 nuclear warheads.
  598W

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with European colleagues regarding US National Missile Defence. [31762]

  Mr. Hoon
  I met with many of my European counterparts at the NATO ministerial meetings in December last year. We discussed a range of issues, including missile defence.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the US National Missile Defence. [31761]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 16 January 2002,Official Report, columns 137–42WH

  NCOs (Premature Voluntary Release)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many NCOs who had applied for premature voluntary release had not left the Army as at 1 December 2001. [31801]

  Mr. Ingram
  Thirty-two Non-Commissioned Officers are recorded as having applied for premature voluntary release and had not been discharged from the Army or transferred to the Reserve prior to 1 December 2001.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected in-service dates of the new Astute Class of fleet attack submarines for the Royal Navy are. [31806]

  Dr. Moonie
  The first Astute Class submarine is due to enter into service in June 2005. The remaining two submarines of the Class currently on order will follow at approximately two year intervals.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Challenger II tanks, (b) Warrior, (c) Saxon, (d) FV430, (e) Sabre, (f) Scimitar, (g) Striker, (h) Spartan, (i) Sultan, (j)Samson, (k) Samaritan armoured vehicles, (l) Challenger recovery vehicles, (m) Stormer, (n) Shielder, (o) Fuchs NBC vehicle, (p) AS 90, (q) MLRS and (r) M578 were fully operational in (i) the quarter ending 31 December 2001, (ii) the first three quarters of 2001, (iii) each quarter of 2000 and (iv) each quarter of 1999; what percentage of fleet size this represents; and if he will make a statement. [29844]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1 January 2001 British aircraft have been involved in air to ground action over Iraq. [31845]
  599W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: Between 1 January 2001 and 23 January 2002 UK aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones released ordnance in self-defence against military targets in the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System on 15 occasions.

  I regret that due to an error in our records, an incorrect figure of 14 was given in response to a previous question on 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 314W.

  War Widows
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change arrangements which enable war widows to visit the graves of their husbands overseas; and if he will make a statement. [32064]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: Since 1985, the Government have operated the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme to help those War Widows who lost their husbands overseas between 1914 and 1967 to make one visit to their husband's grave, provided they have not done so before, at public expense. It is administered on behalf of the Ministry of Defence by The Royal British Legion and the MOD contributes seven-eighths of the costs of a visit. Over the past 17 years, this scheme has enabled over 4,000 widows to make this very special journey and there are no plans to change the arrangements.

  Computer Theft
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work his Department has undertaken to explain the reasons for the change in the level of computer theft over the past five years. [31881]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: Between 1995 and 1999, there were 594 reported thefts of all types of Ministry of Defence computer equipment, including items such as processor boards, keyboards and printers. A total of 267 items were reported stolen in 2000, and 312 items in 2001.

  Our first priority has been to concentrate on reducing the risk of further computer theft and losses, and of enhancing computer security to limit the damage should they occur. From an initial review of the available historical data we assess that there are two main reasons for this increase in the number of reported incidents:
  since 1995 there has been a substantial and sustained growth in the numbers of all types of computer equipment used in support of Defence activity, reflecting a similar trend across Government and in society at large; and
  there has also been a significant increase in the MOD's use of portable computers, which, by their nature, are particularly vulnerable to theft.

  Naval Incident (24 January)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident involving a Spanish Government vessel and a British naval vessel on 24 January. [31807]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident involving a Spanish Government vessel and a British naval vessel on 24 January. [31808]
  600W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: On 24 January two Spanish Navy patrol vessels entered British Gibraltar territorial waters during an operation by the Royal Navy to tow a suspected unexploded World War 2 bomb into deep water, following its discovery by the Mine Countermeasures Vessel HMS Grimsby during a routine survey. One of the Spanish vessels withdrew once the operation had been completed. The second remained in Gibraltar waters overnight, closely monitoring HMS Grimsby which continued her survey operation. Following contacts between the British Embassy in Madrid and the Spanish Government, this vessel left Gibraltar waters the following morning.

  Combat Effectiveness Gender Study
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the outcome of the Gender Study; and if he will make a statement. [32063]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 November 2001, Official Report, column 767W.

  International Security Assistance Force
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what terms of engagement the International Security Assistance Force will operate under; and if he will make a statement. [32132]

  Mr. Hoon
  We never comment on the Rules of Engagement for UK forces. However, I can say that they will be robust and consistent with our obligations under national and international law, as will those of the forces of other contributing countries.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of transporting two Tornados to the Falklands by(a) Antonov 124 and (b) C-17; what assessment he has made of the cost of using the (i) Antonov 124 and (ii) C-17 in operations in Afghanistan; and how many times the Antonov 124 has been leased by the RAF since the operational use of C-17s began. [32146]

  Mr. Ingram
  A full assessment has been made of the transportation of Tornado aircraft from the UK to the Falkland Islands. This included options for air-to-air refuelling, airlift charter, ship and C-17. Given all of the constraints, the C-17 was deemed to be the most suitable operational option and the one that gave the best value for money and best value for effort.

  Until mid-January 2002, the threat assessment presented by surface-to-air missiles, specifically to identifiable military aircraft, limited our use of RAF aircraft operating into Afghanistan. The use of civilian Antonovs was less restricted. We therefore, chartered Antonovs for the essential operational movement of vehicles, equipment and supplies. While the C-17 is now being used for airlift to Afghanistan, the size of the task necessitates the continued charter of Antonov aircraft.

  The Antonov has been chartered by MOD on 35 occasions since the delivery of the C-17 in May 2001. All of the tasks have been in support of operations. The C-17

  601W
  has been used extensively for Operation Bessimer in Macedonia, Exercise Saif Sareea II and other operational tasks associated with Operation Veritas.

  It is not, therefore, a question of a simple cost comparison between the use of C-17 or Antonovs. Both were needed to support operations.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the staff budget is for DERA in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland; what the value of DERA's total assets is; and what percentage of the assets are in Scotland; [32458]

  (2) how many people are employed by DERA; and how many of these are based in Scotland. [32448]

  Dr. Moonie
  As part of the public-private partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), the DERA Trading Fund Agency was disestablished on 1 July 2001. From its constituent parts two new organisations were created: QinetiQ plc, a wholly Government owned company, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), an agency of the MOD.

  At 1 January 2002, Dstl employed 3,037 staff in total. Of these, 54 were employed in Scotland. Dstl's current staff budget is £102.7 million of which £1.2 million relates to Scotland. The total value of Dstl assets at end of January 2002 amounted to some £257 million, with just over £0.5 million of this in Scotland, which represents some 0.2 per cent. of the total Dstl assets.

  Procurement Expenditure
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure is for procurement for each of the services; and how much of the procurement budget for each is spent in Scotland. [32461]

  Dr. Moonie
  Figures for the amount the Ministry of Defence spends on defence equipment and non-equipment for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02 are published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency in UK Defence Statistics (available in the Library of the House). These data, which are given in the table, are broadly split by type ie whether it is air, land, sea or 'other' equipment for the years where this information is available. The 'other' category refers to equipment not specific to a particular environment. This division (air, land, sea and other) does not necessarily match the particular end destination of the equipment (ie RAF, Army and Navy). For example, not aerospace equipment is used by the RAF.

  During 1999–2000, we estimate that the MOD spent some £600 million on defence equipment directly with contractors based in Scotland. A breakdown of this into air, land, sea and 'other' is not available.

  1.3 principal headings of the Defence budget1,2,3

  VAT-inclusive at current prices (£ million)

  1998–99

  Outturn 1999–2000 22,549

  Estimate 2000–01

  Total expenditure/budget

  22,475

  22,549

  23,538r

  Expenditure on personnel4

  8,553

  8,509

  8,754r

  of the armed forces

  6,286

  6,257

  6,500r

  of the retired armed forces4

  *

  *

  *

  of civilian staff

  2,267

  2,252

  2,255r

  602W

  1.3 principal headings of the Defence budget 1,2,3

  VAT-inclusive at current prices (£ million)

  1998£99

  Outturn 1999£2000

  Estimate 2000£01

  Expenditure on equipment

  9,889

  9,715r

  10,008r

  Sea

  2,319

  —

  —

  Land

  1,665

  —

  —

  Air

  4,572

  —

  —

  Other

  1,333

  —

  —

  Other expenditure

  4,000

  4,325r

  4,775r

  Works, buildings and land

  1,759

  1,799

  1,918

  Miscellaneous stores and services

  2,274

  2,526r

  2,857r

  Adjusted defence budget6

  22,475

  22,649

  23,538r

  at 2000£01 prices6,7

  23,419

  22,973

  23,538r

  Expenditure on personnel4

  838.1

  837.7

  837.2r

  of the armed forces

  828

  827.7

  827.6r

  of the retired armed forces'

  8*

  8*

  8*

  of civilian staff

  810.1

  810

  89.6r

  Expenditure on equipment

  844.0

  843.1r

  842.5r

  Sea

  810.3

  8—

  8—

  Land

  87.4

  8—

  8—

  Air

  820.3

  8—

  8—

  Other

  85.9

  8—

  8—

  Other expenditure

  817.9

  819.2r

  820.3r

  Works, buildings and land

  87.8

  88.0r

  88.2r

  Miscellaneous stores and services

  810.1

  811.2r

  812.1r

  1Over the last 20 years the coverage of the defence budget has changed in that:

  from 1983–84, it has included accommodation (maintenance and rental) and home publicity;

  from 1990–91, it has included rates on the Defence portion of the UK Civil Estate included in the defence budget;

  from 1991–92, it has included services provided by the Treasury Solicitor and the Inland Revenue;

  from 1993–94, it has included provision for charges for pension cover for currently serving service and civilian personnel but excluded pension payments to retired service personnel; and

  from 1994–95, it has excluded provision for the Security and Intelligence services.

  2All figures in table 1.1 and estimates in table 1.3 were derived from the Supply Estimates for each year. Estimates are 'latest agreed' at time of going to press.

  3Figures for 1999–2000 onwards, do not include the air, land sea split for equipment expenditure due to a change in accounting practice.

  4From 1990–91 to 1994–95, includes financial assistance to pre-1973 war windows.

  5From 1995–96, military aid to overseas countries has been excluded from the NATO definitions.

  6The 'Adjusted Defence Budget' takes account of major definitional changes in defence spending and of major transfers of responsibility to and from Government Departments. It therefore provides a more consistent and reliable guide to trends. This is the basis upon which defence spending figures are present in the MOD Departmental Report, the Statement on the Defence Estimates and certain Treasury publications. Totals for 1999–2000 represent final outturn and for 2000–01 estimated outturn. Figures in this line also exclude the element of receipts from the sale of the Married Quarters Estate that were appropriated onto Defence Votes.

  7 These constant price totals have been calculated using the GDP deflator.

  8
  Percentage of total expenditure/budget.

  Notes:

  1. Defence votes differed from defence budgets:

  by excluding the funding of major works on the Civilian Estate until 1988–89

  by Appropriations-in-Aid and expenditure not classified as public expenditure; and

  from 1993–94 charges for pensions cover for serving service personnel are Appropriations-in-Aid of Defence Vote 4, (Defence Vote 2 from 1999–2000) and reflected in the 'other adjustments' line of table 1.1.
  603W
  2. Expenditure are based on current market prices; the Defence figure in 1990–91 is net of contributions (about £2.1 billion) from abroad in respect of UK defence activities in the Gulf war.

  3. Figures for 1996£97 and 1997£98 include the element of receipts (£304 million and £700 million respectively) from the sale of the Married Quarters Estate that were appropriated on to defence votes.

  Source:

  MOD Corporate Financial Controller(Corporate Financial Management).

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in defence procurement in the last year for which figures are available in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland. [32454]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is contained in the document "Defence Statistics 2001", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Table 1.9 contains data on defence expenditure on equipment by region and nation of the UK.

  Pensions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made with Paymaster to ensure that all recipients of armed forces pensions can receive benefits in cash from April 2000. [32555]

  Dr. Moonie
  No arrangements exist for pensioners to receive benefits in cash under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. From April 2002, however, the weekly Payable Order Book method of payment applicable to some 2 per cent. of all pensioners, will cease. Under the new arrangements they will have the option of having their pension credited to a bank of building society account, or by a voucher sent to their home address encashable through a bank or building society. Both options allow payments to be made on a weekly or monthly basis.

  Defence Agencies (Assets)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list defence agencies and(a) the total value of their fixed assets and (b) the value of their fixed assets in Scotland. [32453]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on Defence Agencies and their fixed assets is contained in the Ministry of Defence (Section 7) of the National Asset Register, published by HM Treasury in July 2001. The region and location of assets is shown where this is relevant. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed at each of the atomic weapons establishments in the UK. [32442]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 31 December 2001, the number of people employed at each of AWE's sites in the UK was as follows:

  Number

  AWE Aldermaston

  3,320

  AWE Burghfield

  369

  AWE Cardiff

  4

  Total

  3,693

  604W
  The figures quoted are staff employed by AWE plc. They do not include contractors, Ministry of Defence staff or the MOD Police.

  HMNB Clyde
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civil and (b) military personnel are employed at HMNB Clyde. [32438]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of civilian and military personnel employed at HMNB Clyde is as follows:

  Civilian: 3,700

  Military: 1,119.

  Defence Industry (Employment)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department calculates the number of people employed(a) in and (b) by defence and defence-related industries in the regions of the UK; what multiplier is used; and what the regional totals are. [32447]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 766W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). We are currently reviewing our methodology on the estimation of employment figures dependent on UK defence expenditure and exports. An outline of the existing methodology was provided in Defence Statistics Bulletin No. 3. I am arranging for a copy of this publication to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The latest available direct regional employment figures (which are subject to review) for the Ministry of Defence equipment contracts have been estimated to be:

  Thousand

  1998£99

  United Kingdom

  81

  England

  73

  North-east

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5

  East midlands

  3

  Eastern

  2

  London and South-east

  31

  South-west

  14

  West midlands

  5

  North-west

  11

  Scotland

  6

  Wales

  1

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Source:

  UK Defence Statistics 2000

  "Direct" employment refers to that occurring directly from equipment contracts placed with UK contractors by MOD. It does not include employment, which is created in sub contractors, and others who supply the main contractor; this is referred to as "indirect" employment.

  The minor differences (shown in the table) between "regions totals" and the "UK total" are due to rounding anomalies.

  Royal Dockyards
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military personnel are employed at (i) the Royal Dockyard, Rosyth and (ii) the Royal Dockyard, Devonport. [32441]
  605W
  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 December 2001,Official Report, columns 968–69W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) detailing numbers of people employed by the privately owned Royal Dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport. Some 183 Ministry of Defence civilian employees and 15 military are also based at Rosyth Dockyard. In addition, 1,546 civilian and 2,000 military personnel are based at the Devonport Naval Base, which is adjacent to Devonport Dockyard. These figures exclude naval personnel serving on ships and submarines, visiting them or undergoing maintenance at these facilities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Religious/Sectarian Hate Crime
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has taken to consult on how best to tackle religious hate crime and sectarian hatred as an aggravating factor in a range of criminal offences; and what steps he will take to ensure an independent and lay dimension to his review. [29942]

  Mr. Browne
  I intend to consult shortly on how best to tackle the problems of offending motivated either by racial or religious hatred in Northern Ireland. I understand that an evaluation of the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which created categories of racially aggravated offences, is soon to be published, and would like participants in the consultation exercise to be able to draw on the findings in that evaluation when considering their responses. In order to ensure the broadest scope of opinions for consideration, the consultation exercise will include as wide a range of participants as possible, including organisations and individuals working in the statutory, non-statutory and voluntary sectors.

  Police/Defence Lawyers Directive
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Chief Constable has made in circulating a new directive to cover the role of police and defence lawyers based on the UN Declaration on the role of lawyers; how many copies have been printed; by what means the directive has been distributed; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [29781]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland have been engaged in a consultative process on a new direction covering the role of police and defence lawyers. The direction will draw on a range of sources including the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989, Codes of Practice created under the Order, the Human Rights Act 2000 and the UN Declaration.

  It is hoped to issue the direction in the near future. A decision will be made at that time about the extent of publication.

  Code of Ethics (Police Service)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the Chief Constable towards the publication of a Code of Ethics for the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and if he will place a copy of the draft Code in the Library. [29779]
  606W
  Jane Kennedy
  As required by section 52(3) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Chief Constable submitted a draft of the Code of Ethics to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, on 31 December 2001. As the Act makes clear, publication of the Code of Ethics is a matter for the Policing Board.

  Before issuing or revising the code the Board must consult the Police Association, the Secretary of State, the ombudsman, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and any other person or body appearing to the Board to have an interest in the matter. I understand that the Board began the formal consultation process on 24 January and that the closing date is 1 April. The Board have kindly permitted me to lay a copy of the draft Code in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32003]

  Mr. Leslie
  Approximately 40 per cent. of the Cabinet Office departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2001–02 (resource and capital) announced on 28 November is budgeted salary costs and pension contributions.

  This estimate of the proportion of 2001–02 DEL accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions could change. Further details of DEL and staff costs for 2001–02 will be published in the forthcoming spring Supplementary Estimate. Actual outturn on staff costs will be published in the forthcoming spring Supplementary Estimate. Actual outturn on staff costs will be published in the Resource Accounts for 2001–02.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the loss of interest on notional capital required to cover Export Credits Guarantee Department claims was in each of the years 1997 to 2001. [27217]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD did not employ the concept of notional capital for these years. However from records available, notional interest required to fund claims under ECGD's Account 2 can be calculated as shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Notional Interest

  1991–92

  0

  1992–93

  0.02

  1993–94

  0.02

  1994–95

  1.98

  1995–96

  2.28

  1996–97

  3.46

  1997–98

  3.96

  1998–99

  5.96

  607W

  £million

  Year

  Notional Interest

  1999–2000

  16.09

  2000–01

  30.29

  2001–021

  30.71

  1First nine months

  South East Euro Awareness Forum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the publications issued by South East Euro Awareness Forum, indicating(a) the number of copies produced and (b) the cost to public funds for each item; [27796]

  (2) what the total cost to public funds was of the South East Euro Awareness Forum in each year since its establishment; [27792]

  (3) what the total cost to public funds is of creating and maintaining the South East Euro Awareness Forum website; [27798]

  (4) how many events the South East Euro Awareness Forum has organised (a) in total and (b) in Buckinghamshire; how many participants there were (i) in total and (ii) from companies based in Buckinghamshire at each event; and what the cost to public funds was of each event; [27794]

  (5) how many calls the Euro Help Line set up by the South East Euro Awareness Forum has received (a) in total and (b) from individuals and companies based in Buckinghamshire since its establishment; and what the total cost to public funds of creating and maintaining the service is; [27797]

  (6) how many staff are (a) employed by and (b) on secondment to the South East Euro Awareness Forum, indicating the company seconding staff in each case; [27793]

  (7) how many businesses are listed on the South East Euro Awareness Forum database as intending to trade in euros; and what the cost to public funds of creating and maintaining the database is. [27795]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The South East Euro Awareness Forum (SEEAF) is one of 12 Regional Euro Fora across the UK. The Regional Euro Fora are led by senior local business people and include representatives from business, national and local government bodies, as well as key business support bodies such as Chambers of Commerce, Trade Partners UK and Business Links.

  The Fora were formed to increase the level of preparations by SME's for the introduction of the euro in the euro area and to advise about the possible impact on UK business.

  Since its formation in 1998, £222,000 has been allocated to SEEAF.

  The Forum has:
  produced seven editions of their newsletter, with distribution of each issue increasing from 1000 to 75,000, at a cost of £17.600;
  produced 10,000 flyers for insertion into other publications at a cost of £2,215;
  created and maintained a website. Since September 2001 it has received about 46,000 visits;
  608W
  organised and attended 40 events for local businesses between September 2001 and 31 March 2002—nearly 600 people have attended events to date; and managed a helpline that has received 320 calls between June 2001 and the end of December;
  engaged the services of a part-time self-employed co-ordinator.

  Information is not available on the number of businesses from Buckinghamshire attending events or contacting the helpline.

  SEEAF does not have a database listing those businesses that intend to trade in euro.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to boost trade in sub-post offices following the decision to remove the ceiling on the number of post offices card accounts; and what capacity there will be for extending the range of services available, with particular reference to passport forms. [28681]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]On the matter of the number of Post Office Card Accounts, there has been no ceiling. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) on 17 December 2001,Official Report, columns 119–20

  Post Office Ltd. continually seeks opportunities to widen the network's client base in order to develop new products and services which will benefit customers and to ensure a viable future for the post office network. The horizon automated platform which computerised the whole of the post office network, should help this expansion.

  Post Office Ltd. is already an agent for the United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the Crown Post Offices in the United Kingdom, identifying those that are running at a loss. [27650]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the Crown office network is operated in accounting terms as a single entity, as income is collected centrally from Government and commercial clients.

  Second Class Post
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to abolish the requirement for second class post; and if she will make a statement. [26698]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Under the terms of the licence issued by the Postal Services Commission to Consignia the company is required to deliver second class post. Any changes to the terms of the licence would have to be authorised by the Postal Services Commission. Consignia has no proposals to withdraw the service and the Commission has no plans to change the licence.
  609W

  Rural Post Offices
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural post offices are barred from handling(a) driving licence and (b) passport applications. [29390]

  Mr. Alexander
  Acting as an agent, Post Office Ltd. is dependent on the level of service required through post offices by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA). Currently the UKPA service which checks and dispatches completed passport applications is offered at 2,000 offices and motor vehicle licensing (MVL) services are offered at 4,091 offices. Currently figures indicate that 90 per cent. of people are within one mile of a post office outlet which offers these MVL services.

  Manufacturing Research Centres
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Government sponsored Innovative Manufacturing Research Centres there are in Scotland; and what is the level of funding for each. [29579]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Innovative Manufacturing Research Centres (IMRCs) are funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of their Innovative Manufacturing Programme. The first 12 IMRCs were announced in November 2001 and were awarded on the basis of national excellence in manufacturing research. Although none of the 12 initial centres is located in Scotland a tranche 2 IMRC involving Glasgow, Cardiff, Cambridge and Surrey universities has been approved for funding. The start date is currently under negotiation, and Glasgow university are expected to be awarded more than £1 million. Another tranche 2 centre at Heriot-Watt university in the area of Photonics is currently under review.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by her Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29426]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The information cannot be readily obtained from the Department's database and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of television sets installed in the UK are able to receive digital signals; and what percentage the Government regard as a minimum requirement as an installed base before switch-off of analogue transmissions can be effected. [30151]

  Ms Hewitt
  All television sets installed in the UK are capable of receiving digital signals provided that they have an external set top box or an integrated digital tuner.

  The Government have set three conditions which must be met before the analogue signal is fully switched to digital. These are availability, affordability and accessibility. The availability condition requires that
  610W
  everyone who can currently receive analogue transmissions (99.4 per cent. of the UK population) will be able to receive the equivalent digital signal. The affordability test requires that consumers do not face unacceptable switching costs when converting to digital services. As a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers should have access to digital equipment before switchover is completed.

  When we first announced these criteria in September 1999 we said that digital switchover could start to happen as early as 2006 and be completed by 2010. We remain convinced that this timing is realistic.

  The Digital Television Action Plan, which was issued on 20 December 2001, contains a commitment to review progress towards digital switchover, with particular reference to the accessibility, availability and affordability tests. A first report is due by the end of March 2002.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs were dependent upon the steel industry in(a) 2001 and (b) 1997; what measures the Government have introduced since 1997 to help the steel industry; and if she will make a statement. [30757]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of jobs directly dependent on the steel industry in 1997 was 35,200 and in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, was 25,5001. The UK steel industry has experienced difficult trading conditions in recent years and many jobs have been lost as a result of restructuring. The Government work closely with representatives of the industry and within the restrictions of the Steel Aid Code, which restricts the provision of aid to the industry, have since 1997, supported a number of measures designed to improve the competitiveness of the sector. In February 2000 Ministers approved £1.6 million to help steel industry representatives to develop the Metals Industry Competitive Enterprise which is designed to introduce lean manufacturing techniques.

  1Source:

  Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry further to her answers of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 681W, and 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 866W, on miners' compensation, if she will list the issues impeding responses to mineworkers' claims for compensation for respiratory disease which are not yet resolved; and in each case if she will set out the progress made towards resolving how to make progress with claims affected by these issues. [31067]

  Mr. Wilson
  The previous answers related to compensation for surface workers in dusty jobs. The Department is seeking to persuade the Claimants' Solicitors' Coordinating Group to put to our respective medical experts the outcome of the surface dust study we have jointly undertaken. The Department hopes that decisions on liability and compensation can be taken quickly in the light of the experts' opinion. Offers of compensation are already being made to mixed workers who worked both underground and in surface dusty occupations.
  611W

  Sunday Trading
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what premium pay rates shopworkers received for Sunday working in(a) 1991 and (b)2000. [30941]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No known data sources exist which give premium rates of pay on an annual basis for Sunday shopworkers. However in 1996, a one-off independent survey was conducted on behalf of my Department to study the impact of the 1994 Sunday Trading Act. Based on a sample of about 300 shops, the following findings were given in relation to the payment of premium rates for shopworkers:92 per cent. of shops which opened on Sundays before the 1994 Act, paid employees a premium rate. There was no evidence that any shops had stopped paying premium rates after the introduction of the act.
  At the time of the survey in 1996, 50 per cent. of shops paid the premium rate at 'double' time or 'time and three quarters,' 41 per cent. at 'time and a half' or 'time and a quarter' and 7 per cent. received an extra 'flat rate'. Larger shops tended to pay the higher premium rates.
  Following the introduction of the 1994 Sunday Trading Act, 18 per cent. of all shops increased the premium rate, 57 per cent. left the rate unchanged and 25 per cent. reduced the rate.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many shops in Scotland opened on Sunday in(a) 1990 and (b) 1998. [30978]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Christmas Day Trading
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many shop employees worked on Christmas day 2001 in England and Wales. [30947]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of employees working on individual bank holidays can be estimated for the past 12 months from the autumn quarter of the Labour Force Survey. Results for Christmas day 2001 will be available in January 2003 when the autumn 2002 Labour Force Survey results are published.

  It is estimated that 13,000 shop employees worked on Christmas day, Monday 25 December 2000. This is 0.8 per cent. of the total number of shop employees in England and Wales.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total external spend by her Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [31033]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Departments and its agencies have spent the following sums on PFI consultants in the last four years.
  612W

  £

  1998–99

  2,274,139

  1999–2000

  1,059,932

  2000–01

  1,272,451

  2001–02

  687,017

  A total of 26 consultants has been used. Other information on consultancy costs can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contracts her Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31327]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI has two contracts with KPMG: one for Security Standards accreditation at £19,000 and another for a secondee to assist on Company Law issues at £77,000.

  No-strike Agreements
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to negotiate no-strike agreements in the public sector. [31356]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has no powers to negotiate such agreements, except in relation to its own staff.

  I have no plans to negotiate agreements of this nature in relation to DTI staff.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role she(a) has played and (b) will play in the implementation of the EU end of life vehicles directive; and if she will make a statement. [31232]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department of Trade and Industry led on negotiation of the directive and continues to lead on transposition and implementations of its requirements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry continues to be closely involved.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions she has taken with respect to the EU end of life vehicles directive; and if she will make a statement. [31231]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our consultation paper on options for implementing the directive stimulated 116 responses. These are being assessed, along with the conclusions and recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee, with a view to adopting the approach which best suits the UK's circumstances. Our policy is to implement with a light regulatory touch, achieving the environmental objectives of the directive without putting UK business at a competitive disadvantage.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will state the date by which she plans to make a decision on where the obligation for the costs of recycling vehicles under the EU end of life vehicles directive will lie; and if she will make a statement. [31230]
  613W
  Mr. Wilson
  Under the directive, producers are required to pay all or a significant part of the costs of take-back and treatment from 1 January 2007 onwards. A decision on who will pay before this date will be made shortly. The directive requires member states to take measures to ensure that economic operators attain certain reuse and recovery, including recycling, targets by specified dates, the first of which is 1 January 2006. Economic operators are defined in the directive as producers, distributors, collectors, motor vehicle insurance companies, dismantlers, shredders, recoverers, recyclers and other end-of-life vehicle treatment operators.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the state of the vehicle treatment industry with respect to the standards required under the EU end of life vehicles directive; and if she will make a statement. [31229]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are approximately 2,500 shredders, dismantlers and scrapyards currently operating under waste management licences and exemptions. The continuing ability of this UK infrastructure to deal with end-of-life vehicles will be of fundamental importance when implementing legislation is written.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from(a) car manufacturers, (b) car manufacturer associations, (c) car importers and (d) other NGOs with regard to the EU end of life vehicles directive; and if she will make a statement. [31228]

  Mr. Wilson
  Numerous representations have been received from car manufacturers, car manufacturer associations, car importers, and other NGOs during the years since the European Commission first published its proposal for a directive, most recently in response to the Department's consultation paper on options for implementing the directive, and subsequently. A summary of the responses to the consultation paper has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to address the financial effects of the end of life vehicles directive on local authorities in the United Kingdom. [31687]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: Local Authority Associations and individual local authorities were among the respondents to the DTI consultation paper on options for implementing the end of life vehicles directive. A number outlined the possible financial consequences of the implementation options proposed. We are taking these views into account in developing the final implementation options, including the financial implications for all stakeholders.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31785]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI has a range of various crime prevention measures in place. These include:

  a regime of pass-wearing and escorting visitors;

  security guarded buildings;

  614W

  asset marking;

  regular auditing;

  seeking and acting upon crime prevention advice from the police;

  measures to raise staff awareness on crime prevention;

  improved record keeping and investigating the theft of valuable items to see if theft prevention practices can be improved.

  The Department's Fraud Policy and Guidance on Fraud Risks and Prevention are available to all staff and are regularly updated. These make plain the responsibilities of all concerned in relation to fraud as well as the consequences of such misconduct. A "whistleblowing" system is in operation to enable staff to safely report suspected misconduct including fraud or theft. The contact details of the Departmental Fraud Officer are available to all staff should they wish advice on any fraud related issues.

  There are no immediate plans to introduce additional security measures to deter theft or fraud but the situation is kept under regular review and further action could be initiated should circumstances change.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the current minimum wage level is; and what plans she has to increase this amount; [32535]

  (2) what the minimum wage is for employees under the age of (a) 21 and (b) 16 years; [32534]

  (3) what account she has taken of regional differences in pay in setting the minimum wage; and what plans she has for setting different minimum wages for separate regions. [32536]

  Alan Johnson
  The current minimum wage rates are £4.10 per hour for workers aged 22 or above and £3.50 per hour for workers aged 18–21 inclusive. The Government have agreed that, subject to economic conditions, these rates should increase on 1 October 2002 to £4.20 and £3.60 per hour respectively.

  Workers below the age of 18 do not qualify for the national minimum wage. There are no plans to set different minimum wage rates for different regions.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what independent review of BNFL's liabilities she commissioned prior to her announcement to the House on 28 November 2001. [32235]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department received independent advice on many aspects of BNFL's business, including its liabilities, as part of the work it has undertaken on the company's future strategy.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 153W, on BNFL, if she will list the meetings with ministerial colleagues in which the insolvency of BNFL was discussed. [32419]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry meets her ministerial colleagues in the Department regularly to discuss a range of matters.
  615W

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who in her Department told the United States embassy in London that the moratorium on gas-fired power stations was due to be discussed at the Cabinet meeting of 4 June 1998; and if she will make a statement. [32557]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has no knowledge of any such contact.

  Board Appointments
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will outline the procedure by which independent members will be appointed to sit on her Department's(a) new Strategy Board and (b) other boards as announced in November following the outcome of the Department's internal reviews. [33649]

  Ms Hewitt
  The procedure for appointing the independent members to the Strategy Board will be open and transparent with appointments made on the basis of merit. While the appointments do not fall within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the procedures follow the principles and best practice laid down in the Commissioner's Code. I have employed search consultants to help us with the process.

  The appointments will be advertised on the Department's website which will include an information pack containing details of the full procedure, job and person specification, and how to apply. This information will also explain the process for appointing independent members to an Executive Board, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, and to other Boards across the Department. Analogous procedures to those outlined above will be adopted for all these appointments.

  I see this as an unprecedented opportunity for the Department to benefit from fresh thinking. Candidates will be drawn from a wide range of fields and backgrounds. Their role will not be to represent any particular interest; rather we are looking for people to help us improve internal processes, service delivery and change management. They will not take decisions, but will have an important challenging and advisory role. I will announce the appointments during May.

  In addition, we will shortly be advertising for the posts of Chief Economic Adviser and Director General, Science, Technology and Innovation. Both are Senior Civil Service appointments.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place a copy of the revised business case for the Rural Payments Agency in the Library. [24982]

  Mr. Morley
  I am arranging for a copy of the revised Business Case for the Rural Payments Agency to be placed in the Library of the House.
  616W
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mistakes were made in calculating farming subsidy claims in 2001 by(a) her Department and (b) applicants. [28364]

  Mr. Morley
  This information has not previously been collected. However the Rural Payments Agency, which has a target to pay 98.5 per cent. of all claims accurately, will be carrying out an analysis of its performance during the financial year ending 31 March 2002 using statistical sampling techniques. The results, which will not be available until mid 2002 will be published in the RPA Annual Report.

  Rhizomania
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in the review of the UK's protected zone status for rhizomania; and if she will make a statement. [27724]

  Mr. Morley
  The period for the consultation on the future of the protected zone has now finished and on the basis of replies received and in consultation with officials in the devolved Administrations we have concluded that we should ask the Standing Committee on Plant Health to end rhizomania protected zone status in Great Britain.

  Officials will discuss the implications of this change in status with industry representatives.

  Responses to the consultation will be made available in the DEFRA library at 3–8 Whitehall Place, London, SW1 and a summary placed on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov. uk/.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish figures showing the volume of correspondence received by Ministers in her Department throughout 2001, indicating the target times set for replies and the number of replies sent within those target times. [28282]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by all ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 324–27W. The report on 2001 correspondence handling figures will be published within the next few months.

  Waste Composting
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to monitor emissions of methane from waste composting schemes; [29618]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the suitability of methane produced by waste composting schemes for use in combined heat and power plants; [29609]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the level of methane emissions arising from (a) existing and (b) new waste composting schemes; and if she will make a statement. [29617]
  617W
  Margaret Beckett
  Composting is an aerobic biodegradation process which produces carbon dioxide, and appropriately managed processes will not emit methane. The Environment Agency is currently developing technical guidance on composting operations, which will inform their monitoring of these operations.

  Methane can be obtained from the anaerobic digestion of biodegradable materials (usually in the form of a slurry) and has previously been employed to treat single stream biomass wastes, such as sewage sludge, with energy recovery. However, the indications are that the process is less effective for mixed wastes (such as the organic fraction of municipal solid waste) and is unlikely with the present state of development to be widely applicable to wastes.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is undertaking a project to investigate the sustainability of using methane from waste in small turbines in CHP plants.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters her Department has received from residents of the Buckingham constituency(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to (1) landfill sites in the last year; [30040]

  (2) waste incineration in the last year. [30045]

  Mr. Morley
  Correspondence received from members of the public is not recorded by parliamentary constituency. However, a trawl of the Department's records has not revealed any letters relating to landfill sites received from a Buckingham address in the last twelve months.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of(a) progress with CAP reform ahead of the mid-term review and (b) political and public opinion within EU member states vis-à-vis CAP reform; and if she will make a statement. [29990]

  Mr. Morley
  The successful outcome of the Doha trade discussions and the statement on agriculture and the recent reforms agreed to the sheepmeat regime represent important steps towards CAP reform.

  We are engaged in informal discussions with the Commission and bilaterally with member states on the possible modalities of changes to the Common Agricultural Policy in the lead up to the mid-term review. It is clear that there are a range of views and equally clear that some key member states have elections in the coming months which may well have an important bearing on the positions taken by those member states in future negotiations.

  Meat Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on(a) the prevention of illegal imports of meat and food and (b) investment in animal disease research; and if she will make a statement. [30712]
  618W
  Mr. Morley
  We have received a number of representations on the prevention of illegal imports of meat and food from a wide variety of sources, including Members of Parliament, the farming industry and the public. We have introduced a number of new measures aimed at combating illegal imports and will be taking into account the views expressed as we consider what further measures may be appropriate.

  DEFRA receives many approaches about investment in research of all kinds and this information is available to the public via documents and the website. The funding per annum on the Animal Health and Welfare research programme is approximately £37.4 million. This is being kept under review in the light of the FMD outbreak and any inquiry recommendations.

  Dairy Products
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the EU Commission to obtain a further increase in export refunds in respect of dairy products. [30419]

  Mr. Morley
  We have continued to remind the Commission of the importance of international trade in dairy products, particularly for Northern Irish producers, and the currently depressed state of the market. As a result, export refunds for skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder and butter were raised again at the Milk Management Committee on 24 January.

  Modulation Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce new sources of funding for the modulation scheme; and if she will make a statement. [31161]

  Mr. Morley
  The Policy Commission on the future of farming and food made ambitious recommendations for a significant increase in the rate of modulation as a vehicle to transfer further CAP moneys out of production subsidies to deliver broader land management and environmental outputs. The Government accept we should now consider this option very carefully indeed. We will also look to secure agreement in the CAP mid term reviews to broaden the scope of what funds generated by modulation can be spent on. Subject to discussions with the devolved Administrations and with European Commission, securing that increased flexibility on modulation will be the Government's objective.

  Sustainable Agriculture
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy for the development of sustainable agriculture within the United Kingdom; if she will list the elements comprising the policy; and on what time scale she expects changes to be enacted within the agricultural industry. [31457]

  Mr. Morley
  The independent Policy Commission, which was asked to advise Government on how we can create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and
  619W
  food sector in England, delivered its report yesterday. Their ideas will make a substantial contribution towards a new Government strategy for sustainable, modern and adaptable farming, which we intend to launch in the summer.

  While responsibility for European and international aspects of policy rests with the UK Government, agriculture policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is devolved. The devolved Administrations have their own strategies for the development of their farming industries in their countries.

  Copies of the Report have been placed in the House Libraries and the Vote Office.

  Oilseed
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the European Commission's decision to cut oilseed support commensurate with Agenda 2000; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the levels of protein imported in the European Union. [31519]

  Mr. Morley
  The progressive alignment of EU area payment rates for oilseeds with those for cereals is provided for in Council Regulation 1251/99, which implements the decisions on CAP reform taken by the European Council in March 1999, as part of the Agenda 2000 agreement.

  Article 10.2 of the regulation requires the European Commission to submit a report to the Council by 30 June 2002 on the development of the oilseeds market in the light of those decisions. This assessment will therefore form part of the mid-term review of Agenda 2000 later this year.

  In addition, in response to a request from the Agriculture Council in December 2000, the European Commission has already produced a report on the options for increasing EU plant protein production following the Council's decision to ban meat and bone meal (MBM) from animal rations. The report notes that there is a plentiful supply of plant proteins on the world market and that EU is already the world's largest importer of oilmeals. In the light of this, it concludes that the most cost effective and least trade distorting solution is to look to the world market to make-up the gap left by the MBM ban, rather than to subsidise additional EU plant protein production. The Government agree with the Commission's analysis and fully supports the conclusions reached.

  Hunting
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the registered figures are for each hunt outing this year in respect of(a) riders and (b) followers under the post foot and mouth reporting rules. [31858]

  Alun Michael
  The information is not available. However, a list of the hunts that have satisfied Divisional Veterinary Managers that they can comply with disease control permit conditions is listed on the DEFRA website on www.defra/gov.uk/footandmouth/rural/hunting/permits.asp.
  620W

HEALTH

  Stroke Research
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for financing research into strokes in the next three financial years; and if he will make a statement. [14197]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority will be accorded to his Department's policy research and the NHS Research and Development Programme to deal with strokes; and if he will make a statement. [14028]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]The National Service Framework (NSF) for older people, published in March 2001, outlines a programme of action for the national health service to reduce the incidence of stroke in the population and to ensure that those who have had a stroke have prompt access to integrated care services. A programme of research to underpin the implementation of the NSF is currently being planned by the Department. Funders forums have been established in cardiovascular disease research and in older people's research; research into stroke is likely to be of interest to both.

  The Department's main national programmes of research which includes the NHS research and development programmes and the policy research programme, are currently funding a number of research projects into stroke. These include many projects with forward commitments over the next three years. Details of projects are available on the national research register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  The NHS research and development programme on service delivery and organisation has recently funded a five-year project on "Continuity of care in stroke and its relation to outcomes". A call for proposals has recently been advertised for the NHS research and development programme on the new and emerging applications of technology, which includes stroke as one of the priority areas. Funding will be dependent on the quality of proposals.

  In addition to funding specific projects, the Department also provides and will continue to provide support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the NHS. Much of this will include research on strokes.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC operates in response mode, and it is therefore difficult to predict expenditure over the coming years. However the MRC spent £3.4 million on stroke research in 2000–01 and does not anticipate a major change to this level of support.

  Chief Medical Officer (Annual Reports)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates of publication of the annual report of the chief medical officer for the past five years. [16859]

  Ms Blears
  Sir Kenneth Calman, the then chief medical officer, published his annual report on 25 September 1996, 30 September 1997 and 9 September 1998. Since
  621W
  then no similar reports have been published. Although the previous format served its purpose well in the past, the practice of the report containing descriptions of a wide range of Government policies added to the detailed nature of the reports and such information is well covered in other reports and is freely available on the Internet.

  When Professor Donaldson took up the post of chief medical officer in September 1998, he took stock of the publications issued by the chief medical officer and introduced a number of changes. One of these changes was to introduce a new style of report which is shorter, more focused and more accessible. The first use of this new format for his annual report was in December 2001.

  Since his term of office Professor Donaldson has produced a number of major reports including: "An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the National Health Service"; "Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients"; "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility"; "Building a safer NHS for patients" and "The Removal, Retention and Use of Human Organs and Tissue from Post-mortem Examination".

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of(a) personal social services SSA per resident over 65 and (b) personal social services SSA per resident below 18 is for (i) Buckinghamshire, (ii) Milton Keynes and (iii) England. [19313]

  Ms Blears:
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]The level of personal social services standard spending assessments (SSA) per resident over 65 and per resident under 18 for Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and England in 2001–02 is as follows:

  £

  SSA per capita aged 65 and over

  SSA per capita aged under 18

  Buckinghamshire

  552

  88

  Milton Keynes

  715

  145

  England

  673

  172

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his decision to reduce the dispensing fees paid to community pharmacists. [25127]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 611–12W.

  ERDIP
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the timetable for ERDIP sites to submit proposals under the Modernisation Enabling Project; and what plans he has to invite tenders from outside the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme on electronic access to patient records. [25321]

  Ms Blears
  The modernisation enabling projects identify gaps within the electronic record development and implementation programme (ERDIP). These pieces of 622W
  work will be for a short timescale and with a minimum amount of funding as a major investment has already been made within the ERDIP programme. These sites have already received various amounts of funding over and above health authority allocations. The Department is currently considering a small number of sites that can do additional work linked to NHS Plan priorities that can be delivered by the 5 April 2002.

  ERDIP is a national co-ordination programme, which seeks to develop solutions to national problems. The purpose of setting up the demonstrator communities was to: demonstrate the achievements in improving health and healthcare through making faster progress in their plans to modernise care, and demonstrating robust techniques and good practice reproducible on a national basis; act as a focus for the identification, definition and testing of standards and good practice; raise awareness of what is possible, and the health and healthcare benefits that can be achieved; and provide learning and feedback for the wider National Health Service community. The two patient access sites at Bury Knowle and Hadfield are an integral part of this programme.

  A key element of the information management and technology strategy is to enable health communities to make decisions on procurement of software and hardware based on existing systems and reflecting local circumstances. The Government are supporting the NHS in this by ensuring that the additional money allocated for the implementation of the targets in 'Information for Health, Building the Information Core' and the NHS Plan reaches the level at which the decisions are taken. A majority of the money therefore goes out as part of health authority allocations.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of (1) the cumulative percentage increases in age-standardised projected demand for care home places for older people from 2001 levels, in(a) England and (b) each local authority providing social services, in each year from 2001 to 2011; [26519]

  (2) age-standardised demand for care home places for older people (a) in England and (b) in each local authority responsible for social services in each year from 2001 to 2011. [26523]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]The Performance Assessment Framework Indicator C26 shows the usage of residential and nursing care homes by each local council in England for people aged 65 and over and indicator C32 the usage of home care. Copies of the `Social Services Performance Assessment Framework Indicators, 2000–01' are available in the Library

  Recent work by the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) at the London School of Economics, commissioned by the Department, suggests that, in England, residential care places for older people will need to increase by 7.2 per cent. over the period 2000 to 2010 and that nursing care places for older people will need to increase by 7.7 per cent. The research also suggests that home care hours for older people will need to increase by 7.5 per cent. over the same period. These projections assume current patterns of care. The pressures may

  623W
  change as a result of government policies. Projections are not available for each council with social services responsibility or for individual years.

  Further information on these projections and the model on which they are based can be found in the recent report by the PSSRU on "Demand for Long Term Care for Older People in England", published in Health Statistics Quarterly 12, Winter 2001, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require the new strategic health authorities to incorporate in their eligibility criteria the words of Lord Woolf in R v. North and East Devon health authority ex-parte Coughlan on the limits to the powers of social service departments to pay for nursing home places. [31206]

  Jacqui Smith
  The new strategic health authorities (SHAs) will be required to compile eligibility criteria that reflect the guidance issued in June 2001 (Health Service Circular 2001/015:Local Authority Circular (2001)18).

  The guidance itself reflects very closely the Court of Appeal judgment ex-parte Coughlan.

  Paragraph 20 of the guidance makes clear both the limits of the powers of social services departments to pay for nursing home places, and that the content is drawn from the Judgment:
  "The Judgment stated that a local council could provide nursing care under section 21 of the National Assistance Act only where:
  the services are merely incidental or ancillary to the provision of the accommodation a local authority is under duty to provide to those whom section 21 refers;
  and is of a nature which it can be expected to be provided by a council whose primary responsibility is to provide social services."

  The two indents in paragraph 20 of the guidance very closely reflect the words of the judgment at page 12, paragraph 30 (e). It will be for each SHA to determine the wording of their eligibility criteria in light of the guidance.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that no patient receiving free continuing care will be reassessed as falling outside the criteria for continuing care as a result of new eligibility criteria being drawn up for April 2002 by the new strategic health authorities. [31238]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that new eligibility criteria are drawn up in line with the continuing care guidance issued in June 2001 (Health Service Circular 2001/015: Local Authority Circular (2001)18). It is not envisaged that patients whose needs are of a nature, complexity, intensity or unpredictability that they currently require fully funded continuing national health service health care will cease to receive that care as a result of the new eligibility criteria being drawn up by strategic health authorities.

  Free Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he intends to issue to the new strategic health authorities about eligibility criteria for free continuing care from April 2002. [31152]
  624W
  Jacqui Smith
  It is not our intention to issue new guidance to strategic health authorities regarding eligibility criteria for free continuing care. The guidance issued in June 2001 (Health Service Circular 2001/015:Local Authority Circular (2001)18) reflects the legal position outlined in ex-parte Coughlan. The legal position has not changed since the guidance was issued.

  It was made clear at paragraph 15 of the guidance that as health authorities are replaced by SHAs they should align their inherited continuing and ensure only one set of criteria exist across each SHA.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27990]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is in the table:

  Losses and thefts 2001–02

  Item(s)

  Number

  Total amount(£)

  Nokia 8210 mobile phone

  1

  241.70

  Texas Instruments Extensa Series Laptop

  1

  1,500.00

  Compaq E500 Laptop

  1

  1,761.20

  Motorola Pager

  1

  146.88

  64 Mb DIMM memory chip

  1

  61.60

  Compaq Armada M700 Laptop

  1

  2,321.80

  Siemens C35 mobile phone

  1

  156.66

  Scriptor Pager

  1

  176.25

  Compaq Armada 1110 Laptop

  1

  2,321.80

  Compaq Armada Laptop

  1

  1,915.25

  Compaq M700 Laptop

  1

  2,321.80

  Compaq Spacesaver 866 base unit, keyboard and mouse

  3

  821.33

  Palm Pilot 3

  1

  158.63

  Compaq Armada M700 Laptop

  1

  2,184.33

  Compaq Laptop

  1

  2,184.33

  Compaq Armada 1750 Laptop

  1

  2,184.33

  Compaq Armada 1592 Laptop

  1

  1,684.33

  Nokia Mobile phone

  1

  115.15

  Psion MX5 and Vodaphone mobile phone

  2

  165.68

  HP Colour Laser jet 4550 Printer

  1

  1,800.10

  Compaq Armada M700 Laptop

  1

  1,995.15

  Compaq Laptop

  1

  1,995.15

  Siemens C35i mobile phone

  1

  179.66

  Compaq Laptop and Psion 5MX series

  2

  2,367.05

  Compaq Armada E500 Laptop

  1

  1,835.94

  Compaq Armada E500 Laptop

  1

  1,835.94

  Compaq Armada 1120 Laptop

  1

  1,835.94

  Pager

  1

  176.25

  Nokia mobile phone

  1

  50.00

  Siemens Lifebook Laptop

  1

  1,630.20

  Total to date for 2001–02

  34

  38,124.43

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the problem of bed blocking in hospitals located in the Buckinghamshire health authority. [30055]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 9 October 2001 we announced additional funding of £300 million to tackle delayed discharges this year and next. Buckinghamshire was recognised as a local authority in need of extra help and was allocated £713,000 of additional funding this year and will receive £1.5 million in 2002–03.
  625W
  Quarterly information for Buckinghamshire health authority, on delayed discharges for patients aged 75 and over has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Speech Therapy (Autism)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he is taking to increase the provision of speech therapists dealing with children and adults with autism; [31884]

  (2) whether he will consider introducing ring-fenced funding to promote the greater provision of speech therapists dealing with people with autism; [31885]

  (3)how many speech therapists are available to deal with people with autism in each health authority in England and Wales. [31886]

  Mr. Hutton
  Speech and language therapists have a broad range of responsibilities and autism is one of the many important disorders with which they can help. The proportion of their time devoted to treatment of people with autism varies according to local needs assessment. So it is not possible to quantify the amount of speech and language therapy that is used to specifically treat autism. As at September 2000 there were 5,343 (headcount) speech and language therapists working in the national health service with 4,070 whole-time equivalents.

  Between 1997 and 2000 the number of speech and language therapists working in the national health service has increased by 560 (11 per cent.) and the number of training places available for students has increased by over a hundred since 1998. There will be further increases in the number of students entering training as a result of the NHS Plan commitment to provide 4,450 more training places each year for therapists and other health professionals by 2004. The increased investment in training, work to make the national health service a better employer and investment in return to practice initiatives will result in a continuing increase in the number of speech therapists available to work in the national health service.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Complaints Investigation
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the names of the chair and panel members for the independent investigation into the handling of complaints against Dr. Kerr and Mr. Haslam. [33722]

  Emergency calls resulting in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident1

  Ambulance NHS Trust

  Number

  Rate per thousand population

  England

  3,558

  71

  Northern and Yorkshire

  476

  68

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance NHS Trust

  172

  81

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  132

  47

  Cumbria Ambulance NHS Trust

  24

  38

  North East Ambulance NHS Trust

  148

  105

  Trent

  334

  69

  626W
  Mr. Milburn
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. Nigel Pleming QC has agreed to chair this investigation. Mr. Pleming has considerable experience in health law, including mental health law.

  I am also pleased to announce that Ms Ruth Lesirge and Ms Ros Alstead have agreed to be Panel members. Ms Lesirge is Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation. Ms Alstead is Director of Quality and Operations and Nursing at the South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust.

  Mr. Pleming and the inquiry panel will start work shortly. They will be holding early meetings with those involved to discuss the issues to be covered in the investigation.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27962]

  Ms Blears
  The estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by the Department, its executive agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies in each of the past four complete financial years is shown in the table.

  £000

  1997–98

  2,290

  1998–99

  2,023

  1999–2000

  5,778

  2000–01

  5,002

  This does not include refurbishment work carried out within the national health service nor the cost of fitting out of any new properties prior to occupation.

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of(a) emergency and (b) non-emergency calls per year handled by each ambulance service was in (i) England, (ii) South-west England and (iii) South-east England; and what is the number per thousand population in the last 12 months. [28227]

  Ms Blears
  Information for all ambulance national health service trusts, by regional office area, about the number of emergency calls received in 2000–01 that resulted in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident is shown in the table. The rate per thousand population is also included. Information about non-emergency calls is not available in the form requested.
  627W

  Emergency calls resulting in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident1

  Ambulance NHS Trust

  Number

  Rate per thousand population

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance NHS Trust

  80

  61

  Lincolnshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  59

  93

  East Midlands Ambulance NHS Trust

  195

  67

  Eastern

  328

  60

  Essex Ambulance NHS Trust

  115

  70

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust

  114

  52

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  99

  61

  London

  700

  95

  London Ambulance NHS Trust

  700

  95

  South-east

  523

  60

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  47

  58

  Hampshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  83

  50

  Isle of Wight Ambulance Service (NHS Trust)2

  8

  59

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust

  97

  61

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  27

  43

  Surrey Ambulance NHS Trust

  78

  72

  Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust

  115

  76

  The Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  68

  52

  South West

  291

  59

  Avon Ambulance NHS Trust

  60

  59

  Dorset Ambulance NHS Trust

  54

  77

  Gloucestershire Ambulance NHS Trust

  27

  48

  West Country Ambulance NHS Trust

  122

  58

  Wiltshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  29

  47

  West Midlands

  365

  68

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance NHS Trust

  34

  48

  Shropshire Ambulance Service (NHS Trust)2

  22

  50

  Staffordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  64

  61

  Warwickshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  27

  34

  West Midlands Metropolitan Ambulance NHS Trust

  218

  94

  North West

  540

  86

  Lancashire Ambulance NHS Trust

  112

  87

  Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust

  193

  81

  Greater Manchester Ambulance NHS Trust

  235

  90

  1 Excludes duplicate calls to the same incidents

  2 Part of a community trust

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates for 2000

  Information about non-emergency patient journeys and other requests for transport, together with more detailed information about response times to Government targets for all NHS ambulance trusts are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy is in the Library and available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/ public/sb0115.htm.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Pre-school Education
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many three-year-olds attended Government-funded pre-school education in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency. [26200]

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many three-year-olds attended Government-funded pre-school education in Chesham and Amersham in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [27122]
  628W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many three-year-olds attended Government-funded pre-school education in the Uxbridge constituency in each of the last four years. [27266]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures for other maintained1 and private, voluntary and independent providers are not collected at parliamentary constituency level.

  The available information on children taking up free early education places at:

  (1) maintained nursery and primary schools, and

  (2) other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers.

  In each local education authority area in England in each year from 1997 to 2001 is shown in a table on the Department's statistical website. The table "Numbers of 3 and 4-year-olds taking up free early education places: 1997–2001" can be found at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SBU/b0300/index.html.

  1 Includes some local authority providers (other than schools) that are registered to receive nursery education grant e.g. local authority day nurseries.
  629W

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which town each local learning

  Local Learning and Skills Council

  Headquarters

  Estimated accommodation costs 2001–02 (£)

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire

  Abingdon

  323,002

  Berkshire

  Reading

  838,510

  Surrey

  Woking

  277,595

  Kent and Medway

  West Malling

  568,594

  Sussex

  Brighton

  512,319

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  Fareham (with a satellite office at Newport)

  315,627

  Cumbria

  Workington

  113,457

  Lancashire

  Preston

  206,244

  Greater Manchester

  Manchester

  653,217

  Greater Merseyside

  Liverpool

  459,512

  Cheshire and Warrington

  Middlewich

  174,698

  Shropshire

  Telford

  79,725

  Staffordshire

  Stoke-on-Trent

  191,818

  The Black Country

  Oldbury

  243,183

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Birmingham

  343,077

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Coventry

  411,763

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  Worcester

  218,681

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester

  191,996

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  Swindon

  346,451

  West of England

  Bristol

  389,939

  Somerset

  Taunton

  156,667

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  Bournemouth

  235,090

  Devon and Cornwall

  Plymouth (with a satellite office at Truro)

  401,508

  Northumberland

  Cramlington

  102,649

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  246,110

  County Durham

  Newton Aycliffe

  108,536

  Tees Valley

  Middlesbrough

  226,700

  North Yorkshire

  York

  166,638

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  497,038

  South Yorkshire

  Sheffield

  294,884

  Humberside

  Hull

  222,278

  Derbyshire

  Derby

  183,933

  Nottinghamshire

  Nottingham

  228,112

  Lincolnshire

  Lincoln

  139,598

  Leicestershire

  Leicester

  275,107

  Northamptonshire

  Northampton

  300,122

  Norfolk

  Norwich

  299,536

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough

  253,971

  Suffolk

  Ipswich

  155,001

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  Bedford

  153,928

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans

  1,046,283

  Essex

  Chelmsford

  433,871

  London West

  Hounslow

  806,022

  London Central

  London

  785,035

  London North

  Palmers Green

  500,260

  London East

  Stratford

  751,167

  London South

  Croydon

  374,542

  Note:

  Accommodation costs include annual rent and rates (including rate rebates), annual service charge and property insurance. In some cases final information is not yet available and costs have been estimated.

  Source:

  Learning and Skills Council

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total external spend by her Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year;
  630W
  and skills council is headquartered; and what are its estimated accommodation costs in the first year. [28853]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]The information requested is provided in the table:

  what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [31032]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table details the external spend by the Department on Private Finance Initiative Consultants in each of the last four years.
  631W

  £

  23 January 1998 to 24 January 1999

  23 January 1999 to 24 January 2000

  23 January 2000 to 24 January 2001

  23 January 2001 to 24 January 2002

  Total spend on consultants

  0

  0

  752,631.97

  759,565.05

  Full-time equivalent

  0

  0

  2.23

  2.49

  Billed consultancy days

  0

  0

  580.8

  647.9

  Average cost per consultant

  0

  0

  1,295.85

  1,172.35

  Number of consultancy firms

  0

  0

  4

  4

  University Students
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students attend each university in England. [31054]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on the numbers of students in each university in England is contained in "Students in Higher Education Institutions, 1999–2000" published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), a copy of which is available from the House Library.

  School Census
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to publish the results of the Annual Schools' Census of 17 January 2002. [31367]

  Mr. Timms
  The first data to be published from the Annual School Census of 17 January 2002 will be in the statistical first releases, "Class Sizes in Maintained Schools in England: January 2002 (Provisional)" and "Pupil:Teacher Ratios in Maintained Schools in England: January 2002 (Provisional)". These are due to be published in April 2002.

  The exact publication date will depend on the quality, completeness and timeliness of the data returned by schools.

  Details of publications over the next few months can be found in the statistical first release, "Schedule for the Publication of Statistics". Copies are placed in the House of Commons Library, or can be found on the DfES statistical website, www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Student Hardship
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on student hardship in higher education. [R] [31469]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES) showed that in 1998–99 most students could meet all their essential expenditure from the student loan, which has since been raised annually in line with inflation. The SIES and other surveys suggest that students are meeting additional costs of entertainment and consumer goods from family income, commercial credit and part-time working.

  Our system of student support is designed so that those with the greatest need get the most support. 50 per cent. of full-time students entering HE in 2001–02 do not pay anything towards their tuition fees. We have introduced a number of measures including the Childcare Grant
  632W
  package to meet the needs of student parents, and there is other targeted support for disabled students and young people most in need.

  In our current review of student support we are looking at ways to simplify the system, especially in the area of hardship support; to provide more up-front support for students from less well-off backgrounds; to ensure that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years in higher education; and to tackle the problem of debt and the perception of debt.

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in 2001–02 received Opportunity Bursaries under the Excellence in Cities programme; and in which regions and local education authority areas they were resident. [31472]

  Margaret Hodge
  There were 6,580 Opportunity Bursaries available in England for institutions to award to students who were entering higher education for the first time in 2001–02, and who met the criteria. The number of bursaries awarded so far is 6,129. Of these 84 per cent. (5,125) went to students from Excellence in Cities areas and Education Action Zones, and 16 per cent. (1,004) to students from elsewhere.

  Institutions were not asked to submit information about students with bursaries, according to individual education authority areas.

  Higher Education
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the purpose is of her review of the postcode premium in higher education; and if she will make a statement. [31976]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is currently reviewing the postcode premium and will be consulting on widening participation, including the focus of the premium, later in the spring.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32013]

  Estelle Morris
  Salary costs and pension contributions account for 0.72 per cent. of the total resource budget departmental expenditure limit for the Department for Education and Skills for 2001–02.
  633W

  Autism
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to increase the training of teachers and classroom assistants dealing with children with autism in mainstream schools; [31888]

  (2) what plans she has to launch an advertising campaign to promote the recruitment of specialist teachers to teach autistic children in primary and secondary schools. [31889]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In order to acquire qualified teacher status (QTS), all trainee teachers must, as part of their initial teacher training, demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs (SEN). This includes those who may have autistic spectrum disorders.

  The Government have made a significant investment in support of SEN. Through the Department's standards fund 2001–02, we are supporting local expenditure of £82 million on SEN. One of the expenditure headings is in-service training and development of teachers, and other staff, including learning support assistants. In 2002–03, we are increasing this investment to £91 million. Training will again he a major component, extended to cover training in disability, as well as SEN, in order to help schools and local education authorities prepare for their responsibilities under the Special Education Needs and Disability Act 2001, and the implementation of the new SEN Code of Practice.

  In addition, the Department has also introduced in 2002–03 two new funding streams specifically to support the creation of new training opportunities and resources for teachers, and other staff, linked to a number of key priorities. One of these is supporting those who work with pupils with learning difficulties, including pupils with autistic spectrum disorders. Competitive bids have been invited from voluntary organisations, as part of the Department's SEN small programmes fund, and from higher education institutions, under the new SEN training and development fund. £2 million will able available under these initiatives.

  With regard to advertising campaigns, the Government have introduced a significant number of recruitment measures to help schools to recruit the teachers they need. The grant that my Department provides the Teacher Training Agency to enable it to discharge its functions includes funding to cover advertising costs. The standards fund support I have referred to assists teachers to acquire specialist knowledge.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what she is doing to promote Autism Awareness year. [31890]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Secretary of State welcomes initiatives which aim to improve our knowledge and understanding of autism and raise awareness of the condition. Better outcomes for children with autism are encouraged by early identification and intervention to meet their special educational needs. In 2002, the Department for Education and Skills will be publishing guidance for schools, local education authorities and others which will include pointers to good practice on provision for children with autism, including early identification. The Department will continue to work with 634W
  the National Autistic Society and other interested parties to raise awareness of autism and improve provision for children with the condition.

  Hardship Loans
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are in place to ensure that higher education students' eligibility for hardship loans is consistent between institutions. [32734]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department produces guidance for institutions on hardship loans each year. The guidance is intended to help administrators target the support effectively. It also helps to ensure that institutions deal with applications on a broadly consistent basis, while giving them the flexibility to meet individual students' needs.

TREASURY

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the one year projects on taxes and duties other than VAT or corporation tax, referred to in the HM Customs and Excise website as planned for inclusion in the compliance costs programme of research. [21785]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise planned to follow their study on VAT with studies into the compliance costs of Customs procedures for international trade and of Excise duties. The Revenue planned to follow the first year's study on corporation tax with a follow-up study, drawing on the earlier findings.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the dates on which the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise awarded the contracts for studies of the compliance costs to UK businesses of(a) corporation tax and (b) VAT. [21769]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 514W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish (a) the emerging findings report and (b) the final reports of (i) the VAT compliance cost project and (ii) the corporation tax compliance cost project. [21771]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Edward Davey) on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 631W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which organisation has been awarded the contract from the Inland Revenue for a study of the compliance costs of corporation tax for UK businesses; what is the cost to public funds of that contract; and if he will make a statement; [21772]

  (2) which organisation has been awarded the contract by Customs and Excise for a research study of the compliance costs of VAT for UK businesses; what is the cost to public funds of that contract; and if he will make a statement. [21773]
  635W
  Mr. Boateng
  The contracts were awarded to the social research division of BMRB International Ltd. in September 2000. Information on the costs of individual contracts is Commercial-in-Confidence.

  VAT
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for the VAT inspections control programme for 2000–01(a) the number of staff years used, (b) the running costs, (c) the additional tax discovered and (d) the unit cost ratio of cost to revenue. [24795]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested for the VAT inspections control programme 2000–01 is as follows:

  (a) Total VAT staff years used figure is 5,162, including support staff.

  (b) Running costs were £130 million, in terms of salary and expenses.

  (c) Net additional tax of £2.3 billion discovered.

  (d) The unit cost ratio is £1 cost: £17.69 net additional revenue.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT-registered companies and individuals became insolvent following action by HM Customs and Excise in each year since 1997; how much outstanding VAT was recovered from these concerns after formal insolvency occurred; what was the cost to Customs and Excise of pursuing those investigations; and how many VAT registrations were effected after guarantees were sought because of previous insolvency action against persons in the new venture. [24806]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  1. Number of companies and individuals insolvent following Customs' action

  Year ended 31 March

  Customs bankruptcy/winding up orders

  1998

  4,333

  1999

  4,891

  2000

  5,162

  2001

  4,313

  2. Outstanding VAT recovered after formal insolvency occurred

  £ million

  Period

  Amount recovered

  Year ended 31 December 1998

  42

  Year ended 31 December 1999

  43

  15 months ended 31 March 2000

  64

  Year ended 31 March 2001

  56

  3.Customs do not hold information specific to the cost of pursuing bankruptcy and winding-up orders and post-insolvency recovery. It is not cost effective to produce this information.

  4.Customs do not maintain information on requirements of security explicitly due to a history of insolvency. The table that follows details the number of cases where security was obtained from traders considered to present a risk to the revenue. This includes instances of persons involved in previous insolvencies.
  636W

  Year ended 31 March

  Total number of cases where security was obtained

  1998

  722

  1999

  741

  2000

  808

  2001

  481

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual receipts derived from payment of income tax, capital gains tax, national insurance and VAT paid by the top(a) one per cent., (b) five per cent. And (c) 10 per cent. of earners and the bottom (i) one per cent., (ii) five per cent. and (iii) 10 per cent. of earners. [26239]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The available information is given in the table. The bottom 1 per cent., 5 per cent., and 10 per cent. of earners do not pay income tax on their earnings. The bottom decile of earners could be liable to capital gains tax and income tax (if they have significant investment income); however, it is not possible to provide reliable estimates. It is also not possible to estimate amounts of VAT paid by individuals in different parts of the earnings distribution.

  Tax and national insurance contributions by percentiles of the earnings distribution in 2001–02

  £ billion

  Income tax

  Capital gains tax

  National insurance contributions

  Top 1 per cent.

  20.7

  1.0

  0.6

  Top 5 per cent.

  38.2

  1.4

  3.1

  Top 10 per cent.

  48.2

  1.6

  6.3

  Fuel Duty (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much duty was raised at each Northern Ireland duty point in respect of all types of fuel and diesel in 1998–99,(b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; and how much duty was raised in the UK in respect of all types of fuel and diesel in the same three periods.

  Mr. Boateng
  Revenue receipts from all types of fuel duties in the relevant financial years were:(a) £21.6 billion;(b) £22.5 billion; and (c) £23 billion. Estimates of the receipts collected at different duty points are not available. There are no duty points currently located in Northern Ireland.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the manufacturers of added value aggregate products of the introduction of the Aggregates Levy. [31573]

  Mr. Boateng
  The higher price of primary aggregate will provide an incentive to all users, including the producers of value added products, to make more efficient use of aggregates and better use of alternative materials. The impact on the actual costs to the end user will be dependent on the commercial decisions of aggregates suppliers.
  637W

  Company Car Drivers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of how many incorrect tax codes have been sent to company car drivers as a result of the introduction of the carbon dioxide emissions-based system; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the Exchequer. [31961]

  Mr. Boateng
  For the majority of company car drivers the Inland Revenue have had to estimate the value of company car benefit for 2002–03 because they do not hold the necessary information required to calculate the figure under the new rules. In about 280,000 cases the provisional amount of benefit included in the coding notices may not have been calculated on the basis of information already supplied by employers. In those cases the Inland Revenue have made it clear that revised coding notices will be issued before the start of the new tax year.

  Fuel Contracts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fuel contracts Government Departments have with Exxon Mobil/Esso. [31833]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Government Departments are responsible for their own contracts, however OGCbuying.solutions offer framework contracts that are available to the whole of central Government. There are three contracts in place with Esso covering heating oils and motor fuels. Specific details cannot be disclosed in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Debt Relief
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to ensure that the first 23 countries to receive debt relief spend less on debt and more on education. [31670]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK Government have been at the forefront internationally of pressing to ensure that savings on debt relief are linked to the development of comprehensive national poverty reduction strategies. Education is a key feature of these plans.
  638W
  Countries receiving HIPC debt relief have benefited from increased social spending of $1.7 billion in 2001–02, equivalent to 1.2 per cent. of their GDP. Education spending has accounted for 40 per cent. of the savings made on debt, equivalent to nearly $700 million in 2001–02. The World bank and the IMF are currently preparing a report, to be presented to the board, to further track the spending of HIPC finance.

  Aggregates Tax
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 8W, on aggregates tax, whether the discussions the Government have held regarding the implementation of the aggregates tax in Scotland with a wide range of organisations within Government include discussions with the Scotland Office. [32303]

  Mr. Boateng
  It would not be appropriate to provide specific information on the extent and nature of discussions within Government on matters of policy, as Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information provides.

  Internet Service Providers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) on what basis VAT is calculated for(a) UK-based and (b) non-UK-based internet service providers; [32148]

  what discussions he has had with (a) UK-based internet service providers and (b) Customs and Excise about the appropriate VAT charges for flat-rate unmetered internet access charges on non-UK-based ISPs; [32149]

  what steps he is taking to ensure non-UK-based internet service providers account for value added tax on the same basis as UK-based ISPs. [32147]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is a complex area of EC VAT law, centring on the interpretation and application of the rules that govern the 'place of taxation' of services. The Government currently have the treatment of internet access packages under review, and have held discussions with a range of interested bodies. The Government are also negotiating for relevant changes to be made to EC VAT law in order to provide lasting clarity and certainty in this area.