Westminster Hall Sitting of 4 April 2001

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Green Belt
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a subject of great interest to my constituents, and, in particular, the Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Society, which I recently met at the home of its chairman, Mrs. Avril Chick. At that well-attended meeting, the members told me of their concern that the future of the green belt should be debated in Parliament. I am now honouring what I said on that occasion. It is of interest to many other of my constituents and to hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who is unable to attend today owing to a personal engagement. He shares similar concerns about the future of the green belt in his constituency, which adjoins the southern end of my constituency.
I hope that this will prove to be a timely debate. Last month the Government finally confirmed regional planning guidance 9—the regional planning guidance for the south-east—following consultation. That is an important document providing the regional framework for the preparation of local authority development plans up to 2016. RPG9 has many implications for the future of the green belt. In particular, it contains the Government's targets for housing developments in the south-east outside London.
In March last year, the Government gave their response to the level of house building suggested by Serplan and the Crowe report, and chose a level of 43,000 new houses a year, a figure in between the two suggested. In its final form, the regional planning guidance suggests that provision for housing in the south-east should be for 39,000 houses each year up to 2006. Several points should be made about that. First, the Government's figure is substantially higher than that suggested by Serplan—33,000 houses. Secondly, the figure is for five years only. The planning guidance says that the figure is subject to review within five years, in the light of monitoring, the findings of urban capacity studies and studies of potential growth areas. However, RPG9 gives a clear steer in favour of a higher annual total after 2006. Paragraph 8.6 of RPG9 states:
"A higher rate of provision than 39,000 dwellings per annum is likely to be necessary to meet the long term needs in the rest of the South East."
Thirdly, the share of housing allocated to Hertfordshire, in the final version of RPG9, is almost the same as was originally envisaged: 3,280 houses each year, as opposed to 3,290 under the original plans. I am not sure what happened to the other 10 houses, but the loss of them will be no consolation to those who are concerned about the house-building target for the county. The 3,280 figure is substantially higher than the
64WH
number of houses Serplan suggested for Hertfordshire each year, which was in the region of 2,500. That means almost 50,000 additional houses will be built in Hertfordshire by 2016. That assumes that the annual rate continues at 39,000 each year in the south-east, but there is a clear steer in favour of a higher figure in RPG9. There will be at least 50,000 new houses in Hertfordshire, and probably more.
To put that in context, according to the House of Commons Library 50,000 new houses in Hertfordshire is roughly equivalent to the number of dwellings that can be found in the existing borough of Dacorum. To put it another way, a settlement the size of Stevenage and Hitchin will be located within the present boundaries of Hertfordshire by 2016. Those who know Stevenage and Hitchin will also know that that will be a substantial settlement.
Where will additional housing be located in Hertfordshire? The Government tell us that they want as much housing as possible on brownfield developments, and it is fair to say that RPG9 has worthy intentions in that regard. It discusses
"new dwelling provision being accommodated in urban areas in ways which enhance the quality of urban living. This involves making better use of the existing housing stock, along with re-use of vacant and under-used buildings and sites."
Those are undoubtedly worthy intentions, but they may be easier to implement in older urban industrial areas. How easily can they be implemented in a county such as Hertfordshire? Hertfordshire does not contain many brownfield sites associated with older industrial areas. It does contain several new towns, and much of the housing stock throughout the county is relatively new.
In its response to the Government's consultation on the proposed housing distribution, Hertfordshire county council, which should be in a position to know, states that it
"disagrees strongly with the Government's assertion that it will be possible to achieve the proposed overall rate of provision of 39,000 dwellings per annum probably rising to 43,000 after 2006, without using more greenfield land than would have been taken by the level of development proposed by SERPLAN".
The council is especially alarmed by the damaging implications for further erosion of the green belt, and it urges the Government to reduce the annual average of additional dwelling provision to the figure put forward by Serplan. Hertfordshire county council is also sceptical whether the Government's policy will meet their target for the provision of affordable housing, although it makes it clear that it supports the aspiration of meeting local housing needs, which includes key workers. That is the response of Hertfordshire county council to the Government's housing targets.
Within Hertfordshire, individual boroughs such as Hertsmere are waiting to see how the housing target for Hertfordshire will be divided among local authorities. Given its proximity to London and Watford, Hertsmere has good reason to set particular store by the green belt, which is under constant pressure. Proposals to develop on the green belt are constantly put forward with apparently worthy justifications behind them. However, the problem is that if the planners accepted every justification for development on the green belt, there would soon be no green belt left.
One example of the pressures facing the green belt in Hertsmere involves a suggestion to develop a greenbelt site in Stephenson way in Bushey to provide a park-and-

65WH
ride car park to serve Watford. Park-and-ride schemes may be a good idea, but that would mean the loss of an important area of green belt in Hertsmere. It is an important open space, which is valued by local people, and an area of green belt that planners acknowledge prevents the coalescence of Watford and north Bushey, which enables Bushey to retain its distinctive identity. Such developments cannot be justified, and are at odds with the principles behind the green belt.
The problem with the Government's housing targets in RPG9 is that they will create pressure to build on the green belt in Hertsmere in the long term. The targets will also place pressure on the infrastructure, affecting schools, roads, drainage and so forth. Many of the more obvious brownfield sites in Hertsmere have already been used, or earmarked for development. For example, a former long-stay institution in Shenley has accommodated a substantial housing development. For how much longer will brownfield sites in urban areas be available for development in boroughs such as Hertsmere?
The greater the provision that Hertsmere is expected to make, the greater will be the pressure for development affecting the character of existing urban areas and for development into the green belt. In Hertsmere, one cannot compensate for the removal of one area from the green belt by adding another area to it, because nearly all the land that is not urban is already designated as green belt.
I am sceptical about the approach that says that the removal of part of the green belt can be compensated for by designating another greenfield site as green belt. That is similar to saying, on the conservation of species, that it would not matter if we lost the rhino, because we could put the giraffe and the elephant on the endangered species list. Once green belt is gone, it is gone for good. It is no consolation to my constituents whose green belt is threatened, to say that other places, in other boroughs or counties, will be designated as green belt in compensation. That is a recipe for constantly shifting the green belt outwards and taking more and more greenfield and greenbelt areas into urban development.
Hertfordshire county council is right to warn that the RPG9 targets will have long-term consequences for the green belt. In boroughs such as Hertsmere, development on the scale envisaged seriously threatens the concept of the green belt, and is not sustainable. The development that we are setting in train will occur at the expense of the environment that we should hand on to future generations. It will be bad for their quality of life that open spaces will disappear and communities merge into one another. It will be bad for the environment that habitat, and plant and animal species, will be placed under pressure and then lost.
The Government have turned their hand to that cause in the RPG9 targets for housing development. We should continue debating the matter, and have a long hard look at the point that development has reached in the south-east. We need to re-think ploughing on with a course of action that will inevitably mean that huge swathes of the south-east disappear under concrete—including swathes of the green belt in my Hertsmere constituency.
9.43 am
Mr. Bruce George: I appreciate the initiative of the lion. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). The green belt is obviously important in and around Hertsmere. It is also important in and around Walsall, which is part of the west midlands megalopolis, where the dividing lines between Birmingham, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley are hard to make out. The green belt was established to stop the northern movement of Birmingham into other parts of the west midlands and the black country. It is more than an aspiration. It is something that has to be preserved. The green belt in my area is sacrosanct.
Unfortunately, not everybody holds that concept dear. Some planners—although not many—and some building companies, who are competent and reputable, want to expand the benefits of housing to areas that should not contain housing. I do not expect the Minister to comment on the general principles that I shall outline. I am fairly sure that in the next six months or so an enormous document will land on the Secretary of State's doorstep, in which an application will be "called in". Indeed, the matter can be resolved only at that level.
My great concern is that protections available to the green belt might be violated. I accept that we must be pragmatic and that the green belt has expanded, but there are people at the heels of Ministers and local authorities who are using the mass of documentation associated with regional and planning guidance to justify encroachment. I am particularly worried about the greenbelt area between Birmingham and Walsall, which is protected by the Walsall urban development plan. It is in the Beacon regional park, a grade 2 park of special historical interest. There are two sites of importance for nature conservation and three areas of ancient woodland—part of the West Mercia forest. It is also part of the Great Barr hall conservation area. One would have expected protections for Great Barr hall, which is a grade 2 listed building, and the St. Margaret's hospital site, to be more than sufficient to allow people such as me to rest assured that Bovis will be unable to plant 600 houses any where near that site. However, I am anxious that well-paid and competent lawyers and barristers will be able to manipulate complicated documentation and thereby pose a threat.
It is important to point out that the arguments for not building on the green belt are very strong. The planning process is just beginning and the Aldridge, South area planning committee is meeting in April to discuss the preliminary investigation. The process will grind on through the summer, and it would be impertinent to jump in at this stage. The local authority, the public and relevant organisations should have ample opportunity to express their views before the Secretary of State responds to any requests. We are talking about a well-protected area, and any breach of those protections would have considerable implications for other greenbelt areas. In that regard, the application has not only a local but a national connotation.
My motives have been questioned, but I should point out that my green credentials go back at least as far as 1966 and my MA dissertation, at Warwick university, on environmental pressure groups. Of course, one had to begin one's dissertation with a wonderful quotation from someone else, because rarely can one provide the

67WH
kind of quotation that should precede a dissertation. In "The Costs of Economic Growth", which was published in 1965, the economist E.J. Mishan said:
"The desire to create the Jerusalem of economic growth in England's green and pleasant land has so far resulted in a conspicuous lack of both greenness and pleasantness."
That quote is as relevant today as ever. Since the mid-1960s, there has been a greater awareness of the need to protect the environment, control urban sprawl and inject a degree of rationality into a hitherto fairly non-rational process. The green belt is pert of the process of halting this almost unstoppable juggernaut.
I am not some starry-eyed, paid up member of the environmental protest movement, eschewing all pragmatism or compromise, but I genuinely hope that the site will remain off bounds to developers such as Bovis. Half the site was bought by a Del Boy-type character a decade ago. He bought the land cheaply on borrowed money, obtained planning permission, sold it off, then hoped to retire on his ill-gotten gains. He was a pretty worthless character. I fear that other Del Boys are waiting in the wings—although not Bovis, which I should not want to castigate in that way.
Following on from what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said about regional planning guidance, the regional planning guidance for the west midlands region, RPG11, at paragraph 9.1, states:
"On the basis of the advice put to him and in the light of representations received, the Secretary of State proposes that the following additional dwellings, including replacements and conversions, should be constructed in each local authority area between April 1991 and March 2011."
The west midlands has been presented with 335,000 dwellings, of which Walsall, the borough that I represent, has been allocated 10,100. Up until April 2000, 5,563 of those 10,100 homes had been built, including conversions. In addition, 1,275 dwellings have already been given planning permission, and Walsall is well on target to meet the requirements by 2011 by using existing sites.
We have all read documents, including the Secretary of State's White Paper "Our towns and cities: the future: delivering an urban renaissance", which tell us how important it is to reclaim land and to use brownfield sites. In a town such as mine, we have ample brownfield sites that are desperately crying out for companies such as Bovis to come and develop them. We can meet the targets without raping the green belt. I shall not bore hon. Members with the other documents from the Library that I have looked at, which include planning guidance notes and documents on the countryside, environmental quality, social development, town and country planning, residential development and greenfield land. I have read many and will read many, many more. I hope that the Government will say that greenfield sites can be developed only in exceptional circumstances. I am pretty certain that such circumstances do not exist, and that we do not need these houses.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), anyone who drives through north Birmingham will see that, like my constituency, it is not quite a Norwich or a Norfolk, nor is it among the most beautiful areas in the world. However, when one leaves north Birmingham
68WH
one comes to a swathe of rural land, with a mediaeval-looking church with a beautiful graveyard, a golf course, a lake and a forest. It is greenbelt land of the highest order, and the thought of 600 homes being dumped there is truly appalling. No party has a monopoly of concern for the protection of the green belt: it is not a party political issue, and I would deplore any attempt to make it so. Everyone must recognise the importance of sustaining the green belt.
There are other ways of destroying the green belt apart from giving approval for building 600 houses. In my area—I suspect because of a shortage of planning staff—over the years there has been a creeping destruction of the green belt as farmers have extended buildings without seeking authorisation. I do not wish to dump further on the farming community, which has more than enough problems to be going on with, but if those people see that they can build extensions without being compelled to go through the planning process, and if no action is taken to remove the buildings that they put up, they can construct with impunity.
A further threat—again, I do not expect the Minister to comment—comes from Bass, which is a respectable brewery. It wants to develop a site with the delightful name of Fast Eddies, which has a Damon Runyon ring to it. The existing building is dreadful and whoever gave planning permission for it 30 years ago should be beaten because it was an appalling decision. Bass now wants to build seven houses. They have been tastefully designed and Bass, like Bovis, has put enormous effort into trying to meet the objections. My great concern is that to the south of the green belt is the Bovis threat, in the middle is the threat of creeping destruction of the green belt by unauthorised dwellings, and to the north is the threat of a housing development. If any or all of those are not checked by the planning process and, ultimately, the Secretary of State, I fear that whole concept of the green belt in that part of the midlands will be destroyed for ever because it could not be brought back into public use.
I appeal to hon. Members in the Chamber to proclaim their credentials in support of the green belt. We are not against housing and we all have constituents who want to move and who live in unsatisfactory housing. I do not want to stop the growth of home ownership. We all aspire to that and most of us here have met that aspiration. We should not deny that to others. However, the planning process, planning legislation and the green belt concept that was developed in the 1950s, based on ideas from the 1930s, have withstood the test of time and the predators who want to destroy it. I hope that the House will maintain a solid commitment to the green belt and that all hon. Members will continue to monitor developments and the gatekeepers of the green belt concept—the planning inspectors. The Secretary of State, his advisers and fellow Ministers must evaluate claims from pressure groups, local authorities and builders and make balanced decisions on the conflict of greenness and pleasantness against housing. Those decisions are often difficult and I hope that legislation will be strong enough and provide sufficient safeguards.
I am not arguing the details of the campaign that is unfolding in my constituency—others will do that more competently—but when the shouting has finished, the briefs have been read and the speeches have been made in this place, the final decision will rest with the Secretary of State.
9.58 am
Mr. John Horam: My constituency is on the edge of London, almost in Kent, and many of my constituents wish that it was in Kent. However, they live in the London borough of Bromley, which probably has more greenbelt land within its borders than any other London borough.
Mr. John Wilkinson: It does.
Mr. Horam: I am grateful for that confirmation.
The green belt is valued greatly by residents and by others who live in inner London. I want to raise a matter that has not been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) or the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and which is a specific threat to the green belt—airport development.
Most airports were developed during the first part of the previous century and, for obvious reasons, were sited on the outskirts of large centres of population. Most, including Manchester. Birmingham and certainly London, have been surrounded by a green belt as they have developed over the years. Airports are hugely intrusive on greenbelt sites with the noise of aircraft and their associated danger, buildings, roads and infrastructure. I might mention, in the context of the current environmental debate, that aviation fuel is untaxed; international bodies and Government might pay some attention to that.
We need airports, however, and we all take flights. Some of us may be hoping to take a flight out of this country over Easter, as the Prime Minister's decision to postpone the general election enables us to do. We know that airports are bound to develop as air travel develops, which it has done rapidly over the past few years. Therefore, any Government must encounter severe problems to balance the conflicting demands for more air travel with the need to protect the green belts that often surround airports.
I shall now turn to a problem that affects my area. Biggin Hill airport, famous as the airfield associated with the battle of Britain, is used for training purposes and private planes. I do not want to awaken too many bad memories for the Government, but I should say that Mr. Bernie Ecclestone has a large place for maintenance at that airport, and his grand prix drivers fly in and out from it, as do other private planes relating to his business. The airport is also used for servicing and maintenance.
The operators on the airfield want to develop Biggin Hill airport into a much larger operation, which would involve not only scheduled but charter flights and the full panoply of services, as is provided at airports such as Luton. Those proposals have struck horror into the residents of the surrounding area, and in small villages such as Downe, which is within 100 yd of the edge of the airfield. Downe was the home of Charles Darwin; the grounds of Downe house contain his famous walk where he pondered the origin of the species. One can imagine the symbolism of that walk, where he composed "The Origin of Species" in the 19th century, being thundered over by jumbo jets in the 21st century.
The Minister has been involved in the matter because the airport's operator sought permission under permitted development rights to build a large and
70WH
probably unsightly hangar in an unsuitable place. The council sought an Article Four direction from her, which she granted last December. I thank her and her Department for that decision, which indicated clearly that she gave priority to the green belt; she referred to that priority several times in her letters.
The owner is now putting forward a planning application in the normal way, so I hope that the council, whose resolve sometimes needs some stiffening on these matters, will ask for and impose an environmental impact assessment on that, as environmental considerations should certainly be taken into account in the green belt. The owner is pressing ahead with various schemes on many fronts, although I shall not detail them now.
The Government are conducting a large-scale study, the south-east and east of England regional air service study—SERAS—which will affect many Conservative Members. They have also put out for consultation a document on the future of civil aviation, on which consultation is taking place. Those studies have raised questions about what is going to happen about aviation in the south-east. Consultants are conducting a great deal of work on various possible locations. It is alarming that so many sites for both existing and new airports are being considered throughout the country.
I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) to reveal more information about those matters, but, owing to the problems of blight and so on and because of traditional ministerial practice, the Department is not yet prepared to reveal any information as to which locations are being considered. I understand that the situation is partly created by the problems of blight, but the issues that hang over the heads of those in many small and larger areas in and around London must be resolved soon.
The green belt was introduced for a purpose, and it has worked well. There is widespread support for it, and it is needed more than ever in the 21st century. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and her Department will give it the high priority that it has previously enjoyed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): I want all right hon. and hon. Members to be aware of the common practice that concluding speeches by the Government and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties start 30 minutes before the end of the debate. Therefore, the debate has only 25 minutes left to run, and I ask all contributors to bear that in mind.
10.5 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for introducing this timely debate. I also appreciated the speech of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). It is clear that he shares my party's understanding of the importance of the green belt in preventing the development of a megalopolis.
I will focus on the green belt's effect on London. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), contains a considerable

71WH
amount of green belt. The borough that covers my hon. Friend's constituency has 19,050 square acres of green belt, whereas Hillingdon, the borough that covers my constituency, has 12,925 square acres, and only two Greater London boroughs contain a larger area of green belt than that.
There are more than 4 million square acres of national green belt, of which only 1,270,850 square acres lie around and within Greater London, and 7 per cent. is concentrated in 18 London boroughs. I want the Government to recognise that the metropolitan green belt stretches across borough boundaries and lies on both sides of the Greater London boundary and the M25. I hope that a common approach to the preservation of the green belt will be adopted by county and district councils outside Greater London, and London boroughs and the Greater London Authority. I also seek the Minister's reassurance that the London Mayor's spatial development strategy will not be allowed adversely to impinge on the preservation of the green belt within Greater London.
The green belt in Greater London serves the particularly important function of ensuring that the city does not stretch, unchecked, out to he M25. There are places in outer London, such as the village of Harefield in my constituency, that are still partly rural. If more building and development were allowed within such greenbelt areas, it would have a disastrous effect on the quality of life in outer London.
Some projects are especially menacing: the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to one of them in the area that he represents. I wish to highlight Central railway's plan to run a freight line from Merseyside, through the midlands, around or through London, and on to the channel tunnel. In the previous Parliament, the project was defeated under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. The promoters of the project have held consultations with the local authorities that are situated along the proposed route, and those discussions have made them aware of the environmental importance of the green belt, and of sites of special scientific interest and nature reserves, many of which lie within the green belt. In my own constituency, Ruislip woods is a premier nature reserve in green belt in Greaser London, and in the Colne valley there are many sites of special scientific interest that are also green belt. As I understand it, Central railway intends to run the line through the Colne valley and then either along the Chiltern line track that passes green belt between Uxbridge and Ruislip in to central London or around the M25 to Croydon and down to the channel tunnel. Either way, the railway will go through green belt and have a devastating effect on the local environment.
It has been suggested that, because the result of the consultation has been so adverse and many local authorities are rightly sensitive about the dangers of such developments in their green belt areas, the Government might be induced to promote the Bill under the hybrid procedure. It would be an abuse if the Government used that procedure to push the Central railway project through Parliament. The Transport and Works Act procedure was evolved specifically to ensure that local sensitivities, such as the preservation of green belt, were taken into account in the planning procedure. If a hybrid Bill has Government support, the Government can mobilise their majority to push a pet
72WH
project through, regardless of environmental or other sensitivities. I urge the Government to come clean on the matter. There has already been blight as property values have understandably declined along the projected route of the railway line.
In conclusion, I seek clarification on a point that has been put to Her Majesty's Government on many occasions by the London Green Belt Council, of which I have the honour of being president. Many voluntary organisations within and outside London are members of the council, which has worked effectively on an entirely voluntary basis to preserve the green belt since the first plans were initiated in 1954, especially under the chairmanship of Mr. Ronald Smith, to whom I pay tribute. He recently left the post because of ill health, but he did the job admirably for more than 20 years.
The council's point is that the green belt is not a designation of countryside quality. Its importance is to prevent communities—villages and towns—becoming merged in an amorphous sprawl. It is not a question of preserving pretty countryside. If those two concepts become confused, there is a risk that the original planning purpose of green belt will be vitiated. I ask Her Majesty's Government for reassurance on that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made clear, RPG9 contains projections of additional housing that will have a grave impact on open space and green belt in the south-east. It speaks much about preserving beautiful countryside and SSIs and so forth, which is all to the good, but there must be space between towns and villages, otherwise they become conurbations, especially in the south-east, which is so overcrowded and congested. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and seek reassurance from the Minister on those points.
10.14 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this important debate, and on the highly effective way in which he represents the interests of his constituents. I am also pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), because he concluded on precisely the point at which I should like to begin.
As many hon. Members will know, the Cambridge green belt was one of the first to be established and was designed precisely for the purpose to which my hon. Friend referred—to try to maintain the setting of Cambridge. It is not a designation of the quality of land as such, but has the purpose of avoiding the urban sprawl in Cambridge that has occurred in many other settings during the past 50 years.
The Cambridge green belt is not intended to set the city in aspic, or to create a museum of the city. Cambridge's development over the past 50 years is the opposite of that. Regardless of the green belt, we are the fastest growing part of the country, with a world-class university, and we have made rapid developments in housing, technology and industry. However, will the green belt continue to be protected so that the city, with its continuing character, will still offer those who come to Cambridge to live or for business the quality environment that has previously been enjoyed? I regret that that is under threat, and that the Government have not helped.

73WH
We have heard about the issuing of regional planning guidance. RPG6, which relates to East Anglia, was finalised in November 2000. The Minister will recall from a debate in the House in June 2000—prior to the issue of that guidance—that I was critical of the Government's intention to set out a sequence of developments in the Cambridge sub-region, which is under unique pressure for additional development.
In that sequence of housing developments, the first priority is within the built-up area of Cambridge, but subsequent studies have shown that only a small proportion of additional housing could be built on sites in that area. The second priority for development is on the periphery of the built-up area of Cambridge, subject to the review of the green belt. That area, by definition, is greenbelt land. That would prioritise Cambridge greenbelt development ahead of development outside the green belt and in market towns.
The Government's guidance has opened the door to those who wish substantially to undermine the original purposes of the green belt. Since then, we have discovered that Cambridge city council, which is unfortunately led by the Liberal Democrats, is pursuing that strategy. The order of preference in the studies, which includes early greenbelt development, makes it possible that up to half of the additional sites for new housing in the Cambridge sub-region will be identified in the green belt. Therefore, some studies have identified that 11,000 of the 22,000 additional houses beyond those in the pipeline would be built on greenbelt sites.
It is obvious to my constituents, and to the House, that building a maximum of 11,000 new houses on the Cambridge green belt would undermine the green belt's purposes. Maps from the studies show that such a scale of development will substantially change southern and eastern access to Cambridge.
I do not argue that the green belt should remain the same for ever. I learned at the regional planning inquiry that, in this context, planning law says that permanent means 25 years. Nothing is permanent. Addenbrooke's hospital has proposed a small addition to its site, which would be on greenbelt land, and I do not object to that because it is a necessary step. However, to develop a large urban area in the green belt, to the extent suggested by some studies that are promoted by Cambridge city council, would undermine the green belt, and that would be a direct consequence of the regional planning guidance issued by the Government.
In relation to the decisions made on structure plans, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will, if they can, begin to modify the consequences of the regional planning guidance, if that leads to excessive development in the green belt. I hope that, as a result of this debate, Cambridge city council, and especially the Liberal Democrats on it, will abandon its plan to build over the Cambridge green belt, which would be detrimental to those who live in Cambridge and especially my constituents.
10.20 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: My constituency is blighted by a plan to build 10,000 houses on prime greenbelt land between Hitchin and Stevenage.
74WH
In a sense, every constituency with greenbelt land is blighted by that proposal, because it is the biggest ever proposal to build on the green belt.
As we know, planning is based on precedence, so the creation of such a precedent could threaten the integrity of green belts throughout the country. That proposal was such an important issue that it provoked a national row, which prompted the Deputy Prime Minister to come to Parliament to announce a change in his planning policies. We were told that the new policy would require counties and councils, when developing new structure plans, to establish all the brownfield sites first, before moving on to less brown or greenfield sites, and it was hoped that that would obviate the need to build on the green belt.
When the Deputy Prime Minister made that announcement, I welcomed it provisionally, but I said that the litmus test would be whether the new proposals were merely spin, or whether they would alter things on the ground—whether they would influence and impinge on the proposal to build 10,000 houses in the green belt between Hitchin and Stevenage.
Sadly, the Minister acknowledged, in subsequent correspondence, that the Government did not intend that the new planning policy guidance note 3 should apply to structure plans that were already in the pipeline. However, the consequence of the change had been seen on the ground—the Conservatives had regained control of North Hertfordshire district council and Hertfordshire county council, partly because of the reaction to the proposal among the electorate, who resented the way in which it had been rammed through by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on Hertfordshire county council. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was right to say that such matters should not be party political. Sadly, however, that was not the case in my area, where the proposal had been carried through for largely party political reasons by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, who saw advantage for themselves in building up Stevenage.
The consequence of the change in the composition of North Hertfordshire district council was that it took legal advice from a leading Queen's counsel on whether PPG3 should apply to structure plans that were in the process of being determined. He ruled that, despite the Government's intention, and with specific reference to the Minister's letter to me, the Government were misadvised and that PPG3 does apply to such structure plans, which must fulfil the requirements. The structure plan in question had not fulfilled those requirements, so there was a duty to reject it, which has been done. That has created an extraordinary situation. It has cast in doubt the whole planning process established by the Government, as well as what will happen in North Hertfordshire district council and Hertfordshire county council.
I call on the Minister to clarify the position by revising and reconsidering her advice. Will she accept that if the Government's policy is right for the future, it must be right for plans that are currently in the process of being implemented? If the policy can be put into effect, thereby preventing the blight on the green belt—not only in my constituency but, because of its precedential effect,

75WH
throughout the country—that must be in the interests of the country as well as my constituents. I call on the Minister to think again.
10.24 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the way in which he presented his case and on having the good fortune to secure this debate. However, I am rather disappointed by those Conservative Members who have spoken, including the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Many of them must have extremely short memories. Having been a member of a local authority in Hampshire, I remember the pain and destruction inflicted by not only Tory-controlled local authorities, including the Tory-controlled Hampshire county council, but the Tory Government, in acquiescing time and again to developers' pleas for ever more housing in Hampshire. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who time and again successfully supported building on the green belt rather than stopping it, so it is therefore a bit rich for him and others—
Mr. Lilley: I speak as a local Member. For 18 years, I opposed every project to build on the green belt in my constituency, and up to now I have succeeded.
Mr. Hancock: I welcome that, as, I am sure, do the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. He is worried about his own constituency, but he did not show much anxiety for other people's constituencies during the '80s and '90s, when he was part of a Government who manifestly did not care much about the green belt and did not take much notice of local people, whether they were dealing with a Labour-controlled council or a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. They completely ignored local pleas. It is therefore a bit rich for some Members now to plead that they have suddenly found that they have to fight their own corner. Many of us lost battles in the past and paid a heavy price for doing so.
I welcome the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that no one has a monopoly over the green belt or can claim credit for having more of a conscience now for what went on in the past. We all have a part to play, and we must all work together to ensure that we protect what we have and make better use of land that has already been developed.
Interestingly, the hon. Members who have spoken so far have offered no constructive alternatives to building on the green belt. As a nation, we still have nearly 750,000 empty properties. I accept the argument that possibly half of those are in parts of the country in which people do not want to live and which do not have the job opportunities that should be available for people, but that still leaves many hundreds of thousands of empty properties in and around our big cities and towns, which, for one reason or another, stand empty. We need constructive policies that will allow those properties to come into use.
I wonder how many Members of the House of Commons live in homes that were built on the green belt or are the result of infill or backland development. I live in a house that 40 years ago would have been considered
76WH
to be on the edge of a green belt, on the outskirts of Portsmouth. However, a house was there 100 years ago. My house is in the garden of a much bigger house that is still there. It made good use of land between a road, a house and the railway that runs behind. However, that is not the only answer.
In my county, endless acres of brownfield land have been occupied for the best part of a century by the Ministry of Defence, and successive Governments of both persuasions have neglected to release that land. They have seen anchors and chains rotting away on brownfield sites, when on the other side of the road, greenfield sites have been built on, in some instances simply to store empty containers and anchors of battleships that have long been scrapped. It is a public disgrace that, in a county such as Hampshire, so much derelict land should have been owned by the nation while so much of our green space was being eaten away.
We must consider what to do to resolve the problem. The pressure will not go away. The pressure for people to have somewhere decent to live is with us all. As Members of the House, we are probably confronted daily by letters from people living in pretty horrendous living conditions. The need to generate better homes is with us constantly. Such pressure will not diminish over the next 10 years. It will be constant, as the population lives longer and more people want to live independently and move into better accommodation.
Developers eye the countryside with relish. I have been involved in local government for 30 years and have seen developers building land banks, sometimes with not an inkling of a chance of a site being developed for 10, 15 or 20 years. They knew that the demand for such sites would be constant and that, sooner or later, their dream to realise a return on their investment in buying up options and farmland would materialise.
There was not a proper process for controlling how the land was developed because developers were not under pressure to look at other sites. They were not given a great deal of assistance to bring sites into use that had been used for commercial purposes. In many instances, land was heavily contaminated and the grants were not sufficient to make some of those sites viable for development purposes. It must have been in the nation's interest—and must still be—for the Government to give sufficient assistance to develop those sites and bring them into use.
Everyone in the Chamber believes that the green belt and the countryside are worth preserving and that any development should be allowed only after the most intrusive scrutiny. We want to see the national resource of the countryside protected and finances to be released to clean up the sites. We must give incentives to developers to use the opportunities that are available in our towns and cities. If we do not do that, the argument about the green belt will be repeated again and again. Opposition and Government Members may change, but there will still be pressure for homes, pressure from developers, and the cry that we must not build on the green belt. We must find a balance.
Over the past few months, the Government have tried to bring some semblance of balance. Matters cannot be decided at a local level. The pressures are too great. The easiest way to deal with the problem is for a regional view of housing to be worked on collectively by local

77WH
government. If a common approach were taken and local authorities could learn to work together more closely along with the Government, the problem might be resolved. We shall be put under constant pressure because developers know that sooner or later they will win. They will continue with the wearing-down process at local authority, ministerial and planning inspector levels. They will repeatedly take on the system.
Developers have three things on their side—time, resources and the pressure from people who want somewhere decent to live. They know that if they adopt a scattergun approach often enough, sooner or later their reward will come. I hope that the Minister will say that she is completely committed to the principle that no element of the green belt should go cheaply and, if any of it does, it should be only after the most rigorous examination. None of it should go until we determine properly our policies on inner city and brownfield development. We need to make our cities and our towns attractive again for people to want to live in them. We do not want to fall into the trap of the previous Government, who, for 18 years, ignored the pleas to protect the countryside, and allowed their developer friends to rape the green and pleasant land that we all now claim to want to protect.
10.34 am
Mr. Damian Green: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate, and I assure him that, while he spoke eloquently for his own constituents, he spoke not only for people in Hertfordshire, and his passion for defending the green belt was evident. This is an issue that has rightly been rising up the political agenda over large swathes of the country, partly because the green belt is seen to be in more crisis than ever. This is an extremely topical debate.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made an interesting contribution. I suspect that we would agree with his wish that this were a consensual, non-party issue. It would be good if the green belt were not part of partisan political debate. Sadly, that is no longer the case. We all accept the realities, and we see from this morning's debate that everyone accepts that the Government of the day must make difficult individual choices about difficult individual issues. Therefore, the criterion by which to judge the attitude of the Government of the day is their general presumption—whether or not they feel that the green belt should be protected except in small-scale, exceptional circumstances. The evidence of their attitude is staring us in the face in the regional planning guidance documents that are being produced for various areas of the country, to which several hon. Members have referred.
It is especially sad for those who wish the issue were non-partisan that the regional planning documents show that the green belt is under threat in five of the nine English regions. That is not only regrettable; it is shaming that the Government have been reduced to that. Several of my hon. Friends have said that the Government who came to office promising to be the greenest Government ever have not only failed to live up
78WH
to that promise, but are systematically undermining the protection provided to the green belt by previous Governments of bath parties. That is regrettable. Most of the debate has been about housing, but other issues have been mentioned. Notably, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) spoke about the problems of airport expansion, which clearly involves important and difficult decisions for any Government. The Central railway issue was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). In parenthesis, I agree with his call on the Minister to reject the hybrid Bill route for any Central rail proposal. That would be an abuse of the system, partly because the promoters of Central rail are trying to use that procedure to avoid answering detailed questions that should be dealt with before the project goes ahead.
To return to the main issue of housing, the Minister for Housing and planning has been entirely explicit about the matter. Speaking in the House, he said:
"in certain cases when it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green belt boundaries"—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 531.]
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the Minister said:
"it is true that we are allowing some Green Belts to be reviewed."
"Reviewed" is a weasel word in this context. The Government are allowing the green belt to be eroded in various areas, which has serious long-term consequences throughout the country. We have already heard how the Cambridge green belt is under threat. Indeed, on 27 Match 2000 the Minister's Department issued a press release saying that the Cambridge green belt is
"an essential part of the process of finding sustainable locations for development."
Words can clearly mean anything under this Government, if the green belt is a sustainable location for development. The point about preserving the green belt is to preserve sustainability. We have heard about Stevenage, but there are similar examples throughout the country. Some 2,500 homes are being built on the green belt near Newcastle, although there are 4,000 empty homes in Newcastle, which the Labour party controls. The Deputy Prime Minister overturned the inspector's recommendation not to build a proposed 150-acre industrial development on the green belt near Sutton Coldfield. There is a widespread national crisis.
In the Government's defence, they are reflecting their Back Benchers' views. The rural group of Labour Members of Parliament, which consists of 168 Members, issued a rural manifesto calling for more building on the green belt and the scrapping of planning restrictions on agricultural land. The new-found neglect of the green belt's importance runs right through the parliamentary Labour party. That is regrettable.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is no longer in his place, said that blame for building on the green belt is a non-partisan issue, but that all the problems with the green belt in Stevenage are the previous Government's fault. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was characteristically generous in not mentioning the full role played by Liberal Democrat councillors in Stevenage in enabling the

79WH
environmental vandalism to go ahead. They changed the council's standing orders so that the decision to drive through the proposal could be taken outside full council, in case decent members of the Labour or Liberal Democrat groups might vote against it.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South mentioned his party's history, but he could act now to persuade his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat benches of Hertfordshire county council to change their minds. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned that Cambridge city council, which the Liberal Democrats control, is driving through proposals to damage the green belt around Cambridge. The national Liberal Democrat party could take decisions now on matters for which it has such responsibility.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South eloquently made the point that the green belt is not only a matter of concern in the south-east. He talked about its importance north of Birmingham. It is equally important south of Birmingham. I draw the Minister's attention to the problem of the proposed new service area on the M42. A concerned local resident, Mrs. Jean Hill, has written to the Deputy Prime Minister, and others, that she is "appalled" that he has given
"the go ahead for a Motorway Service area"
in the green belt. She says:
"The concept of the Green Belt being a protected area is a farce and is only adhered to it seems until it suits Government and vested interests."
That is the key point. I hope that the Minister will take the letter to heart. The view is now widespread throughout the country that the previous protection to the countryside that the green belt afforded has been weakened.
I know that we all want to hear the Minister's comments. I am sure that, repeating what her colleagues have often said, she will say that the Government have created 30,000 new hectares of green belt, so the charges laid at their door are unfair, but all the new land that has been designated green belt was already green land, and was not threatened. Since the Government are prepared to allow development on greenbelt land, designating existing greenfield as greenbelt land is meaningless. It adds only a false protection, because other greenbelt land is disappearing.
An addiction to central housing targets is behind the Government's problem in adhering to the previous consensus on the green belt. They still want a centrally planned system that drives housing numbers down from the centre. That system entails an all-powerful and all-knowing Minister who sits in Whitehall and decides how many new homes must be built. He or she divides that figure among the regions, regardless of the desires of local people and local councils. That is a top-down centralist system, which all sensible organisations have abolished for large-scale planning. For some reason, we preserve that method in our housing system, despite the fact that it puts added pressure on the green belt.
To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, with which I agreed, that system encourages development outside city centres, which hollows out our city centres, and that is a serious long-term problem. The underlying problem of a centralist system explains why we think that the planning system
80WH
must be radically reformed; it should be bottom-up not top-down. Local people must decide the long-term consequences for their areas. In that regard, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that that is best done at a regional level. To take the example of Stevenage, its environmental issues would be decided by the south-east regional assembly in Brighton, which is even further away from Stevenage than Whitehall. To move to a regional system strikes me as a bizarre.
As we all know, we are coming up to a general election and anyone who cares about the green belt has a clear choice. The Government's policy is stuck in the past, insensitive to local concerns and driven entirely by Whitehall. Our alternative policy protects both our countryside and our inner cities. It would preserve and enhance the green belt and it would save our precious countryside for future generations. Our approach is not only popular, but the right thing to do for the future of our green belt and our countryside.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I begin as usual by congratulating the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate on the future of the green belt, which is an important subject. The Opposition have frequently tried to suggest that the Government's commitment to the green belt is open to question. However, every time they have made that suggestion we have rebutted it by demonstrating our record, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) mentioned specific cases. They will understand that I cannot comment today on those proposals or potential proposals, which, in one way or another, were all concerned with the green belt. However, I can assure hon. Members of the Government's absolute commitment to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for reminding their hon. Friends, who seemed confused, about the green belt's purpose. It is not a designation of quality or countryside—although those are important—but is a method of restricting urban sprawl. Over the past four years, the Government's record not only demonstrates our commitment, but is in stark contrast with events when the Opposition were in government.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) mentioned—and I am grateful to him—that since we entered office an additional 30,000 hectares of green belt has been designated. Contrary to his remarks, that is not a meaningless achievement. It demonstrates our commitment not only to maintaining, but, where possible, to increasing that designation. I can contrast that with many celebrated examples of de-designation under the previous Administration. For example, two out-of-town supermarkets were built at White Rose, which involved the loss of green belt. Furthermore,

81WH
Bluewater park in the Thames Gateway resulted in the loss of more than 100 hectares of green belt, and added to the previous Government's record of destroying town centres by letting rip with out-of-town retail developments.
Planning policy guidance 2 "Green Belts" states that regional planning guidance sets the framework for greenbelt policy in an area, and that detailed greenbelt boundaries are set in development plans. The RPGs will say whether, in the view of the regional planning body, there is a case for a strategic review of a region's greenbelt boundaries. The new regional planning guidance 9 for the south-east, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertsmere, was published last month. It makes it clear that there is no regional case for reviewing greenbelt boundaries.
The hon. Member for Ashford said that other regional planning guidances in draft or final versions have recommended a review of green belts. That is true. However, let me make it clear that the Government have not initiated those proposals for reviews of boundaries. The process of regional strategic planning starts with local authorities making strategic proposals for development. Those proposals are examined by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, which makes representations to him for each RPG. In some cases, panels have endorsed reviews of green belts; in others, they have dismissed that option.
Even where the respective regional planning guidance has identified the need for a review, such a review does not automatically lead to a reduction in the size of green belts. It may find no case for change or a need to increase the size of green belt or adjust the boundary.
Mr. Green: The Minister has tried to give hon. Members the impression that these matters are decided by the regional planning body and that the Government are a residual part of the process. However, as she knows, the proposals for housing numbers in the south-east that were proposed by the south-east regional planning committee, Serplan, were comprehensively rejected by the Government, who insisted on a bigger figure. The Government are taking all the decisions on reviewing the green belt, not the regional planning bodies.
Ms Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall explain why in a moment, using the south-east as an example.
Any review of the green belt would lead, at the most, only to the minimum adjustment necessary to achieve development plans. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that he accepts that entirely. If he accepts that the main purpose of greenbelt land is to contain potential urban sprawl, it is logical also to accept that an adjustment to the boundaries that pertain at the moment is entirely consistent with a commitment to the principle and actuality of the green belt and is not tantamount to saying that we have no regard for it. The hon. Gentleman said that greenbelt boundaries are not being set in aspic, which is correct. Allowing the potential for reviews of greenbelt boundaries does not in any way diminish our commitment to the principle and actuality of the current scale of greenbelt land.
82WH
On the south-cast, specifically Hertfordshire, I understand that Hertfordshire county council now proposes to review its structure plan to reflect the new regional planning guidance for the south-east that has just been put in place. I found it interesting that no Conservative Member said anything about housing needs, which is the other side of the coin. It is astonishing that they can talk about such issues without mentioning what is driving the debate. I can tell them that the Government intend that everybody should have the opportunity to have a decent home.
In the light of the consultation on the south-east draft RPG, we revised the proposed housing provision downwards from an average of 43,000 dwellings a year to 39,000 dwellings a year, at least for the next five years. It is possible that a higher rate of provision may be necessary from 2006 onwards, but that depends on the monitoring and assessment that needs to take place between then and now. I point out to the hon. Member for Ashford that in the case of Hertfordshire, that means that the number of new dwellings required each year in the period to 2006 will be no more than the county has already planned to provide. I am aware that, even before the RPG was published, the county council and district council in Hertfordshire had to think long and hard about the best way to meet existing housing needs. The county council opted for a strategy that relied on planned regeneration, with limited, small-scale peripheral development and an element of strategic development on greenfield locations.
The structure plan proposed two strategic releases of land from the green belt—one at Hemel Hempstead and the other at Stevenage, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said. For the record, I should point out that although the county council proposed some deletions of greenbelt land, it also intended significant additions, resulting in a net gain of about 4,500 hectares of green belt. I do not accept the hon. Member for Hertsmere's argument that land is of different species, and that greenbelt land in one area cannot be replaced with equivalent land elsewhere. That is a specious and frankly ridiculous argument.
Mr. Clappison: I remind the Minister that she began her contribution by saying that the purpose of the green belt was to prevent the coalescence of communities.
Ms Hughes: Abs, Mutely, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that, even in the terms of his own arguments, it is nonsense to say that the altering and adjusting of boundaries in one place to de-designate land cannot be compensated for in any way by strategic additions to the green belt elsewhere.
Hertfordshire county council is reviewing its structure plan to take on board our planning guidance, which is that redevelopment of brownfield land and re-use of existing buildings should be considered before building on greenfield land. That is the right and proper course of action. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, North Hertfordshire district council has sought to withdraw its development plan. That action has been challenged in the courts, and he will know that I cannot comment further while court action is pending. We shall have to await the outcome of that process.

83WH
Although I recognise the constituency concerns that have been expressed, I should say that I have heard a good deal of huffing and puffing from Opposition Members and very little substance in terms of this complex and difficult issue. They seem to be ignoring some very important facts. First, it is this Government who published the urban White Paper only six months ago. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) pointed out, it sets out a clear vision for achieving an urban renaissance, which is a very important part of the equation. If we can make our towns and cities more attractive and invest in quality services, there is less likely to be pressure to develop the countryside.
Secondly, it was this Government who put in place a firm target for re-using brownfield land, unlike the Opposition, who have a moving target at best. Our target, for which we are accountable, is that 60 per cent. of new dwellings should be built on previously developed land or delivered by converting existing buildings.
Thirdly, that target is backed by clear and firm planning guidance. The radical planning guidance for housing in PPG 3 has a clear sequential test that requires re-use of previously developed land before greenfield development is considered, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who acknowledged that fact. It also requires assessments of urban capacity such as those being undertaken in Hertfordshire and by many other local authorities. It seeks better quality development, design and layout, and better use of land than was ever achieved under the Conservative Government, who were profligate in their waste of land.
Fourthly, it was a Conservative Government who presided over a period of greenfield development and a scandalous waste of land. We are assessing brownfield land that is suitable for housing development.
Finally, we have done away with the Conservative policy of predict and provide. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ashford, who said that ours is a top-down approach. It is a bottom-up approach that gives responsibility to local authorities in regional context. It is a balanced, integrated policy that does not pretend that there are simple one-dimensional solutions to complex and competing pressures. by contrast, Tory policy is part of the bandwagon that we have come to expect, where the "not in my backyard" syndrome is presented as a substitute for substance and balance.

Solicitors
11 am
Mr. George Stevenson: I am enormously grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I hope that other hon. Members will want to contribute to a discussion that I believe to be of great significance.
Some would argue that self-regulation by solicitors has its place and that it can work, but I seriously doubt that. The Law Society is a bastion of self-regulation. It could be called a trade association in the widest sense of that term. It has had numerous opportunities to change the way in which it operates, but there is increasingly clear evidence that its attempts have not been successful.
When I knew that I had secured this debate, I thought about my constituents and wondered whether there was any other profession with which they came into more frequent contact than solicitors. I thought of doctors, MPs and others, but concluded that solicitors are the main interface between the public and the law—the first and in many cases the only point of contact between constituents and the law. It is therefore crucial not only that the service offered by solicitors is of the highest possible quality, but that people know that if there is cause for complaint and dissatisfaction, there is a credible mechanism for investigating those concerns.
The current mechanism bothers me and I know that it bothers my hon. Friend the Minister. He wrote to me on 14 September last year, saying:
"I would like to make it clear that the government still has considerable concerns about the operation at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) and wider concerns about the role of the Law Society as regulator of the legal profession."
I was very grateful for the letter and the time that the Minister gave to it. His statement indicates that there is concern not only among the public and MPs, but at ministerial level.
What have the Government done to address those concerns? A number of initiatives have been taken and we await their outcome. The first is the targets set by Ministers for the Law Society and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors to get their act together and improve performance. One might have thought that the strong message contained in the target setting—to which I know that the Minister is fully committed—would have hit the mark and that we might have seen some action, but I fear that that is not the case. The targets were set in July 1999, but the picture that emerges in respect of some of them is not encouraging.
One target set was that the percentage of cases in which the legal services ombudsman was satisfied with the handling of complaints by the OSS should not decrease by more than 1 per cent. from its then level of 64 per cent; however, within six months, the satisfaction level had fallen to 53 per cent. Another target stated that monthly progress reports were to be published, which was essential to demonstrate to the public and Parliament that the project was moving ahead according to plan. Those reports may have been published, but I have not had sight of one. Perhaps other hon. Members have seen them; if they have, I would be grateful for their advice, as it appears that that target has not been achieved either. Another target set was that 90 per cent. of cases should be dealt with within

85WH
three months of receipt of the case, and 100 per cent. within five months. According to my information, the outcome is "not known". The evidence for the OSS meeting the targets that were set is not encouraging. It appears that in some cases the targets were ignored and that in others they were not met.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): It might assist my hon. Friend if I confirm that the monthly reports were received by my Department. To précis: the numerical target of 6,000 cases which the Law Society was due to achieve by the end of December 2000 was the only target that was met.
Mr. Stevenson: On the basis of the information that I have received, that is subject to debate. That target may have been set and the Law Society might argue that it has met it, but I am advised that that takes no account of new cases. It simply refers to the backlog, and new cases are coming in at an increased rate. Although my hon. Friend's intervention was helpful, it must be put into context. I remain—like him, I am sure—far from satisfied that the Law Society has taken the targets seriously. That must be of enormous concern to him.
Mr. John Burnett: Albeit that the number of new cases registered is not necessarily a good guide, because some might be frivolous and some not, it is a guide none the less, so it is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that new complaints are being registered at an increasing rate. Does he know the rate at which they are increasing? That would be of great interest in this debate.
Mr. Stevenson: I have checked with the Library and I hope that I can find the figure in my pile of papers. According to my reading of the information that I received from the Library, there is a rising trend.
In the light of the concerns expressed, what has the Law Society decided to do? Toward the end of last year, it published a consultation document entitled, "A new Law Society for a changing profession". We all live in hope of a new Law Society. I responded to the document as, I am sure, did many of my colleagues, and I have the reply I received in front of me. As a non-lawyer—which is neither a good nor a bad thing—it was necessarily from a layperson's viewpoint that I commented on the document. After all, we are worried about the effect on the public and the service and what our constituents think about the legal profession and self-regulation.
The most cursory glance at the document, albeit from a layperson's perspective, convinced me that most of it relates to the interests of the profession. I could quote from the document, but I do not want to waste valuable time justifying a fair comment. Suffice it to say that little of the document relates to the public interest—indeed, the public interest is not reflected in the document. That is a cause of serious anxiety.
The first section of the document, headed "The reform proposals", states that the council of the Law Society
"resolved that the Society should set itself the goal of becoming a model regulator as well as measurably improving its performance as a representative body."
86WH
That sets the tenor and theme of the document. Given that the Law Society has so far miserably failed to achieve the targets that Ministers have set, we cannot have great confidence in its ability to achieve either of the objectives it has set itself.
The document is administrative. One of the two main proposals it contains is that the council should be increased from 75 to 120 members. That is fine—it might do the trick; on the other hand, we might end up with more people not doing what they should be doing. The proposal is not encouraging. The other main proposal is to appoint a lay commissioner to deal with cases involving what is described as "minor misconduct" and complaints. That might be a step in the right direction, but I am not convinced.
The document is designed to underpin the present self-regulatory system, which many of us believe has failed. It proposes cosmetic or administrative changes to the system that will have no effect other than to perpetuate a system that deals almost entirely with the interests of society members and has little to do with the interests of the public. Let me give two examples of why I am convinced of that. The first is slightly historical, and I hope that you, Mr. Cook, will indulge me a little.
In the mid to late-1980s, the Law Society and British Coal—now the Coal Authority—were engaged in a secret process. I say that the process was secret because, as far as I am aware having done a lot of research into the matter, they consulted no one. In 1989, the Law Society and the then British Coal decided to change the format and content of responses to mine searches in house and property conveyancing. The change related to standardising such responses for the convenience of solicitors. The argument was that the change was designed to make the matter easier for the public to understand, but I doubt that. They agreed to change the rules in 1989, but they did not advise any society members—solicitors—who were conveyancing properties until two years later, in 1991.
In the meantime, my constituents were buying and selling houses on the basis of the old formula. In 1991 they went to bed on a Sunday night and their house was worth X, but because of the changed formula, when they woke up Monday morning and tried to sell their house, they found that their property had been devalued—in some cases by two thirds. That happened in my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and in other constituencies in north Staffordshire.
It is obvious that the Law Society acted to make the life of its members easier. It took no account of the effect that such a change would have on the thousands of people who had bought their houses in good faith, or of the notorious unreliability of the Coal Authority's records. It was interested only in standardising the system and making the life of solicitors easier. What happened has a contemporary relevance. I am delighted to say that, 12 years later, after the most horrendous battle in which many of us were involved, some of my constituents have won compensation at the High Court. They had to take their battle there. We will wait to see if the Coal Authority appeals.
Why did the Law Society, which purports to protect the public interest, become engaged in such an exercise and turn a blind eye to the devastating effect that it had

87WH
on people? Twelve years later, recompense has been achieved, but it is interesting to note which organisation was taken to court and will have to cough up the money: it is not the Law Society, which has ridden away into the sunset, but the Coal Authority that will have to pay. Only one partner in that infamous partnership has been taken to task. The Law Society remains Teflon-coated.
I was grateful to the Minister for giving up his time to discuss with me the horrendous case of my constituent, Mr. Paul Tams. He was going through a particularly messy divorce and was involved with two firms of solicitors. The first one was the hors d'oeuvre, the second one was the main meal. The hors d'oeuvre was unpalatable, but the main meal was indigestible. The hors d'oeuvre was the solicitor A who, according to my constituent, Mr. Tams, was not satisfactory. My constituent consulted me and I made representations to the OSS, which investigated the master, and the Law Society. They did not want to know. The matter was referred to the legal services ombudsman, who found that there had been faults and told the OSS to undertake a further investigation because he was not happy with the results of the first. The OSS tool away the matter andsurprise—surprise—reached the same conclusion. Why should we be surprised by that, given that the reason the case was referred back to it was that the OSS had not done the job right in the first place? When the legal services ombudsman is not satisfied with the way in which complaints are handled, an adjudicator independent of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors should undertake a further investigation.
Now for the indigestible main course. My constituent, Mr. Tams, lost the case that he was pursuing and was saddled with the most enormous costs. Solicitors firm B—the other firm that was involved—was referred to the legal services ombudsman after my constituent consulted me. After investigating the case, the legal services ombudsman concluded that the firm had been "incompetent and inefficient". I wrote to the Law Society and the OSS to ask what they would do in the light of that judgment.
The reaction to the devastating judgment of the legal services ombudsman was that the trenches filled up, the battens were dropped and defence of the profession became paramount. The response fell into two categories. First, amazingly, the OSS accepted that firm B had been incompetent and inefficient—one cannot use stronger terms than that—but said that it could not take action against the firm because the code of conduct for the practice of solicitors had not been breached.
How can a firm be deemed Incompetent and inefficient, yet be protected by the code of conduct set down by the Law Society? What must a firm be deemed to be before it breaks the code of conduct—murderers? Must we do DNA testing? What must a firm do before there is a breach of the inviolate code of conduct, which is there to protect solicitors, not the public? I do not have the answer to that, but I hope that the Minister does.
Again, I challenged that answer vigorously on behalf of my constituent—other hon. Members would have done no less. I received another reason why action could not be taken, which was that firm B had acted on behalf of my constituent's ex-wife, not him, and that the client, not a third party, must make the complaint. There may be reasons for that, which I do not understand, but it
88WH
makes not one iota of difference to the fact that firm B was deemed to be incompetent and inefficient and my constituent suffered.
The hatches were battened down, the guns were put out and the trenches were filled with Law Society interests. If you try to take those trenches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have a battle on your hands. I have been a trade unionist all my life, but I have never seen such an effective body as the Law Society. I take my hat off to it. If we had been as effective in my trade union days, Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, would not have touched us with a bargepole. I do not blame any Government for not taking on the Law Society—it is highly effective at doing what it does best, which is protecting the interests of its own members.
The matter has been going on for some time. I have had the pleasure of meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) when he was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; I also had the pleasure of discussing the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) when he held that position. All my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with the Law Society, and I have the correspondence to prove it. If solicitors are incompetent and inefficient but have not broken the code of practice, nothing can be done. If a firm acts on behalf of someone other than the third party, but the third party suffers as a consequence of its incompetence, nothing can be done. I want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to know that I am disappointed, especially as the Government, through the office that he now holds, agree with such damaging nonsense. That cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The Ministers agree with that incredible situation, as does the legal services ombudsman. I also have in my possession letters from that office. It is, supposedly, the guardian of the public interest—its longstop, its last resort—and it found firm B to be incompetent and inefficient, yet it agrees with the Law Society's statement that nothing can be done because the code of conduct has not been breached. That is incredible.
Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman has presented a powerful argument. Was no sanction, such as a fine or a rebuke, levied against the firm by the OSS? Did the injured party instigate proceedings against the law firm?
Mr. Stevenson: The answer to the first question is no. I have the documentation to prove that: I have letters from the OSS that baldly state that the case is closed and that it is not prepared to pursue the matter further. Those letters express incredible insensitivity and arrogance—and there must be more fine words that could be used to describe that attitude.
The answer to the second question is also no: those involved simply washed their hands of the matter. It is neither acceptable nor in the public interest that Ministers, the Law Society and the OSS agree that nothing can be done because the code of practice was not breached.
Self-regulation worries me, although it might have a role to play. The public interest is what matters, not the interests of lawyers and solicitors, yet the current system does not take account of the public interest, and I doubt

89WH
whether that will be changed by the marginal alterations proposed by the Law Society. There is a truckload of evidence to support my contention that that self-regulatory body prioritises the interests of its members, rather than those of the public. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister at least to consider removing the activities of the OSS from that self-regulatory body and entrusting them to an independent body. If that were done, the vital task of restoring public confidence in the legal profession could begin.
11.28 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise with trepidation, as I am surrounded by many solicitors whose aim is to articulate their vested interests. However, this is a consumer matter: Members of Parliament represent the consumers and want to protect their interests. Those interests are not protected by the present structure—indeed, they are probably endangered, as practices increase in size and production-line law becomes more common owing to the pressure of costs.
The public need the law more than ever before. They need it to protect a wide range of their interests, including employment and matrimonial rights and disputes, but the law is pricing its services beyond the range of most people. The law is now needed by people who are not familiar with the middle-class tradition of a long-standing connection with "my solicitor". They need the protection of an independent system of regulation to protect their rights and to ensure that they can access legal services with confidence.
I am aware that that is a difficult matter, because few people are satisfied after a legal action, but that is the reason why regulation must be independent. An independent regulator would be able to judge whether a legal failure was the result of the inadequacy of the case or the incompetent performance of solicitors. That task cannot be performed by a self-regulatory framework managed by vested interests. The Mafia cannot regulate the Mafia; it is logically impossible and it does not happen in respect of the police or other sections of the regulatory world. That system of the Mafia regulating the Mafia has failed in the law, it is continuing to fail and it ought to be abolished. Otherwise people will be unable have confidence in the sector. The saga is a long-running one.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He dealt powerfully with the case against self-regulation in its present form. I remember having lots of disputes with the Solicitors Complaints Bureau which, when I referred matters to it, always came back with the same answer: it always suggested hiring another solicitor to sue the first solicitor and throwing good money after bad.
I recall a dispute in my constituency over a few yards of land on a transfer. The first firm of solicitors dealt with the matter totally incompetently, advised suing everyone involved but did not take the obvious route of referring to the Land Registry to discover what was in the deeds. That firm was censured by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, which recommended the client to sue it. Another firm was hired, although it is difficult to
90WH
get firms to sue each other in a small community such as Grimsby, because they do not like to break the freemasonry. However, the client sued the firm. When that proved equally unsuccessful, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau recommended hiring a third firm of solicitors to sue the second firm.
Such ludicrous developments were typical of the regime and still are. They produced pressure for change and a drive for independent regulation, which began in the 1980s. That movement was backed by our Prime Minister when he was first elected to Parliament; he said that there should be independent regulation. I recall debating the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which took us towards that goal—that was in the days when I could get on Standing Committees dealing with subjects in which I had an interest. That Act created the legal services ombudsman to carry out independent scrutiny and the complaints escalated.
In 1996, the Law Society opted for a respray. The Solicitors Complaints Bureau became the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and asked for patience for three years in which to get its act together and make the service effective. The director left before those three years were up—the first of a series of directors to leave. It must be one of the most invidious jobs in the country, seeing as people parachute out of it at such an extraordinary rate. The Law Society demanded 18 months more to get its act straight. In that it is unlike the people whom its members represent in court, few of whom ask for 18 months more on their sentence.
The Lord Chancellor set targets that were, presumably, agreed with the Law Society, which told us that enough investment was in place to do the job and reach the targets. We set off again happily, hoping that something would be done, although I do not think that much was. As the Minister wrote to hon. Members in November 1999. solicitors were told:
"If that does not happen, the Government will use the powers in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to enforce a proper complaints system for solicitors through the legal services ombudsman."
That did not happen.
I worry, as the Minister worries, that the Lord Chancellor's Department is in collusion with the Law Society to enable the society to avoid the consequences of its incompetence: and to protect it from the necessary action that has to follow. I pay tribute to the current Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), who has been accommodating, frank and open with hon. Members in providing us with information. However, the whole Department does not share his views and always puts the performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in the best light.
It was clear that the Law Society had not met and could not meet its targets. They were therefore diluted, although the Lord Chancellor warned the Law Society that it was on its last chance and that he could not be clearer than that. Let us examine the process of dilution. The Law Society report summarily halved the annual number of complaints without any justification. The legal services ombudsman did not comment on that, but continued to quote the original, higher number of complaints for six months before suddenly quoting the adjusted lower figure.

91WH
The Lord Chancellor told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that client or consumer satisfaction was a basic consideration, but consumers or clients were rigorously excluded. In November 2000, and again in February this year, leaks from the legal services ombudsman showed that the ombudsman had been inundated with complaints about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. There were complaints about handling procedures, and the Lord Chancellor's targets set deadlines varying from immediately to 18 months, but none of those targets was met. A diluted target was then accepted by the Lord Chancellor. Under the original target, the number of complaints with whose handling the ombudsman was satisfied should not have decreased by more than 1 per cent., but within six months, the satisfaction level had fallen from 64 per cent. to 53 per cent. A new target has now been agreed.
It was originally claimed that the number of unresolved cases on the books of t he Office for the Supervision of Solicitors should be reduced to 6,000 by 31 December 2000. My hon. Friend the Minister told us that that target was reached. It was proclaimed in an amendment to my early-day motion by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the Law Society, with overwhelming support from a small group of five people whose views I respect. Have the targets been achieved? The number of unsatisfactorily handled complaints should surely be added to the 6,000 unresolved targets, so there are really 13,000 unresolved cases. In the light of that, the target becomes laughable. Under the original target, 90 per cert. of cases should have been dealt with within three months of receipt and 100 per cent. within five months. We do not know yet whether that happened—we have no been told—but a new, lower target has been decided and allocated by the Law Society. The society has failed to reach its targets, failed to fulfil the assurances given to the public and failed to satisfy the Lord Chancellor's requirements. There is clearly no satisfaction.
A large number of hon. Members wish to speak, some of whom wish to defend the vested interests of the profession, so I shall conclude by saying that this is a matter of basics. The system is failing: it was not adequate in the first place, and it cannot command confidence because people cannot see that justice is being done by a body that is financed and run by the Law Society but adjudicates on the decisions of solicitors. That cannot command satisfaction. Clearly, the Law Society has tried, and I give credit to the present president of the Law Society—it certainly had problems with the last chief executive. However it cannot stem the rising tide of complaints that reflect a rising tide of dissatisfaction. Radio and television programmes featuring the profession show the hostility and dissatisfaction of people dealing with solicitors. People are simply not happy. It is our job to protect consumers and to ensure that their interests are protected. A self-regulatory framework cannot satisfy them, because it is not seen to be fair.
The Law Society appears unable to be efficient because complaints never have a high enough priority in the organisation. Indeed, I wonder whether it can afford to provide the proper machinery to adjudicate complaints. The system cannot give compensation or real satisfaction to customers, which is what they are out to get. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-
92WH
Trent, South graphically showed, it does not deal effectively with the firms against which complaints are made. No sanctions operate, and consumers receive no compensation.
Sadly, we have to conclude that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot regulate effectively on the matter, because it has taken on the role of protecting the vested interests rather than acted as the representative of Parliament and consumers to ensure that the profession lives up to requirements. I am sad to see a steady turnaround in what I hoped would be a reforming Lord Chancellor's Department that would drastically change the structures of the profession and regulation. It now has its own problems and is fighting a rearguard action against the proposed Ministry of Justice, but I give it no sympathy or support in that struggle. It is about time that the Department showed its value by protecting consumers. We cannot have a Lord Chancellor's Department behaving like "King Log", blocking the path to reform.
There is no way out except independent regulation. It may have to be financed partly by the Law Society and partly from public funds, but the regulation framework must be independent, include non-solicitors and the consumer interest and have the power to impose fines and sanctions and to grant compensation to people who have not received a satisfactory service. The Government have, rightly, chosen that path after years of Tory attempts to have self-regulation in everything—indeed, I thought at one time that they would produce a self-regulating society with no public authorities regulating at all. The Government have introduced independent regulation in financial services with a power to act effectively. For other consumer matters, we already had trading standards officers to introduce independent intervention and regulation. For administrative matters, we have an ombudsman, who is not powerful enough, but is fulfilling a satisfactory role. On food matters, we have the Food Standards Agency to provide independent regulation. We cannot make progress in an increasingly important area, in which consumers are so exposed to professional ramps, self-congratulation and self-service, without effective and independent regulation of complaints against solicitors—and the Bar.
11.43 am
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate. I have informed both him and the Minister that I must leave a little early for another appointment and I will, unfortunately, miss the Minister's speech.
It is a little unfair to depict me as coming here to defend self-interest. The interest that I declare is that for 20 years I was a solicitor in private practice. I gave up as soon as I was elected to Parliament, because that was important to me. I stopped holding a practising certificate, which allows people to act as lawyers, but I have kept my name on the roll of solicitors, which simply means that I receive a weekly magazine called the Gazette from the Law Society. That is the extent of my interest.
I share my hon. Friend's concern that when people go to lawyers, they should receive a good quality of service. If they do not, there should be a simple process whereby

93WH
they can have redress for what has gone wrong. That is absolutely right. The wider issue, which is what we have debated so far, is whether self-regulation can ever work. That is a valuable debate to have, but I take a slightly different view from the one that has so far been expressed. First, in fairness to lawyers—this may be one of the few things that is said in fairness to them today—it is true that good lawyers act as public interest guardians every day in the work that they do in a society that prides itself on due process of law. It is important to place that fact on the record.
There is much questioning in today's society about whether self-regulation can work. That debate does not focus solely on the legal profession; because of some notable failures of self-regulation, the medical profession has recently come under a great deal of pressure and faced calls for change. On the other hand, there is traffic in the other direction, such as the general teaching councils that were set up by this Parliament. I offer two thoughts about self-regulation. First, self-regulation can work if it adapts to new consumer attitudes and demands. Secondly, if self-regulation does not work, Government can regulate more, but that would not necessarily exempt the regulatory system from the need to meet consumer expectations.
When I was a solicitor, I did not have much to do with the Law Society or the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors or its predecessor, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. I do not know whether people will think that my lack of dealings with the former is a merit, but I certainly hope that they will think that as far as the latter is concerned. It is true that I now have many more dealings with the Law Society, because it recognises me as someone who is sympathetic to its cause. I accept that; nevertheless, I am a critical friend. For example, when the Access to Justice Act 1999 went through Parliament, I served on the Standing Committee. By Committee stage, no provision had been made in the Bill for statutory regulation. I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who was then a Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, that there should be such a provision as a reserve power to hang over the heads of lawyers. I do not know whether I was the only voice or one of many; nevertheless, the Bill was changed, and there is now such provision.
Mr. Stevenson: As a friendly critic of the Law Society, when my hon. Friend was practising, would he have expected action to be taken against him and his firm by the Law Society if he and his firm were deemed to be inefficient and incompetent?
Mr. Kidney: Yes, absolutely. There should be a simple and effective system for lawyers practising today. My hon. Friend has listed the ways in which he thinks the system is deficient at present, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to move to statutory regulation.
The Lord Chancellor used the provision that hangs over the head of the Law Society to achieve certain changes. Whatever people might say about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, it is true that the Law Society doubled its budget to £10 million and employed
94WH
another 155 staff to deal with complaints. The number of complaints fell—the actual figures are disputed—from about 17,000 to about 6,000 by the end of last year. Similarly, the time taken to deal with complaints has decreased. However, turnaround times and quality must still be improved and that is why the Lord Chancellor imposed new performance targets. He continues to hold a reserve power of statutory regulation over the head of the Law Society if it does not comply with his targets.
In the meantime legal self-regulation is changing for the better. I am happy about the present leadership's emphasis on lawyers providing a quality service and dealing with complaints in-house. I am happy that lay members are now involved in the work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I am happy that the Lord Chancellor's Department has imposed performance targets and that there is independent scrutiny by the legal services ombudsman. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that more changes are proposed. I am pleased about the possible appointment of a lay commissioner, a complaints redress scheme, the increase to £5,000 for compensation awards, the power to reduce bills and require remedial action, greater use of mediation and conciliation, and guilty lawyers paying part of the cost of regulation, which is similar to the so-called "polluter pays" principle.
I am happy to see that the Gazette, which I still read four years later, has increased its emphasis on good practice by lawyers. A recent issue includes good practice guidenotes for lawyers to follow and an article by Janet Paraskeva, the present chief executive of the Law Society, entitled "Ten steps to success". I would be happy to show the article to my hon. Friend so that he can see the many references to the public interest and consumers. That is a reassuring development. Change is coming, even though my hon. Friend can point to a time when it was not.
Finally, it is vital that the quality of service and the outcomes are right. If they are not, the Law Society has blown it, and I would expect—as everyone else would—the Lord Chancellor to use his reserve power and introduce the statutory scheme for regulation.
11.49 am
Mr. Mark Fisher: Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on initiating a debate that has wide implications for our constituents. He made a powerful case, as a highly experienced trade unionist with the Transport and General Workers Union, for the effectiveness of the Law Society as a trade union body representing its members. I agree, and have experienced many of the things that he and other hon. Members have described. In my experience the oft—suggested solution—that solicitors take up cases against other solicitors—is a fantasy. I have had enormous difficulties in Stoke-on-Trent getting any solicitor to take up a case on behalf of a constituent against another solicitor. That is a genuine difficulty.
The problems arising from the self-regulating nature of the Law Society are not solely to do with discipline. I would like to raise a different concern about how effectively the Law Society responds to the problems of my constituents, and what pressure, as the representative trade union body, it is putting on the

95WH
Government on certain issues. My key concern is access to legal advice and representation for my constituents and others in cities like Stoke-on-Trent. In particular, I am concerned about access to legal representation on basic matters of everyday concern to my constituents—housing, education, social services, debt, welfare rights and immigration. Those are matters of enormous importance but, at the moment, representation is hard to get in some cases. I want to know from the Minister the extent to which the Law Society it concerned about the problem, what pressure it is putting on the Minister and what its solutions are.
I commend the Government on the introduction of legal aid contracting, of which I am a strong supporter. However, in Stoke-on-Trent, a city of 275,000 people and the 11th biggest in the country, there is no solicitor with an education contract—indeed, there is no solicitor in the whole of Staffordshire with an education contract. There is one solicitor with a contract for debt, one solicitor for welfare rights, one for mental health and two for immigration in a city that has a large Kashmiri population. What are my constituents to do?
Has the Minister received representations from the Law Society on those matters? Does the society share our concerns? One solution that it might recommend to
the Minister—I would be interested to know whether it has done so—is to increase the number of tolerances. However, that is not ideal, because it raises the question of quality thresholds. As I understand it, the Legal Services Commission is trying—correctly in my view—to close down tolerances, because there is no way of ensuring quality if tolerances spread. There are solicitors in my constituency who take up that sort of work and have as few as 10 tolerances a year that they can take outside their contract. One solicitor said that he could do 10 in a week, such is the demand in areas such as education.
Stoke-on-Trent has a strong, forceful and good local education authority. It operates—I suspect with the approval of the Government—a tough policy on those who disrupt education, and the exclusion rate in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the highest in the country. However, even if young people are disrupting education, they and their parents have a right to representation and, as there are no solicitors with education con tracts in the city, that presents a real problem. There appears to be no solution. What is the Law Society saying to the Minister about it and what is it doing about it? What is it offering on behalf of the profession? Does it as I fear it may, support the initiative of the eight big London firms that have set up their own law school in London to cream off the talent for commercial law? That is not the way to go, as I hope that the Minister will agree. It will create problems rather than solve them.
Is the Law Society pressing for better rates of pay? That would provide only a partial solution to the shortages of contracts. I was amazed to find that caseworkers in Stoke-on-Trent start their legal careers representing my constituents on £14,000 a year, and that a fully qualified solicitor in Stoke earns on average about £18,000 a year. No wonder it is difficult to recruit people. When there is no contract, it is almost impossible to persuade the commission that a firm has the experience to get the work and qualify for a contract.
96WH
The Law Society may be pressing the Minister and his representatives for a system of fully salaried solicitors, perhaps modelled on the immigration expansion package. That idea has some virtues. However, it is unclear whether the Law Society is exercising itself at all. It has a duty to defend not only solicitors, but the whole legal profession, and it must be a powerful voice on behalf of solicitors' clients as well. Many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South about how the Law Society protects itself from criticism would appear in a different light if it took a positive and imaginative approach to improving the quality of legal representation on crucial social issues such as education, social services, debt, welfare rights, immigration and so on.
In a nutshell, cities such as Stoke-on-Trent do not have enough suppliers. That is a problem, as my constituents are often desperate. There are no easy solutions. I gather from the papers that Mr. Steve Orchard, the chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, is pressing the Government hard on such issues, as I hope the Minister will confirm. Is the Law Society doing so? It has questions to answer on self-regulation and discipline and it must be much more energetic about legal representation for some of the poorest and most needy members of our society.
11.57 am
Mr. John Burnett: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing this important debate. I should declare the fact that I am a solicitor, but one who ceased to practise shortly after being elected to the House, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I am definitely not an apologist for either branch of the legal profession. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions on some specific matters.
Will the Minister confirm whether the lay members of the Law Society's supervision committee—it supervises the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors—are in the majority, as I believe they are? I am also anxious to know who chooses the lay members.
The ability to transfer a case from the OSS to the legal services ombudsman is fairly narrow. I understand that a case or complaint has to exhaust the OSS process before the ombudsman can consider whether her organisation should deal with it if it is referred to her. Does the Minister know whether there is a rising trend of cases being examined by the ombudsman? As I said in an intervention, cases referred to the OSS can be frivolous, but cases referred to the ombudsman are unlikely to be frivolous or vexatious. The statistics would be interesting.
Mr. stevenson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those statistics may or may not support an opinion? An increasing number of my constituents are losing faith in the ability of self-regulation to protect their interests, but they refuse to make a complaint. The statistics might show only the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall return to it later.
The legal services ombudsman refers cases back to the OSS and has minor powers to fine. Is the Minister satisfied not only that the legal services ombudsman has

97WH
sufficient powers to impose fines in individual cases but that the ombudsman has adequate powers in relation to the OSS and to the appropriate committee of the Bar Council?
Although the debate is about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, I should not like to let it pass without referring to the make-up and effectiveness of the supervisory committees of other professions—I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is interested in that subject. En passant, I cite the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects. Do the Government believe that it is time to have an independent adjudicator to look at the conduct and costs of all the professions? Are they satisfied that those professions that are not independently regulated should be the ultimate judges in their own causes? Do the Government believe that the clients of the professions—should have recourse to an independent adjudication process? This country has many excellent professionals, and I believe in self-regulation. Nevertheless, should not consumers ultimately have recourse to independent adjudication, particularly in such vital matters as conduct and costs?
12.2 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on having raised a matter that is of considerable importance not only to him as a constituency Member of Parliament, but to all who are interested in the conduct of the provision of public services in the law. He made his case cogently and powerfully, as always, and I listened to him with great care. It is indisputable that he is no fan of self-regulation. That view is shared by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He and I have often debated on the Floor of the House the questions that we are discussing today—and the wider issues connected with the public funding of legal services—and I have read his contributions on the subject in the newspapers.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), too, is not a fan of self-regulation for the Law Society, although, from the tone of his remarks if not their substance, he seems more prepared to see both sides of the coin. Among the many interesting points that he raised was that of the funding of what I might call public service lawyers, important not only in his urban constituency but in the constituency of Great Grimsby, the Minister's constituency of Wyre Forest in the west midlands, and in Stafford, represented by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).
Indeed, even in my constituency, which is largely rural, there is much concern about the effect of the Government's reform of publicly funded legal services on the number of solicitors who are prepared to do the work. I believe that one dispute between the Lord Chancellor's Department and members of the Law Society who do criminal work has now been resolved, but there is a continuing dispute involving barristers who do publicly funded family work. However, I understand that the Minister or one of his colleagues has
98WH
laid a statutory instrument before the House to deal with arrangements for the funding of those services, which comes into force on 1 May.
A raft of issues as hidden beneath the surface of the debate, which although not strictly germane to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, should not be brushed aside.
Mr. Lock: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned about the funding of lawyers, why do the Conservative part's proposals include the removal of £236 million from debt welfare benefits, in addition to the other proposals mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and the removal of £300 million from family law, thus excluding all those services from public funding?
Mr. Garnier: I lad hoped that we would be able to conduct this morning's discussions in a less contentious spirit than that adopted by the young Minister. We are not proposing to do those things, and that is probably where we should leave that Aunt Sally. I know that the Minister is keen or Aunt Sally. He likes to take her out from her old people's home most afternoons—
Mr. Mitchell: It makes a change from Prudence.
Mr. Garnier: Yes, but given the last Budget, even Prudence seems o have been put away in some oubliette. However, I am being diverted.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South quoted a list of complaints about the performance of the OSS in meeting the targets agreed between the Law Society and the Government Department with responsibility for that aspect of public policy. He also referred to the effect of the agreement between the National Coal Board—now the Coal Authority—and the Law Society on house values in his constituency. Those are important matters in any event, but especially for his constituents who are affected by them. I congratulate him on raising those issues in the Chamber this morning.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the case of one of his constituents. Mr. Tams, who has had a singularly unsatisfactory relationship with at least two firms of solicitors and seems to have been treated badly, both by those firms and by the profession. The hon. Gentleman is right to complain about how the matter has been handled, because it must have been frustrating not only for his constituent, but for him as a Member of Parliament who has his constituent's interests firmly in mind. As a member of the Bar and of the Opposition, I am not in a position to give him an answer, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to help.
Mr. Stevenson: I realise that time is pressing, but I want to make it clear that I am not complaining merely as a constituency Member of Parliament. How can a firm of solicitor; that has been deemed to be incompetent and inefficient be protected by the code of practice laid down by the Law Society from the consequences of that charge?
Mr. Garnier: The short answer is that I do not know. If a firm of solicitors has been incompetent, it should not

99WH
have been protected by the code of practice. I expect that the Minister will be able to provide the hon. Gentleman with the answer he seeks.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that he was surrounded by solicitors. He is not: there are only two in the Chamber, as well as two members of the Bar—the Minister and myself. If there are any other solicitors present, in addition to the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for Stafford, they are keeping quiet about it. We put up our hands and hang our heads in shame if we dare to confess the hideous offence of being a lawyer.
Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that one of the sad aspects of this Parliament is that it has been a lawyer-bashing Parliament. That is a pity, because publicly funded lawyers do a tremendous amount of work for their clients and are not richly rewarded for it, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was good enough to say. He mentioned incomes of about £18,000 a year. It is because they are so ill remunerated that so few law students now want to enter that branch of work, and those who have been doing it are giving it up, which is regrettable. I trust that measures can be put in hand to encourage people to continue with such work.
The hon. Member for Stafford described himself as a critical friend of the Law Society. I would go further and describe him as a critical friend of the Government. That is a compliment, not an insult.
Mr. Fisher: Do not wreck his career.
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford is capable of looking after his political career inside the House as well as his career outside it. Whichever he chooses, I am sure that he will do very well. He needs neither my plaudits nor the encouragement of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to make a name for himself. I listened with great interest to his remarks today and to what he said in debates when the Access to Justice Act 1999 was in Committee. He made good points it that time, and today, and I congratulate him on what he said.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon is, as I have pointed out, the other solicitor present today. He asked who appoints the lay membership of the new commission. The Minister will give him a definite answer, but my understanding is that the Master of the Rolls makes those appointments. However, I might be wrong. Who am I, as a mere member of the Bar, to say what goes on in the Law Society?
I note the interesting point that the hon. Gentleman made about a general disciplinary body to regulate or control the professions, be those architecture, accountancy or law. I do not want to comment except to say that it would be quite a difficult operation. However, he has raised an important matter.
Mr. Burnett: It is not a matter of controlling the professions, which I would strongly deprecate—I believe in the essential independence of the professions—but of a final recourse, a possibility of independent adjudication for individuals on matters such as conduct and costs.
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for that clarification. No doubt we shall see more of it in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
I am not a spokesman for or member of the Law Society, although I take an interest, both as the shadow Attorney-General and as a lawyer, in its activities and performance. Several hon. Members have given examples of Law Society members failing to meet the high standards expected of them. However, most solicitors, of whom there are about 80,000 practising in England and Wales, do a good job to a high standard. If that were not so, they would not be used. People would find other ways to deal with their legal or other disputes. I hope that we shall not fall into the trap of using one or two bad examples, perfectly properly mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, to criticise all lawyers.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that the profession maintains high standards and that most solicitors—even barristers—are devoted to service and the pursuit of their clients' interests. The problem is that the public do not know that without some independent machinery of regulation and review to tell them what failures and successes have occurred.
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that that is right, but the Government will face the problem of expenditure. My suspicion is that the Government are critical of some of the things that the Law Society has done to improve its performance, but do not want to take on the financial burdens of running the show. I understand from a Law Society briefing that its programme to improve OSS service levels has entailed considerable extra expenditure. It is committed to ensuring that the OSS continues to be properly funded. An additional £10 million was spent between August 1999 and December 2000 on staff and facilities. The OSS's 2001 budget is about £10 million—nearly double the sum allocated in 1999 before the additional resources were agreed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his girlfriend Prudence are keeping a close eye on all public expenditure. The Lord Chancellor's Department is not the highest spending Ministry, but I fear that Prudence would be worried if it took on yet further expenditure. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor's Department on recouping£2 million through charitable ticket sales for tours of the Lord Chancellor's official residence. However, I am not sure that Prudence, let alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would look kindly upon the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that the Department should spend an additional £10 million a year to run the OSS.
I look forward to hearing what the junior Minister has to say in response to the debate.
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate. It has been highly intelligent and interesting, and a number of points of view have been forcibly expressed.

101WH
I must identify the core problem at the outset. Complaints to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors are running at a high rate: approximately one complaint for every five solicitors is made each year. Complaints are supposed to come to the OSS only if the firm's internal complaint system has considered them and has failed to resolve them; sole practitioners are an exception. I endorse the observation that the vast majority of solicitors are diligent and hard-working; in the public sector, they certainly deliver a high quality of service for a modest return. None the less, the clients of many solicitors are unhappy with the service that they receive and that is a significant problem.
It is in the nature of litigation that one side wins and the other loses, but quite often neither side believes that they have lost. It is therefore inevitable that people will sometimes receive less than they expected from the legal process. It is also inevitable that some will feel, rightly or wrongly, that their lawyers have let them down. The core problem that the Law Society must address is the number of complaints. It is important that the way in which services are provided, the expectations that are raised—or not raised—and the nature of what lawyers do should be explained. Everything that lawyers do should have a customer or client focus. Whatever we say about the ability of the legal profession to handle a proper complaints system, the remedy is to deliver a better service and thereby reduce the number of complaints.
I shall attempt to respond in detail to the points raised by hon. Members, but if I do not have the opportunity to do so in the short time left to me, I shall write to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South diligently pursued his constituent's concerns in respect of the conduct of two firms of solicitors. I cannot comment on or intervene in individual cases. The Government's role is to act as the ultimate regulator. We have repeatedly made it clear to the Law Society and the Bar that self-regulation of the legal profession is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege to be operated in the public interest, not in the interests of the people for whom it is regulating. As my hon. Friend said, the people who matter are the clients, not the suppliers.
The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has power to investigate complaints made by clients in respect of their solicitors' conduct or service. It also has power to investigate complaints about the conduct of solicitors, but not complaints about efficiency made by non-clients. There is an inherent problem, which I must explain. I understand the depth of my hon. Friend's concern, but must point out that although lawyers are under obligations to act in accordance with the code of conduct, what the solicitor does to promote one client's interest is frequently adverse to the interests of the other parties to litigation. However, what goes on between a solicitor and a client is confidential.
Solicitors are under an obligation to work within the code of conduct, but can a non-client—another party to litigation—go behind the relationship between a solicitor and a client and question the efficiency, the business decisions or the competence of a solicitor in those circumstances? It is important that, if a non-client loses and subsequently becomes liable for costs, he should pay only the costs that are reasonably and
102WH
properly incurred. However, a core problem arises if the complaints system is used by non-clients to open up the confidence between a solicitor and his client and to question the judgments and the decisions that are made, which, while they may be not good business decisions, were none the less proper in that they were not in breach of the code of conduct.
Mr. Stevenson: I understand what the Minister is saying. but the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman accepted the complaint about company B. You know which solicitor I am talking about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The Minister may know, but I do not.
Mr. Stevenson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The code of conduct protected the firm of solicitors from any further action because it was deemed not to have been in breach of the code.
Mr. Lock: I am reluctant to go into the details of individual cases, but I assure my hon. Friend that the legal services ombudsman's job is primarily to determine whether the OSS has discharged its duties. It is possible, as in the case to which my hon. Friend referred, for the legal services ombudsman to respond to a complaint by telling the OSS that it has not investigated the case properly and in sufficient detail and that it must repeat its investigation and show either that the solicitor was in breach of his duties or that he was not. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, that is precisely what the legal services ombudsman did. The ombudsman held the OSS at fault in respect of the thoroughness of it first investigation, but accepted that the second investigation had been carried out properly and that there was no breach of duty. To go further than that would be to intervene in the client-solicitor relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) expressed his well-known views forcibly and with good humour, as always. He has been a long-standing critic of the Law Society and of self-regulation. I appreciate the points that he makes and I know his views. We have differed on the appropriateness of maintaining self-regulation in respect of complaints, but he knows that the Government's determination to have a proper complaints procedure has led to our taking reserve powers. The exercise of those powers will be considered when the LSO's report is published in July this year. At that point, the question of whether the OSS is meeting the current targets will be primary in our consideration of whether to invoke the reserve powers.
On the statistics quoted, the figure of 6,000 for December 2000 was supposed to have been a combination of the cases that were unresolved with the OSS at that time plus the cases that had been returned from the legal services ombudsman and therefore required further determination. It should therefore have been the sum of all the live cases. If my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby thinks that that is not right, and that the true figure was higher, I invite him to write to me and I shall take the matter up.
I acknowledge that the Law Society failed to meet in December the other targets to which it had signed up in July 1999. It is also true that, although considerable

103WH
investment has been made and the culture of the OSS has improved, since fresh targets were set at the turn of the year, the response to many of the key targets can only be described as disappointing. We are watching closely, and we will have to make difficult decisions.
As far as I am aware, the Law Society has not made strenuous representations to the Government to promote the interests of lawyers working in the areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred and to encourage us to increase capacity. In many of those areas—welfare benefits, debt and so on—the provision of cost-effective services does not necessarily entail services that are provided by a lawyer. It must be remembered that lawyers are not the only people who provide legal services—citizens advice bureaux, law centres and welfare rights units provide excellent services to his and my constituents in respect of we fare benefits, for example. They are often far more cost-effective and efficient than lawyers in dealing with such matters because they deal with them day in, day out. In addition, the issues involved often fall outside the expertise of the high street solicitor.
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we maintain quality, and I am grateful for his comments about that. I appreciate his point about education, but we cannot fund every legal need in every circumstance. The powers in the Access to Justice Act give us, for the first time, the ability to prioritise between different legal needs. That exercise is being conducted locally through community legal service partnerships, which are identifying the primary legal needs each area. Those needs will vary.
Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about citizens advice bureaux. Stoke-on-Trent is lucky to have one of the most effective and powerful CABs in the country. Surely he would agree, however, that even
104WH
the best CAB cannot pursue the detailed legal representation that is necessary in many such cases. Only a firm with a contract—and one with the expertise to meet the quality threshold, which, through the commission, the Government introduced—is likely to pursue the case properly on behalf of a needy constituent.
Mr. Lock: I agree entirely that to ensure quality provision we must maintain the footprint of contracted solicitors and those in the not-for-profit sector.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about lay members of the supervision committee. I understand that they were previously a minority, but the ratio is now approximately 50:50. In answer to the question of who chooses members, I believe that it is the Master of the Rolls. If I am wrong I shall write to him, but I think that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was right about that. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also asked about references to the LSO, and I shall write to him with precise details of case numbers. The LSO is not, of course, within the purview of this debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of lay membership and the reform of the Law Society. One of the proposals that arose at the Law Society's general council meeting was resolution No. 2, which was a proposal to amend the rules of the Law Society to include 5 per cent. lay membership of the council. On 28 February, the council carried the proposal to have only 5 per cent. by only 37 votes to 25, and, lacking a two-thirds majority, therefore removed a lay element from the council of the Law Society. The entrenched view that only solicitors on the council of the Law Society have a proper view—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Renewable Energy (Wales)
12.30 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate elements of the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in the planning consents process for renewable energy in Wales. I shall concentrate on the application of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, having proposed a Bill to amend that Act that is scheduled for Second Reading on Friday, and on a new DTI consultation on a proposed consents process for offshore wind or water driven generating stations in England and Wales.
I shall briefly explain how the planning process in Wales has changed and how the role of the DTI is different for renewable energy in Wales. Since its establishment, the National Assembly has become the primary body responsible for planning in Wales. Local authorities implement planning policy through powers provided in secondary legislation introduced by the National Assembly.
The Assembly is responsible for the overall guidelines. It requires local authorities to formulate unitary development plans that take into account the need to meet our renewables obligations in Wales, which are similar to those in England and to Kyoto and Government targets. The Assembly can call in planning issues and deals with appeals against planning decisions, although in effect they are dealt with by the planning inspectorate.
All those processes take into account representations from third parties as well as those from the developer and the local planning authority. Clearly the Assembly is now the strategic planning authority for Wales: it takes the national view, sets national priorities and guidelines for Wales and lets local authorities deal with purely local matters. It is important to recognise that the planning system in Wales is designed to serve communities in Wales, not protect private interests.
I understand that renewable developments, and especially renewable energy, in Wales are still guided by the planning guidelines of November 1996, which were introduced under the old Welsh Office. Local planning authorities are required to recognise the need for renewable energy and consider what contribution may be made to meeting such demand locally, regionally and nationally.
Wind farms, especially larger scale ones, involve an anomaly. Applications for those with a generating capacity of less than 50 MW are still dealt with by the local planning authority. The Assembly may call in such planning applications if it so wishes, and it seems to want to do so often. However, applications for schemes with a generating capacity in excess of 50 MW are still dealt with under section 36 of the 1989 Act, by the Department of Trade and Industry. That is clearly an anomaly in the planning system in Wales: the National Assembly is usually the strategic authority, but in cases of larger wind-scale developments, it is the DTI. That may be considered a rather unimportant anomaly, which will arise only occasionally. However, it has now arisen in my constituency.
The Cefn Croes application for a wind farm in Ceredigion, near Ponterwyd, is the largest application that has so far been submitted in England and Wales. It
106WH
will have a combined capacity of some 58 MW or 59 MW. I believe that the application will be the first in Wales since devolution to be decided by the Minister at the DTI. I am not sure whether any of a similar size have been decided in England: the fact that it will be the largest in England and Wales suggests not.
An environmental impact assessment has already been made in relation to the planning application in Cefn Croes. Tremendous concern and unhappiness has been expressed locally about the fact that the DTI, not the National Assembly for Wales, will take the final decision on the application. If the local authority were to object to the application, even though it is not the deciding authority, that objection would automatically trigger a public inquiry by the DTI. An objection by another statutory consultee—such as the Countryside Council for Wales—could lead to a public inquiry if the DTI felt that that was fit.
I want the Minister to appreciate the great unease about the application in my constituency. As he might expect, I support such applications, although I reserve my judgment on the planning grounds of this one, because we have not yet seen the full details. Unease exists about the visual intrusion of such a large wind farm, the environmental impact and the need to balance national requirements and local contributions.
Ceredigion is probably one of the most advanced constituencies in terms of renewable energy in England and Wales. It produces more than 50 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources, including the Rheidol hydro-electric scheme. More than 30 per cent. of our energy comes from wind farms. Many would say that we contribute enough already and should not contribute more. I want to see Welsh needs taken into account: if that means that Ceredigion contributes a little more, that is all to the good. However, that contribution should be decided at the Welsh level. The current problem is that the DTI has the decision.
What will be the Minister's response? Will he take into account UK targets and needs, Welsh targets and needs or local targets and needs, which we have met several times over? That is one difficulty with section 36 of the 1989 Act, which my private Member's Bill would amend. I shall return to that matter, but I want to move on to the proposed consultation—
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman represents one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, and he right to say that Ceredigion already contributes more than its fair share in terms of renewable energy. Is not the important point that we listen carefully to the interests of local people? Clearly, wind power has an enormous contribution to make to renewable energy. However, the environmental impact of physical intrusion, environmental damage, noise and flicker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away. He is making a speech, not an intervention. He should bring it to an end quickly.
Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The local people should have a greater say in the matter, but the environment must come first as far as physical intrusion is concern ed.
Mr. Thomas: I agree substantially with the hon. Gentleman, but the issue of visual intrusion is

107WH
subjective. The environmental impact, however, is of utmost importance, as are the environmental benefits of the proposal. That is the difficult balancing act that must be performed. I would prefer the decision to be taken at the Welsh level by the National Assembly, in which the hon. Gentleman's party has an influence, not by the DTI in Westminster. That is the crucial point of my argument.
On the proposed consultation, which the DTI has produced for future offshore wind or water driven electricity stations in England and Wales, the surprising aspect of the proposal is that the DTI wants to go further. It is not content to decide, under section 36, on applications for projects of more than 50 MW. It now wants to decide on applications for projects in Wales of more than 1 MW. It would therefore be even more involved in the renewable energy debate in Wales.
The statement in the consultation paper is bold and bald—that a new process will be introduced in spring 2001 in line with the Government's aim of stimulating early development of a significant capacity in offshore wind farms. I do not know whether the Minister has an announcement to make on the matter. Rumours are rife that the first of those offshore wind farm developments will be announced shortly. Can to Minister comment on whether that development will be in Wales?
The fact that the consultation purports to include the National Assembly for Wales is a joke. It has yet to discuss the matter and the only consultation for Wales is a covering letter to the DTI's consultation. There has been a welcome move by the DTI to publish the consultation paper in Welsh as well as English, which acknowledges that aspect.
The DTI proposes to make all offshore wind and water powered generation subject to section 36 consents. Overall, the idea behind that proposal is very acceptable. There are two European directives that must be met when addressing renewable needs in Wales, and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to that obliquely. One directive is about environmental impact assessments and the other is the habitats directive. Currently, the proposals are not met fully by the consents process. I can see why that is the case.
However, there is an alternative way to meet the obligations, which does not involve a devolution clawback. As the Minister is a strong supporter of devolution, I hope that he will listen to my arguments and think again about his Deparment's proposals. Currently, applications of at least 50 MW must be decided under section 36. The proposal is that all applications of at least 1 MW will be decided by the DTI. How will the National Assembly for Wales meet Wales's strategic needs?
It is important to remember that the matter will not change the number of applications, or the number of hoops that developers must go through. The paper makes it clear that the system does not change the number of separate consents that art required. Instead, it should clarify matters with a developer at an earlier stage in the process, and make that process more streamlined and transparent. That is wonderful for civil servants and represents a wonderful piece of administrative tidying up, but it does not make the process in Wales more democratic If Cefn Croes is anything to go by, more local planning authorities in
108WH
Wales are likely to feel even more aggrieved that decisions have been taken away from Wales. They will appeal to the DTI for further public inquiries, so the Minister may have to deal with several dozen inquiries.
I do not know whether the Minister's Department was one of those that found the Wales Office to be only fair in its dealings between Westminster and Cardiff. I do not know whether that is a reason why his civil servants wished to take the power and tidy up the administration of the matters, and whether there is a lack of trust about potential actions of the National Assembly. I ask the Minister to reject his Department's proposals. Although there is not a written protocol between the Wales Office and Government Departments, we are waiting for a better understanding of how there will be legislative changes between Westminster and Cardiff.
The proposal document makes no mention of how a local planning authority will oppose the consents. Will it trigger a public inquiry, and how will the DTI deal with such inquiries?
A further worrying aspect of the proposals is the enticement in the document for developers to deal directly with the DTI about the offshore wind farm and thus bypass what I hoped would be a National Assembly responsibility. However, the onshore aspects of the offshore development, such as an onshore station that takes electricity from an offshore generator, would also bypass a local authority. The consultation document suggests:
"The developer might however choose to seek deemed planning permission for the sub-station or other onshore development from DTI via section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, at the same time as applying for consent under section 36…rather than submitting a separate application directly to the local planning authority."
It is not clear whether that would also be true in Wales because much of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, or whether we are seeing one or two devolution clawbacks. I am worried that there has been too much administrative tidying up for the convenience of civil servants, and insufficient democratic accountability for the convenience and transparency of local decision making.
I shall give the Minister an alternative arrangement that meets his Department's objectives and would allow the National Assembly for Wales to develop its full potential as the strategic planning body in Wales and have the overview of renewable energy in Wales. First, we should rip up the document. Secondly, section 36 consents must be given over to the National Assembly for Wales to allow the hon. Gentleman to wash his hands of the need to decide the larger generating station consents at Whitehall level. As the National Assembly is already dealing with the habitats directive and European impact assessment directives through its secondary legislation in other contexts, surely it can deal with them in the context of large scale and offshore developments, too. There would, of course, need to be strong liaison between the Department and the Assembly. However, the document is not the way forward.
In my constituency, as well as the Cefn Croes applications, there are two special conservation areas to which the habitats directive applies offshore from

109WH
Ceredigion. One is Cardigan bay. The other is the special area of conservation known as Penllyn ar Sarnau, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). It reaches down to the northern part of my constituency. Cardigan bay is a special area and any offshore developments in that area may be opposed in a similar way that oil exploration has been opposed in the past. If any development is to happen in that area, I want it to be decided at a Welsh level as much as possible, not by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The Minister has been one of the most ardent advocates of devolution in Wales and many of us are grateful for the way in which he has taken his party forward for devolution. He is the last person who would behave like a colonial governor in Wales, deciding matters for Wales from the Department of Trade and Industry. The recent overnight decision by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to allow the planting of three genetically modified crop sites in Wales with no consultation with Members of the National Assembly, no consultation with local Members of Parliament and no consultation with spokespeople in this House who have responsibility for their parties' environmental portfolios—I include myself in that group—has put in disarray the National Assembly's proposals for a GM-free environment in Wales. That is what happens when London decides such issues. I am sure that the Minister does not want to be party to such decision making. I invite him to reject the document and to propose a new set of planning consents that works with the National Assembly and will give more power to the National Assembly rather than taking power away from it.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate and welcome his interest and expertise in renewable energy, which is welcome in the House. As we tackle climate change, that is of crucial importance. I am aware that he tabled a private Member's Bill on 28 March proposing that the Electricity Act 1989 be amended, so that the National Assembly for Wales can handle the granting of section 36 consents for power stations in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman has raised directly with the Prime Minister his worry about the proposed onshore wind farm in his constituency at Cefn Croes. I agree that Cardigan bay is beautiful. If Neath had a bay of equivalent beauty, I might be a rival. It is unquestionably beautiful and no one would want to see it harmed or injured. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a strong believer in devolution. By background and temperament, no one in the House is less likely to behave as a colonial governor than I. The last such person to do so was the current Leader of the Opposition and it is good that he is no longer in that position.
110WH
I am an enthusiast for renewable energy, Mr. Winterton, as is the Prime Minister whose recent—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am fortunate now to have the title of Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hain: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a very worthy title for you, in particular.
The Prime Minister is also an enthusiast for renewable energy. His recent speech covered the better use of energy by business, the development of low carbon technologies, our renewables obligation—which is a powerful driver—programmes to cut emissions in the transport sector and the promotion of much greater energy efficiency in the domestic sector. The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked about imminent announcements. I am pleased to inform the House that we expect the Crown Estate Commissioners to announce the results of the first offshore wind farm site pre-qualification round tomorrow. They will give the names of wind farm developers who have successfully obtained site leases on the sea bed for the development of offshore wind farms right around Britain, including Wales. That marks a major step forward for renewables, and is very important news. The response to the Crown Estate's competition for site leases has been very positive. Tomorrow's announcement will represent a significant addition to our renewables capacity. Developers are responding to the Government's green signal, which I waist to make loud and clear.
Planning policy for England and Wales gives local planning authorities guidance on a range of issues that affect the siting of all renewable energy projects. The key issue for local authorities, when assessing applications for planning permission—including all the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—is to take account of renewable energy projects' impact on the local environment and their wider contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Last year, the Government announced a more strategic approach to planning for renewable energy in England, from regional level downwards. Under that, regions are to carry out, or update, assessments for renewables, from which regional targets for renewables generation can be agreed. The point of such studies is to achieve local consensus on the siting of future renewable energy projects. No specific separate targets have yet been drafted for Wales, but an assessment of the potential for renewable energy developments in Wales has been undertaken. That report is currently being finalised. Once studies are complete, the Department will publish a British overview, taking into account the assumptions made in individual studies.
To make successful progress, we need to get local stakeholders signed up and make a realistic assessment of the capacity for each part of Britain, including Wales, to generate electricity from renewable sources instead of simply imposing the United Kingdom target at regional level—or, in the case of Wales, at national level. I favour a bottom-up approach, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome. The recent announcement on locational flexibility for the non-fossil fuel obligation will also free up projects that have failed to secure planning consent for the sites in their original NFFO applications. That will boost renewables further.

111WH
We must all work together. The hon. Gentleman put his points in a rather simplistic fashion, if I may say so. Any decision, on any location, taken by the local planning authority, the National Assembly for Wales, or the Department of Trade and Industry will take account of all relevant factors. Those will vary in each case, but will include Government policy, or, in Wales, Assembly guidance, together with published planning guidance, covering not only energy, but the countryside, nature conservation, local plans, environmental assessments and the views expressed on an application. There is no prospect, especially under the current Minister, of the interests of Wales, or any part of Wales, being ignored. There will be full loca1 consultation and consultation with the Assembly.
I am aware of the application concerning Cefn Croes, but because of the quasi-judicial role of DTI Ministers in determining the application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on its merits or drawbacks. I understand that it has aroused strong feelings, but opinion is divided. We have received more than 200 written objections, but also more than 80 letters of support. We are currently awaiting the views of the local planning authority, Ceredig on county council, the Ministry of Defence—it is a tactical training area—and the National Assembly for Wales. No decision will be made until those have been taken into account. Until the Secretary of State receives that advice, he cannot take a decision on the application or call a public inquiry.
When considering applications for power stations over 50 MW, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, under section 36 of the 1989 Act, examines proposals on a case-by-case basis, taking a decision on the merits of each. He takes into account environmental impact and the views of the local community, local planning authority, individuals and local MPs. He considers the advice of statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency, the relevant countryside and nature conservation bodies, heritage bodies and, in the case of Wales, the National Assembly for Wales. Clearly, he considers the views of the developer and of any party who writes to him about the application.
In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, if the local planning authority objects to an application, the Secretary of State is obliged to arrange a public inquiry. Even if the local authority does not object, the Secretary of State has the discretionary power to hold a public inquiry if deemed appropriate in the light of any other objections and/or any other material considerations particular to the case.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a comprehensive process in which the local planning authority has a key role to play—from its familiarity with the local environment to its ability to object and thereby force a public inquiry—and through which the public can have their say. The hon. Gentleman referred to our recently launched consultation exercise on the consents process for offshore wind farms. It proposed that, instead of the current fragmented system, the DTI act as a one-stop shop, receiving, and co-ordinating the administration of, proposals for offshore wind farms in England and Wales. It also proposed that the DTI become, in effect, the planning authority for smaller offshore wind
112WH
farms—those at or below 50 MW—given that, in general, the local planning regime does not extend offshore.
However, with my specific encouragement the National Assembly for Wales is conducting its own consultation on the proposal, including the translation into Welsh to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which will ensure that Welsh interests are taken fully into account. The Assembly will also seek views on the role that it might play in the consents process for applications in Welsh territorial waters. Responses are sought by 23 April, and I shall consider carefully all the views expressed, including those of the hon. Gentleman should he wish to write to me.
Reflecting the combined electricity grid and market in England and Wales, the DTI currently determines any planning application for a power station of more than 50 MW. That is not an anomaly. There is an integrated market for electricity and distribution across England and Wales, and Wales benefits from that. If there were some form of Offa's dyke in terms of electricity supply, Wales would be very vulnerable. I hope that all hon. Members can see the clear advantages of a single planning authority that allows strategic decisions to be taken across the entire electricity market. One cannot consider electricity generation, supply and distribution in a nationalistic way—if I may put that to the hon. Gentleman—but I will listen carefully to any views expressed by the Assembly. In the meantime, I am determined to work closely with it. I have been in touch with its Environment Minister, Sue Essex, about the specific issue of offshore wind farm consents, and I have listened to her arguments about process and procedure, to which I am personally sympathetic.
The way to move forward together successfully was clearly demonstrated during the stricter consents policy. Despite a general presumption against further gas-fired power stations, recognition was given to the particular circumstances surrounding two projects in Wales: Baglan energy park in south Wales and Rhosgoch in Anglesey. The decision on Baglan bay recognised the importance of General Electric's advanced gas-fired power station technology, and the difficult employment circumstances in the Neath-Port Talbot area. The decision on Rhosgoch recognised both an energy policy benefit and the particular circumstances prevailing in Anglesey.
The Government are therefore listening to Wales, and Wales has benefited. We will continue to work closely with the Assembly on applications for wind farms in Wales, whether onshore or offshore. I should point out, however, that that is a general statement and does not refer to any application or to many of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. As a fellow enthusiast for renewables, I am sure that he will agree with me on that point.
There is another contagious disease spreading throughout Britain at the moment: an attitude of nimbyism towards applications for offshore, onshore or almost any kind of renewable generation in one's own back yard. People are in favour of clean energy and green energy, and are enormously in favour of renewables, but seem to have a blind spot when such proposals come anywhere near them. People in Wales and elsewhere have to confront that stark truth. Most people do not want a nuclear power station in their back

113WH
yard and are not enthusiastic about having coal-fired or gas-fired generators there either. The alternative is renewable energy. It is important to support wind farms in Wales and elsewhere—although not on the basis that they can spread anywhere that they choose, with every development given the green light. We intend to accelerate the development of renewables.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Entry Applications
1pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate about a long-standing injustice that can and should be rectified by a Government who are committed to social justice and the family.
My concern is with children who were refused permission to join their parents settled in the United Kingdom because visa officer decided that they were not "related as claimed". That was assessed through detailed questioning and asking for documents that did not exist in the Syl eti villages that most of the children came from. Many of the decisions were proved to be wrong. In the early 1980s, when I was director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, appeals were successful in some 30 per cent. of cases. Others did not win, yet could 1ater prove through DNA tests, which were not invented until the 1980s, that they definitely were related as claimed. By then, the children were over 18 and did not fit into the immigration rules by which they could join their parents, so they have remained separated ever since, and are still being refused after losing appeals.
That cannot be right. The children had a right to be here. The British authorities made a mistake, and the children have been refused any redress for that mistake. The courts decided, in a case called Miah and Askar, that it was not ant error, but a lack of evidence, so there is no redress. Anyone who is not a lawyer, pace the Minister, can see that that is wrong. People were refused on a basis that has been proved to be wrong. They suffered an injustice that the Government have the power to rectify, even decades later. The injustice continues for many of the families. There are elderly people here who need their children to care for them in old age, yet they are kept out and cannot even visit their parents because they expressed an intention to settle in the past. Often, those elderly parents are too poorly to travel to them on t le subcontinent.
When the Labour party was in opposition, we said that we would deal with this injustice. In 1992, the spokesman on immigration, who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security, said:
"If an error is made by the Home Office and an applicant was denied his or her right to come to the UK through a relationship, then if a DNA test subsequently proved that the claim was well founded then that claim will be accepted."
I urge that we now honour that commitment.
Not all the people who applied and were wrongly refused will still want to come here. Some have formed their own families by marrying and having children or have work commitments in the country where they live and are well settled there. But others have not. They continue to apply and to be refused, and are caught in a state of limbo without any way of sorting out their lives.
The biggest barrier to making the right decision on this matter is the sense that we might be giving an open-ended commitment on future immigration that would create significant numbers of applicants. A letter from the Home Secretary contained the claim that the figure could be between 20,000 and 40,000. I venture to suggest that that number is ludicrous, because it appears to represent every single child from Bangladesh who was ever refused. No one has ever suggested that all the refusals were wrong.

115WH
Why do I focus on Bangladesh? I do so because the problem is largely confined to that country. No one that I can find knows of anyone who suffers from this injustice and comes from any other country. I should like to know whether the Minister is aware of any other cases, and if he is, whether there are more than 15 or 20. There were some wrong refusals of that kind in Pakistan, but those kept out have generally made their lives in Pakistan, or have come to the UK through the tradition of cousin marriages in the Pakistani community.
I pay tribute to the justice for over-aged applicants campaign. It has not won anything, but it has kept going for 20 years. It should be admired for its dogged persistence on behalf of victims of that injustice. It believes that less than 1,000 people would qualify. Its evidence is that when the Conservative Government announced a limited concession in 1989—four years after DNA testing was invented—only 550 people applied, of which 115 were successful. More recently, the Government ran a big publicity campaign in the UK Bangladeshi community that urged people affected to contact them. Only 100 such people did so, and many of those had applied and been refused under the 1989 concession.
Ten years on, it is unlikely that people who tried then would do so now. It would mean uprooting themselves, and any new family that they have formed overseas, to join parents from which they were wrongly kept apart. It is even less likely that anyone who had not tried to access his or her rights in the 15 years since the invention of DNA testing would consider migrating. Under current immigration laws, applicants who have married in the meantime would have to show that they could support and accommodate their spouse and children without recourse to public funds. In my view, it would be wrong in terms of the commitment and numbers to include them in an estimate of the consequence of introducing a fair and just policy.
I urge the Home Office to announce a new and final concession that would apply to people who were refused as children on relationship grounds, who still have a parent settled in the UK and who have proved their relationship through DNA testing. The first step should be to provide an opportunity for them to register their case within a given period. which would follow a long tradition within immigration law. Indeed, there is a similar requirement in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The burden of proof of being the relevant individual and of having applied in the past should be on the applicant, but records of applications at the British high commission or the Home Office should be conclusive, as should original documents and authorised DNA tests in the possession of applicants.
If the Home Office believes that numbers are an issue, it would be possible to impose a quota on the number of people allowed entry. It has apparently been argued that there is no precedent for a quota in British migration law. As the Minister and I know from working together in the early 1980s, that is not true. In those years there was—indeed, there still is—a quota for United Kingdom passport holders, who ate British nationals who are not British citizens. Since the early 1970s, there has been a national quota of 5,000 per year that is not fully used. In 1999, only 330 of that quota were admitted for settlement, so there is plenty of space. If, as expected,
116WH
only a few hundred people in the category that I am discussing apply, their applications could be dealt with in a shorter period.
Such a change would not greatly increase the administrative work to be done in high commissions. Dhaka keeps detailed records and checks them in relation to visitors and other applicants to see whether people have family who have come here in the past. Its historical records are extensive and it dealt with 18,000 visa applications in 1999, so a cohort of such people would not add substantially to the work load.
Rectifying the injustice is the right thing to do. Some people were wrongly refused entry due to the type of questioning and the inappropriate standard of evidence demanded, so we should now carry out the commitment that we made in the past to allow their evidence to be used. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Department is not aware of a great number of cases from countries other than Bangladesh. If he can, I hope that he will agree to meet me and other hon. Members to discuss how we might create a system that would have a chance of dealing with the injustice, rather than taking the ostrich view—burying our heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away. As policymakers, we may believe that the problem is disappearing, but for the families who are permanently kept apart by this unfair rule, it will not go away. We have a duty to those families; we made a commitment to them in 1972 and now is the time to honour it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), I advise the Chamber that she has sought my permission, that of the initiator of the debate and that of the Minister to participate in our half-hour Adjournment debate.
1.11 pm
Ms Oona King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing a debate on an issue that I have raised continuously since I was elected. Although, according to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I represent the most deprived area in Britain, and have seen many cases of injustice, few have seemed as grave as the ones under discussion. They include the cases of young teenage boys and girls who were refused entry clearance to join their families because the entry clearance officers in Dhaka, New Delhi or Islamabad were not satisfied that they were "related as claimed." That injustice is bad enough, but it was compounded by the failure to correct it once proof of the children's identity was available. The entry clearance officers made a mistake. We all make mistakes, but few have consequences as grave as that.
The advent of DNA testing in 1987 gave us the opportunity to rectify such mistakes, and enabled those under 18 to submit successful applications for entry clearance to join their families in the UK. For others, however, the mistake has ruined their lives and they have had no opportunity to see it rectified. Many of those wrongly refused in the 1970s were teenagers, so by 1987 they were in their mid or late 20s and therefore could not benefit from the new DNA tests because they were no longer dependants. Why were they no longer dependants? Because the Home Office had taken 20 years to recognise their claim.

117WH
Following a public campaign, the Home Secretary introduced a concession to the immigration rules in June 1989, which allowed those who had had DNA tests proving that they were "related as claimed" to enter the UK if they could show compelling and compassionate circumstances. That was welcome because it allowed a small number of children to be reunited with their families.
Many more families remain divided and I would like to give the Minister some examples in my constituency. Joytun Bibi is a mother who has seen her son, Nizam Uddin, three times in 24 years. Mehrun Nessa has seen her son, Iqbal Hussain, twice in 17 years. Shoznoo Bibi has seen her son, Ataur Rahman, four times in 20 years. Rois Miah has seen his sons, Aftab and Moklis, only on half a dozen occasions since they were refused entry clearance in 1972. Many of those mothers and fathers are now elderly and frail. For example, Mehrun has arthritis and recently suffered a stroke that left her unable to walk; she is too ill to travel, and knows that unless the Home Office reconsiders, she will never see her son again.
I am not a parent, but the Minister is, and it should not require too much imagination—even for people who are not parents—to understand the desperate sorrow and anguish that this woman must be suffering.
The Home Secretary met the justice for over-aged children campaign, of which I am the chair, in November 1998. I was grateful that my right hon. Friend carefully considered the issues that we raised, but I was disappointed that his final decision was not to relax the concession. He said that he was concerned about the possibility of large numbers of potential reapplicants that might arise under a relaxed concession. I was initially quoted a figure of 60,000. If that were true, the Home Secretary would have been right to be concerned, but I can assure the Minister that that figure is mythical. I am not sure where it came from, but we cannot accept it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough went into the figures in detail, so I shall not repeat them. However, a further indication of the actual numbers can be gleaned from the fact that in 1991 only 550 cases had been considered under the concession, of which only 115 were conceded. The Home Office argues that there might be many thousands more because only those eligible would have applied, but that is not borne out because 80 per cent. of those who applied under the concession were rejected. More important, it is not borne out by anyone with even a passing knowledge of people who may have spent the last 20 years separated from their child. Those parents were overjoyed when they first heard about the concession, especially regarding compelling and compassionate circumstances. What could be more compelling and compassionate than being wrongly separated from one's child or parents by an arbitrary decision that one is "not related as claimed"? The numbers involved are minimal and would certainly be fewer than those rightly benefiting from other concessions introduced by the Government.
The 1989 Commission for Racial Equality report on immigration control and procedures records that 90 per cent. of those refused on the grounds of not being
118WH
related as claimed were subsequently able to establish their relationship through DNA testing. I cannot believe that the British Government and Home Office could hide behind a mistake when it is now possible to put it right. So much has been put right in the immigration service and it is right to congratulate the Government on achieving that. Nowhere is the new professionalism in the immigration service more evident than at the British high commission in Dhaka. With the odd exception, arbitrary refusal is a thing of the past.
The campaign acknowledges that an over-aged reapplicant will have to show how he or she will be maintained in UK accommodation without recourse to public funds. That is right and proper, but I sincerely and genuinely urge the Minister to examine the proposals outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and supported by myself. I give the last word to my constituent, Joytun Bibi, who said:
"They made me make a choice between my eldest son, and the rest of my family… The immigration officers told me that Nizam wasn't mine, and even when I proved that he was they still wouldn't let him in. Not a single day goes by when I don't think of Nizam… Please let Nizam and the others in and let all us mothers be reunited with the children we were forced to leave behind."
1.19 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been an important debate, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) have made significant contributions based on their constituency experience. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, considerable professional experience of these issues at the highest level is also involved.
The right to family life is guaranteed by article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which has been incorporated into United Kingdom law in the Human Rights Act 1998 introduced by this Government.
It is always important to recognise the significance and value of family life and the undoubted wrench that patterns of migration and settlement can involve when parents are separated from their children for however short a time. It has long been the thrust of our policy in respecting family life and the rights incorporated in the convention to seek to reunite families where relatives are settled here. In the vast majority of cases "family member" is held to mean spouses and the children of persons settled here, although in exceptional circumstances the definition can be extended to other dependent relatives.
The closeness of the connection by blood and the level of dependency must be the determining factors. Dependency will vary in accordance with age when there is a relationship between a parent and child. There must be a cut-off point. the cut-off point that we have arrived at in our law is 18, when childhood is said to end and adulthood to begin. Our immigration law and rules reflect that. Not only must they have enshrined within them the proper strictures of the convention, but they must be capable of being defined in such a way as to demonstrate the essential characteristics of good law: clarity and finality.

119WH
Those considerations must be in the forefront of the minds of those who have a responsibility, as we do in the House, to legislate, whether in primary or secondary legislation. It is important that we get the balance right in immigration law. At the heart of our approach is the requirement of both fairness and firmness. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in responding to representations of the sort that we have heard in Westminster Hall today, must always bear in mind the need for that balance.
Ms Oona King: Given that the Home Secretary previously said that he was not able to reconsider the matter because of the numbers involved would my right hon. Friend agree to a meeting with the MPs concerned if we can show that these numbers have been substantially exaggerated?
Mr. Boateng: I am coming to that in my own inimitable way. It may not be as fast as my hon. Friend would wish. I will get there.
The balance is one that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has striven in this area, as in every other area, to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough was good enough to pay tribute to the way in which the Government have sought to get the balance right. That has been in no small measure due to the determination of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to do so and the diligence of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). They ensured that the improvement at the point of application in the subcontinent, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referred, was implemented.
A forceful case has been made over the years by the campaign for justice for over-aged children, and the stories outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow get to the heart of the
120WH
importance family relationships. I can understand the passion and commitment that inspires those who started the campaign. We are always prepared to give such campaigns a fair hearing in trying to get the balance right.
An issue has arisen about the accuracy of the estimates that were made at a meeting between the Home Secretary and members of the campaign. We are ready at any time to receive representations to help us to estimate the scale of the problem and to determine how many might want to avail themselves of a concession such as that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough. She put much thought into its development and the framework within which it might be contained. I undertake carefully to consider her suggestion and to examine the statistics and test them against our estimates; we shall thus arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the best available evidence.
We are determined to get this important issue right. A concession has been made in the past; it is not without significance that in the last year no one made use of it, which raises a number of issues about the demand, or potential demand for any concession.
We need to get things right and to examine the evidence. My hon. Friend took great care in fashioning her proposal, and I give her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow an undertaking to give it the consideration that it is due. At the end of the day, it will be a matter of finality and of clarity—two vital aspects of the law in this, as in every other matter—and of getting the balance right. We will be informed by our respect for family life, our convention responsibilities and the need for firm but fair immigration law.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his reply. We can now move on a few seconds early to the last debate in Westminster Hall today.

Local Government Finance (Harborough)
1.29 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank the Speaker for granting the debate, which is on an important subject for my constituents, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), for coming to Westminster Hall to respond on behalf of the Government. Local government finance is an intensely complicated subject, and many Ministers have spent years in her Department and its predecessors without ever reaching a full understanding of it. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not in that category, but let me tell her something about the two local authorities in Harborough and explain why the debate is so important.
There are two local authorities in my constituency, excluding Leicestershire county council. Oadby and Wigston borough council is geographically small but has an electorate of about 40,000 and, obviously, a larger population. It covers the part of south-east Leicestershire that is closest to the city of Leicester, and consists of Oadby, a settlement of medieval origins, and South Wigston, which grew with the expansion of the canals and railways during the 19th century and housed the regimental headquarters of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment, the Tigers. Between those two places are Wigston Magna and Wigston Fields, which are also settlements of some antiquity and are on the routes of the old sheep and cattle droves to Leicester livestock market, which is now a multiscreen cinema and supermarket complex. I suppose that, nowadays, that is called progress.
The borough is now mostly residential but there are some factories, which are mostly, although not exclusively, related to food preparation, light engineering and textiles. We have in the borough Leicester race course, as well as the Leicester university botanical gardens and many student halls of residence. There are also a few farms.
Harborough district council covers the largest area of any Leicestershire district council—the whole of south and east Leicestershire—and has a population somewhat larger than that of the borough. Based on the ancient town of Market Harborough, it is made up of some of the finest grazing land in the country and, so far, it is thankfully free of foot and mouth, although it is designated as an at risk area because of cases confirmed to our north, south and west. It contains many small villages, rural settlements and farms, and rolling countryside of equal beauty to the fells and dales of the north. If I may say so, it is an undiscovered gem.
We are a largely contented but not complacent part of the world, with low unemployment, good schools and access to fine hospitals. The Government cannot claim credit for any of that—that position has obtained for many years. However, my two local authorities share an ever-increasing burden of Government-imposed targets and strategies, which are eating into their small revenue budgets, taking up and extending the already full working day of local government officers, and diminishing the level of public service that the dedicated and hard-working officers want and are able to provide to my constituents. Oadby and Wigston council has a general revenue fund budget for 2001–02 of £4,978,000,
122WH
and Harborough council's net revenue budget is £6.3 million. In financial terms, both are small authorities.
We were not at all pleased when, in 1999, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions subtracted nearly 1,000 citizens from the population of Oadby and Wigston, with a consequent reduction in its standard spending assessment, a loss of about £65,000 in revenue, a reduction in service provision and an increase in council tax.
I refer the Minister to a letter that was written by the director of resources, Alan White, to Mr. Lambirth of her Department on 21 January 2001, in which he outlines some problems that arose as a result of that arbitrary subtraction of population. He wrote:
"The loss of Aggregate External Finance resulting from this population factor is equivalent to a Council Tax increase of around 3.5 per cent. The problem this creates is illustrated by considering the marginal cash increase of £14,000 in AEF against the costs of best value audit and inspection which alone will add between £40,000 and £50.000 to the Council's budget … In considering the council's ability to manage its financial resources against its service costs it is important to note that all our major services are already externalised, with only the Highways DLO (which is expected to make a profit) provided in-house."
He mentioned the external contracts for grounds maintenance, leisure centre and swimming pool management, refuse collection and street cleansing, which are now a11 privatised. He reminded the Department that that did not leave much room for manoeuvre on the costs of those services, although they were trying to renegotiate in some areas. He went on to say:
"Additionally the now somewhat mixed blessing of being one of the handful of Councils to win a Millennium fund bid, will result in the revenue costs of the project which come on stream in 2000/01 adding a Council Tax equivalent of 2.3 per cent. to the budget. We will also suffer from the exhaustion of the Collection Fund surplus (Council Tax increase equivalent 3.3 per cent.) an issue we are pleased to see is recognised in your letter.
This all adds up to a situation where even after elimination of avoidable growth, significant real terms pruning of existing expenditure and an unrepeatable subvention from balances we will struggle to achieve a Council Tax increase below 10 per cent.—it should really be double this figure."
Mr. White said that the council was non-confrontational and was not deliberately ignoring the content of advice from the Department. He said:
"Indeed it may well be that the relatively small percentage rise in budget requirement (around 4 per cent.) which the measures outlined in the previous paragraph will achieve will be sufficient to convince the Secretary of State of our good intent, but we do have a problem. We intend to use the next twelve months to try to produce strategies designed to address the underlying under-funding of our budget but in the meantime would be bitterly disappointed not to receive the sympathetic understanding of the Secretary of State. More tangible help relating to the nonsense of our population estimate would be even more gratefully received."
There appears to be a somewhat sanguine acceptance at the DETR that there are winners and losers in the game of local government finance, but it pays scant regard to the practical consequences, which can be quite dramatic for small authorities. For Oadby and Wigston, £65,000 is a significant sum. It is not acceptable to visit those consequences on the council without giving it a chance to plan in advance how best to accommodate the loss.

123WH
It gets worse. Best value is no doubt a wonderful concept. To be fair to the Government and so as not to misrepresent my local authorities' concerns, I must point out that both Harborough and Oadby and Wigston have been prepared to accept that there is room for improvement in the administration and delivery of public services by local councils. They were by no means antipathetic to the introduction of the best value scheme. The chief executive of Harborough, Mr. Michael Wilson, tells me that his authority has
"embraced the Modernisation Agenda will enthusiasm"
and that it believes that many of the initiatives set out in it are well focused and deserve adequate funding to ensure their effective implementation. Harborough council has been resourceful and innovative in coming to grips with them, especially in partnership with other small authorities in the Welland partnership and with the assistance of Deloitte & Touche. It is, for example, reviewing the asset base with a view to enhancing income generation. I assume that that is accountancy-speak for car parking charges in rura1 market towns or charging 50p to spend a penny—increased charges for use of public lavatories. However, 1egislative demands are being made of Harborough council without adequate resources being made available.
Best value has, however, become a monster, entailing more bureaucracy and escalating costs. The audit cost for Oadby and Wigston in 1998–99 was only £39,000. It will be £60,000 more in 2001–02. Thanks to best value, the total may be as high as £118,000 For Harborough, the total cost of the auditing exercise will be £65,000 for the basic audit, between £15,000 and £20,000 for the best value audit. Oadby and Wigston's director of resources estimates that its overall cost—Which includes the effort put in by existing staff who are diverting productive time to this increasingly process-driven system—must be about £160,000 a year.
The practical benefits are minimal, and there is a feeling that officers are being required by central Government to spend their time ticking boxes on forms instead of doing the job that they came into local government to do. There is a team of three in Oadby and Wigston trying to cope with best value, and it has a 1.5 in thick lever arch file of instructions from the Government on how to apply it. Now, as though things were not difficult enough, the best value unit has poached one of the borough's assistant directors to go and work for it—no doubt on a better salary and for a shorter working week.
Best value is in danger of becoming, if it has not reached that stage already, a missed opportunity of major proportions and a serious waste of local government resources and taxpayers' money. The resources now absorbed by writing about work, rather than doing it, cannot be justified. The volume of resources wasted on strategy production is now so great that it impacts on the levels of service that the borough can provide.
Everyone believes in sensible business planning, but smaller councils such as Oadby and Wigston borough council and Harborough district council are able to comprehend entire areas of activity without great difficulty, and without the complex written plans that authorities such as Birmingham or Manchester might
124WH
require. Therefore, the "one size fits all" policy is counter-productive. The Government appear to believe that strategies are tangible achievements, whereas most sensible people realise that that is not the case.
The Government seem to be more concerned about control than production—I hope that I will not be accused of cynicism for saying that. Oadby and Wigston borough council is required to produce a range of strategies and implement many new regimes: a contaminated land strategy; a local Agenda 21 strategy; an air quality strategy; an asset management plan; a capital strategy; a crime and disorder disruption strategy that has spawned six action groups; resource accounting for housing; best value accounting; a community plan; a benefits verification framework; a strategy for e-government; a policy and action plan under race relations legislation; new political arrangements that the Government's reforms of local government require; local strategies based on local management needs; performance indicators; policies under the Human Rights Act; and enormous and costly, and not very welcome or well attended, areas of consultation.
The auditing of local government is no longer intended merely to ensure probity or value for money. Now, auditors and inspectors often arrive at a local authority armed with a Government agenda to reduce its funding, or to pillory its performance. The housing or council tax benefit systems provide a good example of that. The auditors are, in effect, instructed by the Department of Social Security. They decide how much work is required, and the authority has to pay whatever they charge. That has resulted in massive costs for small authorities such as those in my constituency. The auditors seek to reduce the council's grant claim by uncovering technical failures or omissions. The benefit schemes are now so complex that they cannot be perfectly administered, and innocent technical errors by clerical workers can result in massive financial penalties. Fortunately, that has not yet happened to either of the two authorities in my constituency, but it could easily occur. Bridgnorth district council has lost £2 million as a result of such clerical mistakes, and many others have also lost large sums. The beneficiaries of that are the Government, rather than my constituents.
The benefit fraud inspectorate has yet to visit Oadby and Wigston, but the director of resources predicts that, when it does pay a visit, it will issue a critical report, despite the fact that his council aggressively pursues and prosecutes fraud offences. His bleak prediction is based on his observation that the inspectorate never issues a good, or even an encouraging, report. The sclerotic effect of that hinders not only the officers of the council, but the work of the councillors themselves, and I will shortly explain why that is the case.
I have in my possession an internal report on staffing at Oadby and Wigston council. It lists the staffing consequences of several of the targets and strategies that have been imposed on the council by the Government. Oadby and Wigston borough council and Harborough district council do not have any spare staff. Therefore, many officers, such as housing officers, are having to work outside the areas of their immediate responsibility, and the chief executives of both authorities are doing the work of six people.

125WH
The increasing burdens are having a terrible effect on staff morale in both authorities. In Oadby and Wigston, responsibility for the crime and disorder reduction strategy has been divided between the chief executive, the assistant chief executive and the community safety officer, who was appointed to Oadby and Wigston before the new legislation was introduced, and who already works half the time for Harborough. The chief executive, Mrs. Ruth Hyde, chairs two of the six action groups arising from the strategy. The work is time-intensive, as she must implement the decisions of all of the multi-agency groups that are involved. The work of the police liaison group and the crime and disorder steering group must also be considered. Staffing resources are not adequate to meet the costs of the work that arise from that area of Government policy alone, and I have a list of about 15 additional burdens that have already been placed on the council.
Further legislative duties will also be imposed on local authorities, and they look no less onerous. There is the duty to introduce e-government, the duty to introduce a policy under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and the new political management arrangements, all of which will require further work from increasingly stretched and under-resourced local authority staff.
As I said, this sclerotic effect is hindering not just the officers of the borough council but the work of councillors themselves. I am not making a political complaint on behalf of my party. It is true that in Harborough the Conservative party is the largest party on the council, with the Liberal Democrats some way behind and the Labour party a poor third. However, in Oadly and Wigston there are 21 Liberal Democrat councillors and—following the crossing of the floor by a Liberal Democrat last autumn—five Conservatives. There are no Labour councillors.
The problem is easily demonstrated. Last week's policy and resources committee agenda ran to 321 pages, 219 of which were unnecessary but for the need to fulfil central Government requirements. The agenda for the equivalent meeting in March 2000 contained only 50 pages. The present Government, and certainly their Back Benchers, disapprove of late night sittings in this House, but at least they get paid a salary for their attendance, if not their attention. Borough councillors should not be expected to wade through this bureaucratic treacle into the small hours. Huge chunks of the agenda are bound to be dealt with without proper discussion or scrutiny, and I should not be surprised if councillors decided to take matters into their own hands by considering hundreds of pages en bloc, so as to finish at a reasonable hour.
I shall give another example of the madness that the Government have created for the borough. The business plan required under the housing finance regime consists of a spreadsheet of 77 pages, with thousands of information cells. This bureaucratic nightmare is in addition to the housing strategy document that the borough must submit to the DETR via the Government Office for the East Midlands. Given that the borough has only 1,400 council dwellings, I cannot help asking whether all this extra paperwork has by any perceptible measure improved the standard of housing management.
126WH
I conclude by returning to Harborough district council, whose efforts to comply with the Government's demands are as courageous as the demands are burdensome. It is being put under huge strain in terms of personnel and finance, which is inhibiting the delivery of public services. I accept that it received some help from Whitehall for a homesearch project, for an e-government system in partnership with other authorities, for the delivery of care services with Leicestershire county council, for a home improvement agency with a housing association, and under the market towns initiative. However, there remains the underlying problem of the excessive and non-productive demands of central Government, which are not met with sufficient revenue support to allow any of the programmes to work satisfactorily. Harborough receives one of the lowest SSAs per head of population in the country, leading to a low level of net total spending per head.
Central Government's corporate demands on Harborough are truly staggering, and I shall list them as quickly as I can:
"Air Quality Strategy, BEST VALUE, Community Strategies, Contaminated Land Strategy, Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy, Cultural Strategy, Data Protection, Development of local strategic planning, Disability Discrimination Act, Duty to licence shops selling raw meat and enhanced inspection regime, E-Government, Green Travel Plan for Local Businesses, Health and Social Care Bill, Health Improvement Programmes, Home Energy Conservation Act, Homes Bill, Human Rights Act, LocalAgenda21, Local Transport Plan, Modernisation Agenda for Local Government, Monitoring Officer to take in Parish Councils, New statutory Codes of Practice for Food Safety Inspection, Race Relations Equality following Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Rural White Paper, Safe Route to School, Staff Travel Plans, Sub-Regional Strategies, The Power to promote Economic, Social and Environmental Well-being".
Will that list of demands lead to a sensible use of my local authorities' time, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If this Government value 1ocal government, they should, in the light of this evidence, provide my local authorities with the wherewithal to carry out their strategies, respond to their initiatives—eye-catching or otherwise—and hit their targets, or they should get off their backs. The Minister can choose, but she had better do so quickly.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for securing this opportunity to debate to local government and the issues that he has raised. Our record on local government finance since taking office is good, and the debate provides the opportunity to demonstrate that.
We have given priority to education and personal social services. Leicestershire county council's funding has increased substantially over the past few years, which will benefit the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents in the two district councils on which he concentrated today However, we are aware of the valuable role that district councils play in the life of the local community, so we have increased provision for that tier of authority also.
The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a colourful picture of the two district councils in his constituency and the areas in which they are placed and he is clearly

127WH
familiar with the work of both councils. Having spent 13 years as a local councillor and part of that as leader of a council, I am also familiar with the work of and the pressures that face local authorities.
I shall set out the general financial context because it is germane to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Since taking office, we have provided local authorities with an increase in Government grant of about £8 billion. That is an increase of 14 per cent. In real terms, which compares starkly with the period when I was in local authority. We had a real-terms cut of 7 per cent. in the four years leading up to 1997–98, which really was a struggle. Provision for spending on education will increase next year by nearly £2 billion or just over 8 per cent. and on social services by about £580 million. Local authorities have received a significant injection of cash in real terms and have stability with the assurance that that will continue.
Despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the authorities in his constituency have done very well from the increased investment. Government grant is paid to local authorities through the standard spending assessment system and he painted a bleak picture of the amount of grant that councils have received each year. I must put his comments in context. Leicestershire county council received a grant increase of almost £13 million. That is an increase of more than twice the rate of inflation and in line with the average for county councils and authorities in England. The district councils on which the hon. and 1earned Gentleman focused have also received above-average increases in standard spending assessment. Harborough's grant increase is below average for its class, but that is due to its tax base relative to the other district council that he spoke of. I shall give some details of how those local authorities have fared.
Harborourgh district council received an increase in standard spending assessment of 4.7 per cent. and an increase in grant of 2.4 per cent. That is a little less than the average for the class of authority, which was 3.9 per cent., but is accounted for by its higher and rising tax base. Oadby and Wigston district council received an increase in SSA of 6.3 per cent. and an increase in grant in the previous settlement of 7 per cent., which is twice the average for its class and, whatever baseline is used, three times the rate of inflation.
That is the context in which the hon. and learned Gentleman should locate his arguments. In addition to the general settlement, Leicestershire county council has received substantial neighbourhood renewal fund money. That does not relate specifically to the two district councils but has a knock-on effect in addressing some of the deep-seated problems in the area. Additional money has also been provided for specific purposes—for example, the Pathfinders award for local authority electronic service delivery to improve service and access, £1 million to the Welland partnership, which includes Harborough district council, and, in February, additional money through "invest 10 save" to provide internet-based services. Leicestershire county council, including Harborough, will receive almost £500,000 and another £2 million of funding will be provided for the Welland partnership via the single regeneration budget.
The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the Government are requiring councils to be more strategic and focused and to deliver quality services but that that
128WH
is not being matched by additional resources. I do not accept that argument. The increases in the general grant, as well as those for specific purposes, have been substantial and have gone to councils such as Harborough, and Oadby and Wigston.
Mr. Garnier: I know that the Minister is under some difficulty in responding to the debate. I am sorry that the e-mail system in her Department did not work last night, preventing her from receiving the draft of my speech that I sent her, and that the internal mail system failed to deliver the hard copy. She would have seen that I was concentrating not on Leicestershire county council, but on Harborough and Oadby and Wigston district councils. If she is proud to announce that one of my local authorities has received a 7 per cent. increase in grant and the other a 6 per cent. increase, will she restrict by equivalent proportions the burdens and duties to perform additional work that are placed on those authorities?
Ms Hughes: I think that the hon. And learned Gentleman is making two assumptions—first, about the relative costs of some of the extra requirements in terms of producing plans and so on, and secondly, about the extent to which we prescribe to local authorities the amount of money that they should spend on particular services. Local authorities, including the two district councils to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, have enormous flexibility in setting their own budgets and deciding on their priorities. He cannot claim evidence for his statement that a 7 per cent. increase in grant—or a 2.4 per cent. increase in the case of Harborough—may not be sufficient to accommodate extra demands.
I mentioned Leicestershire county council because it provides some of the most important services for people in those two district councils, including education and personal social services. It is relevant to point out the extent to which increasing the money that the county council receives for those services will have a beneficial effect.
One of the crucial issues at the heart of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was the performance of local government and whether there is room for improvement. I am aware that other authorities in the area surrounding his constituency face bigger challenges than those referred to today, and are arguably coping somewhat better. For example, Charnwood and Rushcliffe district councils have had very good reports from the Improvement and Development Agency, and their best value performance plans betray an excellent grasp of the requirements of best value and good performance across a significant range of council services. It is important to note that some district councils of comparable size are not only grasping the agenda but using it to improve their performance.
Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: I should like to make progress, because I must get to the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
By comparison, it could be suggested that both Harborough and Oadby and Wigston district councils need to do more to improve the quality of their services

129WH
and to organise the way in which they manage themselves in order to produce better efficiency and value for money. I was concerned to learn that under compulsory competitive tendering, Harborough had to disband its in-house direct service organisation, and to institute other changes, as a result of hiding continuing long-term losses that should have closed the DSO much earlier. In 1997–98, Oadby and Wigston was served notice for failures to meet financial objectives in sport and leisure and ground maintenance.
Mr. Garnier: May I interrupt the Minister?
Ms Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
Oadby and Wigston received a qualified report on its best value performance plan for 2000–01. The plan lacked sufficient information on performance indicators, gave no indication of the resource implications for service selection and provided no framework for running best value reviews, and its strategy on challenge required improvement. I shall
130WH
happily give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman at this point, but we have only a minute left and I ask him to bear that in mind.
Mr. Garnier: I do not want the Minister to mislead herself. The scandal over the Harborough direct service organisation is of some antiquity, and antedates best value. Is she content that the two little local authorities have to spend more than £100,000 a year in audit fees?
Ms Hughes: We have certainly tried to ensure that the fees for smaller councils are proportionate, and we are continuing to do so. The structure of the funding that the Government gave through the Audit Commission to support the cost of audit fees was front-loaded to assist smaller councils.
In conclusion, I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I make no apologies for the extra requirements on local authorities. We have a duty to ensure that we are encouraging all councils to come up to the standard of the best. The variance in the quality of service is still far too great.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.