Westminster Hall Sitting of 27 February 2001

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Revenue Support Grant (Norfolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall]
9.30 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: I am pleased to be sitting here under your eagle eye this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the important matter of the revenue support grant for Norfolk, and local government finance support for Norfolk in general. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and my right hon. Friends the Members for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), as I do the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is sitting where the Liberal Democrats usually sit. I do not know whether he is making a statement by so doing.
I also welcome to the debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I am loth to congratulate him on his promotion because, as a Whip myself, I prefer to think that he has been translated into another sphere. The military historian in me believes that he is in the position of a German general staff officer in about 1942, involved with planning operations and training, who finds himself translated to command a division in the Stalingrad pocket. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could be roughly compared with that.
My theme today, which I hope is shared by colleagues, is a fair deal for Norfolk. I say that against the background of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Fortunately, to date, we have not yet had such a case in Norfolk, but the constituencies of many colleagues have. Many people in the rural communities of Norfolk are terrified of the possible impact that the disease may have on their lives and on our economy. Norfolk is special to its Members of Parliament, not only because we represent constituencies there, but because it is an outstanding country. It is the second largest county in the United Kingdom. Its population is in excess of 700,000—a population that is concentrated heavily in the three major towns of Norwich, King's Lynn and Yarmouth, but one that is spread out over such an enormous county.
The county has an extensive coastline, which reminds me of the joke made by the late Professor Malcolm Bradbury. When he was lecturing at the university of East Anglia, he said that Norfolk was cut off on three sides by the sea and on the fourth side by Anglia Rail. One of our most famous sons, Horatio Nelson, used to talk about going into Norfolk and coming out of Norfolk, as though it was a separate country. At times,
166WH
the people of Norfolk feel that they are apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. During the past four years, they have faced several severe constraints. Due partly to our geography, even those in the major towns are reliant on the use of motor vehicles.
I found out from the Library that the average availability of one or more cars in the United Kingdom is 66.6 per cent. In my constituency of mid-Norfolk, it is 83.1 per cent. That is not because people in mid-Norfolk have more money than others in the United Kingdom, but because cars in mid-Norfolk are a necessity, not a luxury. Therefore, anything to do with the cost of running a car has a major impact on individuals' finances and on how the county councils and district councils deliver their services. To enable people to move around Norfolk is an added cost that the major unitary authorities do not face.
Understanding local government finance is like understanding the Schleswig Holstein question in the 19th century. As hon. Members may know, the late Lord Palmerston said that only three men understood the Schleswig Holstein question; one had died, one was now mad and he, Lord Palmerston, had forgotten what the question was. If that is true in general, it is so specifically when considering the present Government and the way in which they have financed local government since 1997.
Our debate must be seen against a background of a Government who, I am sad to say—I note that the Minister is trying not to smile about this—have achieved a reputation for spin over substance, and a habit of announcing and re-announcing measures. That also applies to the revenue support grant and local government finance. The way in which the Government have organised local government finance has been detrimental to the shire counties, especially Norfolk. I remind the House that, as a direct consequence of the Government's changes in methodology introduced in 1997, the shire counties will have lost out to the sum of approximately £700 million. Norfolk must face part of that, which puts us at a disadvantage.
Since 1997, council tax in England has increased by three times the rate of inflation. This year, council tax payers in Norfolk will see an increase of 6.25 per cent., which is almost three times the rate of inflation. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), estimated that the average band D council tax bill would rise by 5.1 per cent., yet Norfolk county council has been forced to agree to an increase of 6.25 per cent. Commenting on this year's local government finance settlement, the Minister said:
"Given these government increases in grant, I would therefore expect the majority of local authorities to be setting a lower Council Tax this year than last year, when the increase was 6.1 per cent."
Unfortunately for Norfolk county council tax payers, last year the rise was 9.8 per cent., not the Minister's guesstimate of 6.1 per cent. The local government finance settlement that Norfolk has received during the past four years has, with one exception, meant cuts in real terms and progressive increases in council tax. This year, Miss Celia Cameron, leader of the Labour-Liberal coalition running Norfolk county council, has written to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions

167WH
because she is concerned that Norfolk's revenue support grant will be £4.5 million lower than the council's estimates.
If one examines the RSG allocation for Norfolk in the local government finance budget over the past four years, one sees that, for the year 1998–99, there was a decrease of 0.41 per cent. In 1990–2000 there was an increase of 3.53 per cent., and in the period 2000–01 there was a decrease of 3.48 per cent. This year, surprise, surprise, there is an increase of 9.78 per cent., although I do not suspect that that has anything to do with a general election. Until this year, Norfolk has been in deficit and that has had a major impact on council services. In addition, during the past four years we have received inadequate local government finance settlements, and the council tax payers of Norfolk have seen a reduction in the quality and extent of services that they receive from the county council, for which, ironically, they have to pay more.
Councillors in Norfolk have told me that one of the principal causes of the council tax rises is the impact of Government stealth taxes, such as higher fuel tax, higher landfill tax and new taxes on pension funds that are passed on to council tax payers. Increases in the cost of petro-carbons for Norfolk county council this year are DERV, 6 per cent.; petrol, 4 per cent.; gasoil, 11 per cent.; and kerosene, 29 per cent. I remind colleagues that, in a county such as Norfolk, with a population that is spread out, transport costs are crucial. Those additional costs are separate from any local government finance or settlement. All sorts of extra costs for consultation must also be added, relating to, for example, best value, community strategies, verification frameworks and performance indicators, all of which will cost the council large sums.
Although I approve of the management techniques and robustness introduced by the previous Conservative Governments and continued by this Government, many of us feel that many levels of government are now being managed to death and that there is no direct relation between management costs and output and quality of service. For example, Norfolk police authority is only too well aware that best practice costs it several hundred thousand pounds a year and ties up several valuable members of staff for what is ultimately no real increase in the deliveries not only that it would like but that people in Norfolk expect.
During the past few years, there has been an enormous increase in cuts or deferment of services in Norfolk. We have a £90 million-pound backlog in road maintenance. We have experienced severe cuts in social services, to which I shall return shortly; chaos in our schools, with children being bussed around the county; and badly thought through school reorganisation. We have had a muddle over the waste disposal strategy, and that strategy, along with the moneys allocated to it, will be a major issue in future. Library hours and the availability of books have been reduced.
I should like briefly to touch on an example from the past four years. A result of local government finance awards and council policy was the closure in 1998 of many youth centres throughout Norfolk. In my constituency of mid-Norfolk, the youth centre in the small market town of Aylsham, which has a population
168WH
of about 4,000, was closed. Colleagues from Norfolk know only too well that, outside the major cities, there is not a lot for young people to do in the country. The closure of a youth centre, where young people congregate to get away from their parents, will probably result in their going elsewhere and trying to get into pubs, which invariably leads to trouble. The gap left by the youth centre that was closed is now being ably filled, at a cost, by a small community centre financed entirely by local churches and surviving from hand to mouth. It is used by not only young people but mothers, in the mornings, and pensioners, and I salute that. I realise that the Government and councils are under pressure for money, but I firmly believe that youth centres are a good way of investing in the future and ensuring that young people have an opportunity to do what they want without being tempted into casual violence and drugs.
The impact on the people of Norfolk is not entirely consequential on Government policy. I believe, as might be expected, that the problem has been compounded by eight years of a Labour-Liberal coalition running Norfolk county council. Obviously, the council has had to make decisions within budget, and we are now living with the consequences. We have seen a growth in bureaucracy, a borrowing of money from the reserves, and time and energy wasted on talk about visions and stakeholders rather than spent considering the quality of service that can be delivered.
The Government recognised that, this year, many county councils faced the prospect of a disastrous rise in council tax, and have attempted to come to those councils' rescue with extra resources. It may seem churlish, but I regard a lot of that money as funny money with strings attached, as do many local councils. We estimate that Norfolk county council should have levied a 10 per cent. increase in council tax this year, but it has levied only a 6.25 per cent. increase. I say "only", although that is three times the rate of inflation. The council has been able to do that largely because it has received extra money from the Government, but also due to some creative accounting in its budget. For example, money has been moved out of the highways reserves and cuts have been made in social services.
I come briefly to the impact made by the Government's failure properly to fund Norfolk, and to the effect on my constituents of the council's problems. The impact will be at its greatest in social services, on which there has been an estimated overspend of £2.7 million. The Government's area cost allowance criteria contain a bias against counties such as Norfolk, where sparsity of population creates problems. The Government have failed to take into account a steady increase in population, especially among the elderly. In my constituency, some 20.8 per cent. of the population is of pensionable age compared with 18.7 per cent. nationally. One might say that that is only a 2 per cent. difference, but on tight budgets such as Norfolk's that can make all the difference between just about getting along and failing to deliver.
Under the council's proposals for next year's budget, the social services budget will see increased charges and cuts. Charges for meals on wheels will rise from £1.80 to £2, the cost of transport to day centres will rise by approximately 50 per cent. and the cost of delivering occupational therapy equipment to people's homes will double. The level of day care is to be cut, and the number

169WH
of people aged over 65 admitted to residential and nursing homes is being reduced by 150—so do not get old in Norfolk. Rex Humphrey, the chief executive of Age Concern in Norfolk, said:
"We have known for a long time that there are going to be more and more people, particularly over 85 and 90, and we have to recognise that … My main concern is that the social services is reducing day care while at the same time reducing residential care and there is a mismatch in that position."
It would be no exaggeration to say that we are approaching a crisis in residential care and nursing homes in Norfolk, as a consequence of the policies to which I referred and the 2 per cent. fee increase approved by Norfolk social services. Denise Denis, chairman of the Norfolk Independent Care Homes, said that the rise of 2 per cent. was minimal and that homes would be forced to make staff or maintenance cuts. That is placed on top of the Government's proposed legislation, which places an even greater financial burden on care homes.
As Members of Parliament, we are in favour of the highest possible standards for residential care homes, because elderly people demand the best. However, those who run care homes, in both the public and private sectors, are being driven to distraction by the increasing bureaucracy, which places further demands on such minutiae as the size of rooms, and other matters connected with the facilities.
I began by saying that my theme today was a fair deal for Norfolk. I hope that, by outlining the revenue grant support element of the local government finance settlement, I have shown that Norfolk has done poorly compared with other parts of England. Norfolk, along with other shire counties, is collectively £700 million worse off than in 1997. Council tax in Norfolk has risen by three times or more the rate of inflation to provide either stand-still services or cuts in services. That has been compounded by the way in which the council has taken decisions and examined priorities during the past eight years. I ask the Minister to re-examine the way in which the area cost allowance is calculated, taking into account the particular problems faced by a large rural county, such as Norfolk, with a dispersed population.
People in Norfolk often view London as foreign. In fact, they view Bury St. Edmunds as foreign, but they view London as foreign because our discussions and decisions do not relate to their experience. They think that they come fairly near the bottom of the list when the Government are developing policy. They seek a fairer deal for Norfolk. They do not necessarily want more money than everyone else, but they would like a fair deal in which some of the problems that I have been spelling out are considered.
Norfolk is a marvellous county and I am honoured to have represented Mid-Norfolk for the past four years. We want to do better for its people.
9.50 am
Dr. George Turner: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate. I served on Norfolk county council for more than two decades and was chairman of its education committee prior to the 1997 election. I therefore especially welcome the opportunity to contribute to this morning's debate.
170WH
The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has provided a mixture of facts and—as often happens in debates on local govt finance—highly partisan comment about support grant for Norfolk for this year and the preceding three or four years. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say about this year's settlement. My hon. Friend already knows of my support for major reform of the standard spending assessment and rate support grant systems that we inherited.
Indeed, the Government have already gone some way to deliver a fairer deal for Norfolk and that should be acknowledged. I was especially pleased when the Government not only initiated research work, but recognised the need and delivered resources for rural policing, taking proper and better account of the sparcity problems. I was also pleased with the grant made available for my part of Norfolk, shared with cross-boundary policing in the fens. Of course, the bottle is only half full; more needs to be done. However, we know from the consultation that has been under way for some time that further reform is on the way. Given the history of dispute across party lines over local government finance, the Government are right to take the time to seek to maximise consensus on introducing a new system.
I have argued for many years—mainly under the previous Government—for a fairer deal for counties such as Norfolk; I shall continue to do so. However, I want to take a different tack from that of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. He painted a picture based on recent RSG settlements that distorts the reality and would have the nation conclude that we should change the Government and, by implication, I suspect, return to the old regime under which I suffered.
An analogy with football suggests itself to me—I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you are a supporter, but I find that it helps when discussing financial issues with my constituents. As the season draws to a close, many fans will criticise their team's performance. Few managers or players approach perfection, and armchair critics have an especially clear concept of the ideal, but before calling for the manager to be sacked, most are fair minded and consider various questions. What problems and financial constraints did the management inherit? Is performance improving or deteriorating under the new management? What alternative management is on offer, and with what track record? I wonder whether many fans would turn with enthusiasm to a former member of the worst team in living memory; a man of maturing years but inclined to mimic the young—baseball hat and all—populist to a fault and with a self-confessed 14 pints a day drinking problem. That may not represent the ideal management.
I shall have to be selective this morning, even given the modestly greater time that may be available. I therefore turn to some other facts that were not mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. In particular, we should consider the track record of the present management compared with the previous management. The fairest way of doing that is to ask some of those who are directly responsible for the data that I have used. I asked the financial director of the county council and the treasurer of the borough council in my constituency for a summary. I wanted to compare the four years of the budget set by this Government with the previous four

171WH
years, which seemed a fair-minded approach. If one makes that comparison, the picture of what has been happening is very different from that painted by the hon. Gentleman.
Before doing that, I want to say that the attack made this morning on the merits of the present county councillors—and, by implication, the attack on King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council in my constituency—was deplorable. There has been considerable improvement in management and the way in which budgets have been handled in Norfolk recently. The Eastern Daily Press reported on Friday 23 February that an assessment undertaken by Cranfield university school of management, Sunday Business, British Telecom and Management Today, listed Norfolk county council as one of the top 100 UK visionary organisations. It said:
"Norfolk County Council—once one of the worst performing of the rural shires, it has driven itself to the top by an aggressive and ambitious strategy. It is now a reference point for good practice in local government".
The report continues:
"When the Conservatives lost control of Norfolk County Council in 1993 for the first time in 100 years, the new Lab/Lib administration set about reviewing services and overhauling the organisation.
Under new chief executive Tim Byles, the council set up a change management programme, transforming the way it works with schools and forging public/private partnerships and strategic partnerships for economic development and health improvement. A senior manager worked exclusively on communicating the vision to the council's 25,000 staff.
School test results show that pupils in Norfolk are improving faster than almost anywhere else in England, and the region's roads will benefit from a £19.2 million increase in spending—the highest in the country. Technology specialists Capita will help meet targets for e-government and improve the way the council deliver services and communicates with local people."
That is a somewhat different picture of the county council than that painted by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk.
Mr. David Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is good practice to increase the council tax four times more than the basic state pension?
Dr. Turner: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. To be fair, we should compare what has been happening with the track record of the previous Government on council tax and what pensioners received.
First, I want to refer to the information provided by the finance director of Norfolk county council on changes to budgets during the past four years. Local government finance is notoriously difficult. It is necessary to consider not only changes in the headline figures, but changes in underlying rules and changes in responsibilities. I asked for a summary of changes in the revenue budget. The figures this year are remarkably good, which has been commented on. The net figures show an increase in expenditure of £27 million. Hon.
172WH
Members will not have noted from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that that included a £5.7 million increase in expenditure for social services.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that matter?
Dr. Turner: I am not taking interventions for the moment, because I want to put the figures on the record.
The figure for 2000–01 is plus £8 million, for 1999–2000 it was plus £9 million and for 1998–99 it was minus £7 million, giving a total for the four years of increased net growth to the council of plus £37 million. I also have the figures for the previous four years, determined by the capping regime, when local democracy was removed by the Conservative Administration. The net growth figure for 1997–98 was minus £11.8 million, for 1996–97 it was plus £4.2 million and for the previous two years it was minus £6.2 million and minus £2.1 million, giving a grand total for those four years of minus £15.9 million in the council's delivery of services. I repeat, that is minus £15.9 million for the last four years of the previous Administration, and plus £37 million in the first four years of this Administration.
I am the first to admit that the bottle remains half empty and that more needs to be done, but the bottle is filling: we are addressing people's needs in Norfolk. I especially welcome the dramatic increases in school investment. The figures are amazingly different from those under which I had to struggle when I was chair of education. The education capital allocations have risen from £4.7 million in 1996–97 to £27.8 million in 2000–01; we do not yet know the full figures for the coming year.
As chair of education, I faced a backlog of £40 million in much-needed work to be done on school buildings. Now, I go to schools and see work in progress, with further funding to come. Improvements are visible to anyone who visits the schools—there are new classrooms, improved decoration, and better staff facilities. Under this Government they have a rosy future.
I want to give right hon. and hon. Members the figures that relate to my borough council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) intervened to ask about increases in council tax. Yes, his colleagues in my borough jump up and down, pointing to the 29 per cent. increase in band D council tax and hoping that people's memories are short, but they do not remind the electorate of the 55 per cent. increase in the four previous years. There was a 29 per cent. increase in the past four years under this Government and a net increase in the council's expenditure of about 7.5 per cent. However, there was a 55 per cent. increase in the last four years under the previous Administration, but a net decrease of 6.3 per cent. in the council's expenditure.
Not all is ideal in north-west Norfolk, or with the borough council's budget, but in the last four years of the previous Administration there was an increase of 7 per cent. in capital resourcing, which is most important in respect of the dilapidated housing provision in my constituency, compared with an increase of 79.6 per cent. in capital expenditure in the past four years under the present Govt. To pretend that that is not a dramatic improvement is to ignore the facts, which is what the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk would have us do.

173WH
Finally, I want to speak to an issue that is close to the heart of many of my constituents, the policing of crime. I had a meeting last week with the chief constable and the chairman of the police authority to look at what was really happening without the gloss put on it by the Opposition. The chief constable told me that the new money now available to the police authority would increase the number of front-line police officers from 1,400 to at least 1,475 by the end of the year. He explained that the run down in police numbers in Norfolk had been as a result of his policy, initiated ahead of the last election, to address the dramatic need for improved IT and back-up equipment. With the funding now available, not only can he and his chairman continue to invest in that equipment, but they can provide the extra police on the beat that people want to see.
In addition to the extra 75 police officers, the chief constable can free up a further 23 police officers by introducing civilians to do their work. That means there will be another 23 police officers on the beat at the sharp end of policing. He also has extra funding to provide two mobile police stations in my part of the county, each equipped with radio and communications systems. He tells me that he will be able to invest £250,000 into the vehicle fleet. He describes it as old, but I would describe some of the vehicles that I have seen as dilapidated.
The chief constable went on to explain further planned improvements in policing. They include better intelligence services and the potential I use of helicopters for some chases, which are notoriously difficult in the fenland area because of the nature of the roads. There are clearly gains from the increases in the Government's support for policing in Norfolk and the changes in the council tax. Under the previous Administration there were far larger increases in council tax and a net decline in spending. Now, although there has been an increase in council tax, which is less than the rate that we inherited, there are also real improvements.
The local Conservatives would h lye us believe that the improvements to policing, schools and education are as nothing. They say that there is virtually nothing to show for the increases in taxes that they are paying. That implies that one could cut the council tax by 30 per cent. without doing any damage. They need to be open about that, certainly ahead of a general election. It is uncertain whether under the Tories there would be £23 million, £12 million or £6 million for my constituents. It depends on which month it is, whether it is a Tory tax promise or a Tory tax guarantee and on their current wriggling to pretend that they can both spend and cut at the same time. My constituents should beware. The Tories' pretence that there have been no improvements in services implies that cuts are possible. I know that they cannot make cuts without damaging the services.
In summary, returning to my football analogy, not all is perfect with the team and its management. There may be changes in the team, which may have to raise its performance. There are tasks to be completed. We may be in the middle of a league table and have yet to reach the top, but if we compare what is happening under the present management with what happened under the previous management, we can see that progress is being made. It will take time to complete that process. When the fans out there come to take their decision, they will realise that they need to stick with the present team for a little longer if they are to achieve their ambitions.
10.10 am
Mr. John MacGregor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on initiating the debate and on the admirable way in which he spoke. He covered so many points that I wanted to cover that I shall be fairly brief, although I want to re-emphasise some of them.
People in rural areas, including my constituency, are astonished that hon. Members in the main Chamber will spend today debating the Hunting Bill. That shows a ludicrous sense of priorities, an astonishing unawareness of what is happening in rural areas and a ludicrous lack of sensitivity. The issues being debated in this Chamber are the ones that concern people in rural areas. That feeling runs very deep and I shall return to it later.
The Government and the ruling parties on Norfolk county council—Labour and the Liberal Democrats—have achieved a combination of heavily increased council taxes. I say to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) that vision is all very well, but the facts and the impact on people on the ground are what matters. The heavily increased council taxes have a real impact, while we receive poorer services and there is a further running down of reserves.
I shall deal first with services. Just before Christmas, the leader of Norfolk county council approached us all, I believe, to protest strongly about the impact of Government decisions on this year's rate support grant settlement for Norfolk. We were asked to make representations, which we all did. The hon. Gentleman talked about making adjustments to the area cost adjustment and changes in the formula. However, the change in the formula that the Government have introduced has greatly disbenefited Norfolk. I understand that it is the main reason why we received £4.5 million less in this year's settlement than Norfolk county council had accepted. The Government introduced a change that greatly disadvantaged Norfolk. I just hope that we will not have more such changes.
The implications for services are serious. I shall pick out three services, the first of which is social services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, there is a deficit of more than £2 million in this year's social services budget. The implications for pensioners and other poorer people in my constituency are very serious.
I want to draw particular attention to the effect on residential care and nursing homes. We all know that private sector residential and nursing homes are facing serious difficulties through a combination of insufficient fee increases on the one hand and heavily increased costs on the other. I join my hon. Friend in commenting on the impact of the Government's changes in regulations for higher standards in residential homes. We all want higher standards, but we need to be practical and realistic.
I have seen nursing homes in my constituency, both in the public sector—financed by the local authority—and in the private sector, which face substantial increases in their capital costs. That will lead either to fewer places or to the closure of those homes for comparatively minor adjustments over the next few years to comply with improved standards. I have talked to the residents of rooms in those homes, who cannot see how a big

175WH
increase in costs will greatly benefit them. I have protested about that before. It is important that the Government take on board the need for a sensible transition, because Norfolk risks a massive loss of places in care homes in both the private and public sectors in the next few years. There is a particular issue with Dennyholme care home in Diss, but the situation will be much more serious for private sector care homes.
In the Eastern Daily Press a few days ago, in response to protests from independent care homes, Joan Fowler, the portfolio holder for social inclusion and care in Norfolk county council, said:
"I would have liked to have given them more than 2 per cent. but there simply isn't any spare cash around. The social services overspend is coming down but it is still £1.5 million. Everyone is having to cut back."
That is the reality for social services.
I have some specific questions about highways and fire services. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on his appointment. He is certainly moving into a heavily embattled sector. I acknowledge that he did not take part in this year's RSG settlement, but I shall put my questions to him because he is now responsible for defending it.
Norfolk has a considerable backlog of maintenance requirements for its highways. Norfolk is one of the largest counties and has a huge network of roads, yet our settlement for highways this year is 1.8 per cent. That is not only below the rate of inflation, but well below our neighbours' average of 4.5 per cent. and below the shire counties' average of 3.3 per cent. I simply do not understand it. I am told that one reason is the weighting given to heavy goods and the high gearing effect that that exerts. I fail to understand, however, why Norfolk, with its huge requirement for maintenance on highways and its substantial highways network, should receive an increase of only 1.8 per cent. this year. Will the Minister explain why in his reply?
Dr. George Turner: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the £19.2million — almost two and a half times the allocation for previous years —for capital investment in Norfolk's highways? Should not that be taken into account when assessing the moneys available for improving roads in Norfolk?
Mr. MacGregor: The highways maintenance figure, which is important, shows only a 1.8 per cent. increase. That is why I am worried that the working out of the formula is substantially disadvantaging Norfolk.
I also want briefly—so that my right hon. and hon. Friends can join the debate—to mention the 2.8 per cent. increase allotted to fire services for a county whose rural spread imposes heavy demands. The shire counties' average increase is 4.8 per cent. and that of our neighbouring counties is 3.9 per cent. Once again, in view of Norfolk's huge requirements, I do not understand why our county should fare so badly.
The facts on council tax are clear, but the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk did not explain them correctly. Before the general election—apart from
176WH
1995–96, which saw an 8.5 per cent. increase—all the increases in Norfolk's council tax were below 4 per cent. Subsequently, the increases have all been way above the level of inflation. It is worth spelling out the details. In 1998–99, the increase in band B council tax was 15.6 per cent.; in 1999–2000, it was 9.76 per cent.; in 2000–01 it was 6.25 per cent. and in 2001–02, it is projected to be 6.25 per cent.
Those are substantial cumulative increases, which take a great deal from pensioners who are reliant on the state pension or have just a little above it. When people move out of council tax rebate, it takes a great deal out of any net increase in incomes gained during the year. Pensioners may well protest further as a result of these increases. They complained during the past three years and I expect them to do so again. The county council has not properly dealt with a major concern that affects pensioners.
The wider impact on rural communities is another issue. We all know that farmers are facing a disastrous crisis with foot and mouth disease. In East Anglia—and particularly in my and neighbouring Norfolk constituencies—swine fever is an additional problem. Furthermore, we ail know that farming incomes have declined significanty in the past four years. Yesterday, the Minister, in response to requests for help for beleaguered farmers through monetary compensation or other ways, said in the Chamber that no previous Government had given assistance on foot and mouth disease other than to those whose herds had to be slaughtered. That is true, but previously, particularly in regard to the outbreaks that have occurred during my time in the House, the general position of farmers was very much better. Unlike in the past, farmers have no spare capacity whatever to cope with the current crisis. The relevance of that significant fact to agriculture and all allied trades in Norfolk is often misunderstood: in terms of the national figures for the numbers employed in agriculture, we are much more dependent than other parts of the country on the income flowing in to such activities. Further council tax increases on such a scale, on top of those of the past three years, will be a further huge burden for many families.
My protest is that the Government appear to have removed £4.5 million from Norfolk as a result of some of their formula changes, with particular impact on social services. Like other rural areas, but more than most, Norfolk has suffered at the hands of the Government in the past four years—which is why we are having the debate today, for which I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that the Government will take note of it.
10.21 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful to be called in the debate, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) for having initiated, because the issues raised obviously touch on the lives of people in Norfolk. He gave an admirably clear account of how the Government and a Lib-Lab controlled county council are, between them, failing the people of Norfolk.
I congratulate the Minister on his position and I believe that he will bring good experience and a steady hand to a difficult task. I would like him to answer a question that is being asked in my constituency: are the

177WH
Government treating urban areas favourably in terms of the revenue support grant to their local authorities? There is a strong suspicion that what happened in the first couple of years of the Government's term of office has happened again this year—rural areas have lost out.
I shall concentrate on the effects of the cuts that my hon. Friend so eloquently described and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), on the care of the elderly and the vulnerable. Ministers like to speak of the continuum of care provided by health and social services, particularly in regard to bed blocking and hospital care.
My right hon. and hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), will know that the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital is being completed in Norwich and has been hailed by Ministers and others as the means to end bed blocking. It is also an excuse to close several smaller community hospitals such as the Wayland hospital in my constituency. The Eastern Daily Press reported on 16 February that the centre is giving no funds for the additional revenue costs of the new hospital. The chief executive of Norfolk health authority said:
"The centre has been highly prescriptive about what it wants to be achieved but there does not appear to be latitude to pick up the additional … costs of the new hospital."
We may have a new hospital, but now the debate is about how people will get there. I do not mean that access and road provision will be a problem, but that the funds will not be available to open the hospital.
Against that sad saga must be set the cuts in Norfolk's social services. One would have thought that, with the seamless and joined-up government that we are now said to enjoy, a situation of the sort that I have outlined would not—indeed, could not—be combined with the cuts in social services that elderly and vulnerable people in Norfolk are having to face this year. Yet, sadly, that is the position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk quoted the portfolio holder for social inclusion and care on Norfolk county council, who said that there is no cash to spare. She claimed that because 351 beds had been closed last year in Norfolk care homes, money would not be available to increase the number of beds in the residential sector to provide more support for people in their homes. At the same time, of course, she is increasing charges for meals on wheels, for home visits from occupational therapists and, even more disastrous, for day care.
At one and the same time, the elderly and vulnerable in Norfolk face the prospect of a new hospital that cannot be opened because the money is not available, a reduction in the number of beds in the residential sector, an increase in the charges that are designed to keep them in their own homes and an increase in council tax for the privilege. I would call that social inclusion. In effect, Norfolk social services department is passing on to the elderly the funding cuts that were imposed on Norfolk people by the Government. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asks us to approve the barrage of statistics that he produced; but I am concerned with the experience of people in my constituency, not with a recital of statistics.
Dr. George Turner: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Shephard: Not at the moment.
178WH
Like many other areas in Britain, Norfolk has an increasing number of elderly and vulnerable people. About 25 per cent. of my constituents are over retirement age. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out, the social services department is having to fund a possible overspend of £2.7 million by cutting the level of day care. What does that mean? Who deals with day care? A vast army of volunteers give their own time to transport elderly and vulnerable people to day-care centres. The impact on them of increases in fuel costs has already been described. The number of people aged 65 and over being admitted to residential and nursing homes will be cut by 150 and, as I said, those people will face increased charges. It is extraordinary.
The leader of the council said that the council would have to make "tough choices". That is fine for her; her choices are made on paper. The choices that face the families of elderly and vulnerable people are also tough. If their relatives cannot be admitted to care homes—and as we have heard, 150 fewer places will be funded this year—they face tough choices in trying to make up the shortfall, and the anxiety of wondering whether it would be possible to cover the increased charges. Their choices are as tough as those facing Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in Norfolk. The leader of the council was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press on 15 February as having commented that
"the Revenue Support Grant from the Government had been disappointingly low and setting the coming year's budget was a difficult balancing act."
We do not seem to have heard much in the way of solidarity with her from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
The problem that we are considering is not confined to Norfolk. The National Care Homes Association will be lobbying Parliament on Monday. It is concerned about the combined effect of a squeeze on public funds, the national minimum wage, the working time directive, pay increases for nurses and the proposed national standards for care homes. While each of those is justifiable, the outcome last year was the loss of 351 beds in the residential sector in Norfolk; less nursing care in the residential sector, because homes could not afford to employ nurses; less choice for elderly people and their relatives; more travelling for those people, with the closure of homes; and less employment in residential homes.
The National Care Homes Association has posed an interesting question. In Norfolk in 1999 the fee for care was £227 a week. In 2000, the Department of Social Security awarded each person in a residential care home sponsored by social services an increase of £5 a week, which was rightly trumpeted by Ministers as a way of helping the elderly and vulnerable. However, the association points out that the contract price in Norfolk for 2000 remained £227 a week. Where did the money go? Norfolk county council should answer that question.
The current state of affairs in Norfolk is a cause of fear among elderly and vulnerable people and their relatives. Elderly people wonder what will happen to them if they cannot enter a residential home, and how their relatives will cope with caring for them. They wonder how the money will be found to support them at home. Above all, elderly people want to avoid feeling

179WH
that they are a burden, but the factors that we have heard about this morning will combine inevitably to engender that feeling in their hearts.
Mrs. Marie Farrelly, the co-proprietor of the Feltwell Lodge nursing and residential home, wrote to me on 15 February. She said:
"We are very worried about our business, we haven't had a referral from social services since before Christmas."
She went on to comment that her husband
"has contacted … the manager at Downham Market about this and has been told that they are only allowed to refer six people per month for West Norfolk. It looks as though this government has put the elderly at the bottom of the pile and the local government in Norwich are just as bad."
She puts it well and I agree with her.
10.34 am
Mr. David Prior: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this important debate. There is a danger when one speaks last in a debate such as this that everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I should like to make some extra points.
We hear a lot from Norfolk county council about visions, strategies, long-term plans and best value, but we and others in Norfolk will judge the council on results, not on promises for the long term. People in Norfolk, are interested in how much council tax they are paying and what services they receive in return. During the past four years, council tax has risen by about 40 per cent., which compares with a rise of about 10 per cent. in the basic state pension and 13 per cent. in inflation. So there has been a massive increase in council tax. What have we got for it? The roads maintenance backlog now runs at £90 million. We have heard about pressures on the social services budget and about how vulnerable old people are in Norfolk. Many schools in North Norfolk and elsewhere still have mobile classrooms, and public transport has almost collapsed in many areas. Few people in Norfolk today could put their hand on their heart and say that services have improved during the past four years; on the contrary, for many of us, services have considerably worsened while council tax has increased.
I shall dwell on only two aspects of county council activity. The first is residential homes. A number of traditional residential homes in North Norfolk in places such as Sheringham and Cromer, which have for many years provided wonderful care for older people, now face huge cost increases deriving from future proposals and from employment costs—in particular, the need to pay full holiday entitlement to part-time carers in those homes. There will be a collapse in the number of beds provided in private sector residential homes in Norfolk, which is of real concern when the resources made available for looking after people at home are also under pressure. As my right hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) have mentioned, many old people are extremely worried.
However, that matter has already been covered; I want to focus on young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, "Don't be old in
180WH
Norfolk." He could also have said, "Don't be young in Norfolk". During the past four years, many youth and community centres have closed, and the few youth centres left—for example, one in Hickling in my constituency—are ranging on by a thread. What has replaced them? The answer is, very little. I can give examples of voluntary groups in North Norfolk that, despite everything, have hung on, but they do so by a thread. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk probably knows the Carpenters Arms in North Walsham, supported by the Methodists, which has to beg, borrow and steal a few hundred pounds every week to keep the project open. The Holt youth project is trying to raise money from the East of England Development Agency and the lottery—spending more time trying to raise money through hugely complicated and difficult routes than it is looking after and providing facilities for young people. Another example is the Fakenham sports centre. I can give the Minister hundreds of examples of people who are trying to provide activities for young people, but who are doing so in an extremely arid environment.
It is one thing to provide facilities for young people, but they must also be able to get to them, and there are problems with the availability of public transport in rural Norfolk. There has been a significant reduction in the number of bus services in North Norfolk and no replacement for them through a more highly developed community transport system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, for many people the car is a necessity, not a luxury, yet about 25 per cent. of families in Norfolk do not have a car. They face serious deprivation.
There is a general feeling that the Government have understood the deprivation faced by many people who live in big towns, but that they have not come to terms with how many people in rural areas have to live. That is sad. I am particularly sorry that the countryside march on 18 March will not now take place. That would have brought home to the Government how fed up and frustrated those who live in the countryside are.
My final point concerns policing. The lack of local policemen on the streets is probably the biggest single worry for many people living in the market towns and seaside resorts of Norfolk.
Dr. Ian Gibson: During the past two days, the Eastern Daily Press stated that there will be 75 new police officers in Norfolk, many of whom will be located in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman seems to be denying that move in the right direction.
Mr. Prior: The Government are making up for lost time. The hon. Gentleman made a cheap point. He knows that there has been a significant reduction in the number of police officers on our streets over the past four years. Of course I welcome any improvement, as I do the extra police officers who have now been promised, but the increase is small. The people of Norfolk want more police officers who live in the local community to be on our streets, not just catching criminals, but preventing crime from happening in the first place. The past four years of Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled councils have shown how easy it is to spend money and to receive little in return.
10.41 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing it. He has made good use of such a timely opportunity. Others who represent Norfolk constituencies have made excellent contributions to our discussion. It is significant that the Liberal Democrat party has made no contribution to the debate, despite its complicity in some matters that have concerned Norfolk.
My hon. Friend described a serious state of affairs. As he reminded us, Norfolk is the second largest county in the United Kingdom. It has an extensive coastline. It has all the problems that are associated with large distances, sparsity, rural transport and so on. He was right to pinpoint the crucial change in SSA methodology when the Government came into office. That has resulted in £700 million being diverted away from shire counties such as Norfolk. The net result is an increase in council tax of more than 6 per cent., three times the rate of inflation. It was 9.8 per cent. last year and it is not as though that is balanced by any increase in local services. The opposite is the case.
We heard a depressing litany of cuts in services throughout the country. My hon. Friend described in detail some of the other stealth taxes that have affected the council. In many ways, council tax has now become a stealth tax, affecting as it does particularly the elderly and the most vulnerable in Norfolk. My hon. Friend referred to the backlog in road maintenance, which amounts to about £90 million for the whole of the county. He spoke about problems in schools and libraries, the closure of youth centres, real reductions in care and social services, the crisis facing care homes—a problem that is replicated throughout the country, such as in my own constituency—and higher charges for services.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the big jump in council tax, cuts in services, the running down of reserves and how he, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, had been asked by the leader of the Lib-Lab pact in Norfolk to make representations to Government about the poor deal that Norfolk has received, the £2 million deficit in social services and the significant increase in council tax rises since the Government came to power. He spoke knowledgeably about the combined effect of those and other factors on farming in a community that depends heavily on that industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that rural areas had been losing out, as proved by the figures. She referred to problems with the local NHS, cuts in social services for the elderly and most vulnerable, and increased charges. She said that politicians have tough choices to make, but that individuals and families face even tougher choices, as a result of which people suffer real fear. That situation can be summed up as joined-up incompetence as opposed to joined-up government.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) also referred to worsening services, focusing in particular on the problems with care homes—not
182WH
only cuts in funding and references to homes but problems caused by "Fit for the future", and other regulations, which are apparent to the banks as the financial supporters of the homes. He mentioned the effect on the young of closing youth centres. The situation affects people across the spectrum—the young, the old and everyone in between.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), who spoke from the Government Back Benches, proved graphically that any analogy could be taken too far, in talking about the capping regime under previous Governments having removed local democracy. I will turn to this Government's attitude to local democracy in a moment. With respect, I thought that many of his remarks were intemperate. His final, feeble conclusion was that not all is perfect in Norfolk.
We are discussing a wider set of issues that affect other places apart from Norfolk. The inexorable rise in the proportion of specific grants means that the money made available to Norfolk is often spent on the basis of Ministers' priorities rather than those of local communities. The Government panicked over the impact of its settlement on many local authorities this year. The Times talked about "crisis talks" between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor, which resulted in an emergency package of £100 million being diverted from the neighbourhood renewal fund, as well as extra bits of money for social services and education. Some of those bits of money are actually recycled or reannounced cash—in the customary style of this Government.
Across the country, a significant difference exists between living in a Conservative-controlled authority area and those dominated by other parties. Conservative councils still have the lowest council taxes; in the coming year, a typical band D household will pay £724 under an average Conservative council, compared with £124 more under a Labour-controlled council, a figure not dissimilar for Liberal Democrat-controlled councils. Norfolk, of course, suffers from the double whammy of a Lib-Lab pact.
Shire councils such as Norfolk have lost out by up to £700 million under the Government, who make a virtue of their so-called freeze on SSA methodology on the grounds that it delivers stability. However, if one is treated unfairly at the beginning of the process, one is treated just as unfairly at the end and during the course of it. The policy cements the unfairnesses that the Government imposed in the SSA settlement when they came to power. We have heard of floors and ceilings, but the Government have tried to tinker on the margins.
When we strip away the rhetoric, there is an element of cross-party consensus, although it seems to have been lost on the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. My right hon. and hon. Friends and the Lib-Lab pact that control Norfolk all take the view that the county has been treated unfairly. That is true across Norfolk. Clearly, the current administration in Norfolk feels that it has been treated badly. The Government have treated Norfolk shamefully, and there is now a £4.5 million black hole in Norfolk's finances thanks to their approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk asked for a fair deal for Norfolk. Everyone in Norfolk seems to agree that the one thing that Norfolk does not have is a fair deal. I am happy to endorse the call for a fair deal for Norfolk.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate. I thank him and other hon. Members for welcoming me to my new position, even if, as he suggested, it is like moving from the staff college to the Stalingrad front. His analogy fails to recognise that while von Paulus was up against the Red Army, backed up by material from the British empire and United States of America, we are up against the modern Conservative party, if that is not a contradiction in terms. It may be a little different. One never knows.
The national spending review in 2000 provided good news for local authorities, with continued increases in grant. The first year of the review set the baseline for the coming financial year, within which we have been able to increase Government grant by £3 billion. In the four settlements since we took office, we have been able to increase the amount of Government grant given to local authorities by £8 billion in total. That is a real terms increase of 14 per cent. compared with a 7 per cent. cut in the four years preceding the 1997–98 settlement. Our priorities, of course, are education and personal social services. As a result, provision for education spending will increase to £1.9 billion next year, which is an 8.1 per cent. increase, and social services will receive an extra £576 million, which is a 6.2 per cent. increase.
There can be no doubt that levels of investment have greatly improved since 1997–98. There is general agreement that the settlement provides welcome grant increases for local authorities. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk complained about spin, but was very selective in the figures that he gave for Norfolk. He chose to use those for the revenue support grant settlement rather than those for the total grant settlement. He knows well that that is not the whole picture.
The hon. Gentleman should be pleased to note that in 2001–02, under the settlement, Norfolk county council will receive a 4.2 per cent. increase in general grant, which amounts to £16 million. That is a good increase, which is well above the current rate of inflation.
The hon. Gentleman will also be pleased to note that, on top of that, Norfolk will receive a 26.8 per cent. increase in ring-fenced grants, which is an additional £7.786 million. When those amounts are added together, Norfolk will receive a total increase in Government grant for 2001–02 of £23.867 million or 5.8 per cent.
Mrs. Shephard: I am of course impressed by the Minister's figures. Will he explain how such marvellous news has apparently escaped the Labour leader of Norfolk county council? Why has council tax increased by three times inflation?
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall try to deal with that point. I shall also, in the time available, try to cover all the issues raised by hon. Members. Before I do so, I shall finish setting out the facts. In terms of the total SSA, Norfolk has received an increase of 4.9 per cent., which is in line with the national average increase. Norfolk's
184WH
education SSA has increased by 5.1 per cent. and its personal services SSA has increased by 5 per cent. The right hon. Lady may wish to note that all those increases are well above the rate of inflation. In the past two years, Norfolk has also received good settlements for its SSA increase: 6.2 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 5.3 per cent. in 2000–01. In the four years since we took office, Norfolk received an average SSA increase of 4.5 per cent. each year, compared with an average annual increase of 2.1 per cent. in the four years prior to that. No one would suggest that inflation has got worse in the latter four years; in fact, it has got considerably better.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) did a good job of explaining the inheritance that Norfolk county council has had to deal with and the priorities that it is trying to implement. As with local government the length and breadth of the country, it is trying its best to juggle its priorities, meet modern needs, move services in the direction of need and catch up with backlogs such as that which my hon. Friend mentioned in education services. My hon. Friend made apparent that backlog and the real problems that the council faces.
The situation in Norfolk will not be all roses—no one suggests that—but it is not as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk suggested with his partial citing of the figures. There have been bigger increases in central Government support for Norfolk under this Government than there were under the ancien regime that the hon. Gentleman supported, and he should recognise that fact.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The hon. citizen—I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman; I got that in—has not yet replied to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk Given what he has just said, how does he explain the rise of 6.25 per cent. in council tax and the vehement protests of the leader of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition that the grant is not enough?
Mr. Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am trying, in a relatively short time, to answer the points raised in the debate. I have been asked many questions.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) asked me about the highways and fire calculations—two elements of grant in which Norfolk appears to be well below both its neighbouring authorities and the national average. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that there has been no change in the method of calculating SSAs. We have tried to use the most up-to-date data, so Norfolk's lower than average SSA increases must mean that Norfolk's figures have fallen compared with the national average. The figures have surprised the right hon. Gentleman; if they have surprised the council and it wants to raise the issue because it believes that there is an anomaly, the Department is prepared to consider the matter, but there has been no change in the formula used.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked whether there had been a bias in favour of urban areas under this Government. That is not the case; there have been no changes in methodology, as she knows. Indeed, since the 1998–99 settlement, the increases for shire areas have been 4.4 per cent. compared to 4.2 per cent. for London and other

185WH
metropolitan areas, so there has been no bias whatever against the shire areas. Hon. Members know that there have been changes in the area cost adjustment. We have done no more than previous Governments. We have updated the data regarding area cost adjustment. I have not yet heard that it is the position of the Conservative party that we should not have done so. It would be strange if that were its position, because that is not what the Conservatives did when they were in office. Equally, they know that we are due to publish a Green Paper to examine local government finance and these issues will, hopefully, be dealt with at that time.
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to our second debate.

Aviation and the Environment
11 am
Mr. David Taylor: I note the depth of versatility lurking in our Whips Office. It is remarkable that a former member should spring to a ministerial seat and have responsibilities for such a varied selection of topics as North Norfolk and night noise. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in his new role with responsibility for aviation. Indeed, among the rich and varied bequests left in the pending tray for my hon. Friend by his predecessor is the hugely important Green Paper "The Future of Aviation". It invites ideas and views on a wide range of aviation and airport issues that will underpin the publication later this year of the first White Paper on aviation since 1985. During the intervening period, the economic, environmental and political framework within which airports and airlines operate has changed in the most dramatic way.
Today's debate is the first parliamentary opportunity for Back Benchers to flag up their own concerns. In my case, those concerns will be restricted purely to civil aviation and will not include military or defence activities. The changes during the past decade and a half to which I referred include a doubling of the number of planes using United Kingdom airports. Unless that rate of growth is dampened down, in the next two decades Britain will need four new airports each the size of Heathrow, and the number of passengers will rise from 180 million this year to more than 400 million by 2020. "So what?" say those who regard growth in economic activity as an unmitigated good. I expect that they would point to the report in 1999 by Oxford Economic Forecasting that asserted that aviation increased United Kingdom productivity, and that even limited restraints on growth would have serious negative effects. The report included charts demonstrating that the economy in 2015 would be £30 billion or 2.5 per cent. larger if passenger numbers were to be allowed to soar into the stratosphere unchecked by social and environmental constraints. Those forecasts were buttressed by the astonishingly complacent view of the London Chamber of Commerce that "capacity must be provided to meet all reasonable demand."
I believe that the previous Minister responsible for aviation made it clear that the Government reject the predict and provide strategy and are opting for a demand management approach that recognises environmental considerations and political realities and listens to the important aviation lobby.
Present growth rates are not sustainable. Issues that the previous aviation White Paper failed to predict or tackle have been in a holding pattern for too long, circling high above the political arena, although they are now starting to land in the Government's lap, whether or not the Government want them to.
I declare an interest to the extent that East Midlands airport is in my constituency. Last summer, East Midlands airport's own survey showed that there are 5,400 employees in firms on or near the airport site, perhaps 10 per cent. of whom are my constituents. No hon. Member with an airport in his constituency is

187WH
unaware of the economic significance of aviation and its contribution to constituents' standard of living. Equally, hon. Members' e-mail in-boxes are probably bulging with examples of how those living in airport communities experience damage to their quality of life. The main types of environmental impact are: the effect of aircraft noise on communities near airports or under flight paths; the effect of emissions from aircraft on climate change; local air quality; the effects of emissions from aircraft at airports and of the airport infrastructure that serves them; noise, emissions and congestion arising from surface access to airports, especially from road transport; land take and urbanisation resulting from airport development; and, other environmental effects of airports such as water quality, energy consumption and contaminated land and waste.
Other hon. Members will want to consider noise and climate change, so I shall refer to those matters only briefly before speaking about other concerns in more detail and suggesting the way ahead for the Minister and his colleagues.
Noise from aircraft, especially at night, arouses the strongest feelings of those who are affected by it. Ten days ago, in Kegworth, I addressed a local meeting organised by People Against Intrusive Noise—PAIN. It really is a pain when excessive noise occurs because there is inadequate international regulation to enforce limits on aircraft or inadequate local regulation to control impact around airports.
Last year's consultation paper on noise included some useful suggested changes to the existing noise control powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and my first question to the Minister is: when will those changes be put in place? British tolerance is beginning to stretch very thinly over the cauldron of public protest and there will be direct, European-type action if something is not done soon, especially about night noise.
My local planning authority, North West Leicestershire district council is consulting on night flying limits, which it will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to impose using his powers under section 78 of the 1982 Act. It thereby seeks to safeguard the amenities and the environment of people living around East Midlands airport, not only in its own area but in the South Derbyshire, Rushcliffe and Charnwood local authority areas. The council's proposed controls address the litany of complaints so frequently encountered: a ban on movements by aircraft with high quota-count noise levels; a limit on aircraft movements at night; a reducing night-noise quota; monitoring and track-keeping; early phasing out of the noisiest aircraft; a noise management system with surcharges and penalties and a noise insulation scheme.
Those are challenging topics for debate, but I hope that the new owners, Manchester airport, with its long track record of striving to be responsive to community concerns, will be able to agree a modus vivendi that recognises and resolves those local problems promptly and effectively. The airport recently introduced a consultative forum and noise-preferential routes, and noise and track monitoring equipment will soon be introduced. There is a foundation on which the new owners can build.
188WH
The impact of a rapidly changing and expanding aviation industry on global warming and climate change is probably the main threat to the wider environment. In a recent report, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expressed anxiety about carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft and about the possible increase in global warming due to condensation trails. Globally, aircraft emissions of carbon dioxide already account for about 3.5 per cent. of all human-induced global warming; in comparison, current United Kingdom emissions contribute 2.5 per cent. More worryingly, with those emissions set to rise at about 3 per cent. a year, the IPCC estimates that aviation's contribution to global warming will be about 7 per cent. by 2050.
Aviation is not covered by the Kyoto agreement and I put it to the Minister that it can no longer be excluded from the policy discussions on climate change as its emissions are now clearly implicated. A recent report entitled "The Plain Truth: Aviation and the Environment", commissioned by Transport 2000 and the Ashden Trust, argued powerfully that aviation must respond as other industries are beginning to do to the challenge of climate change. I hope that the Minister agrees.
At a lower level in terms of height and detail, is local air pollution. Large airports and their aircraft can be major polluters because so many aspects of their operations produce toxic emissions that are a major threat to human health. The Government state in their Green Paper that the effect of emissions from aircraft on air pollution in the vicinity of airports is in most cases less than that from road traffic to and from airports. That may broadly be the case, but as road traffic becomes progressively cleaner, the proportion of total emissions from aircraft will grow and aviation emission standards will have to be raised.
Official data on UK airport emissions is hard to find, but the general American experience and the European experience show seriously heightened levels of air pollution around larger airports. Research in the United States and mainland Europe reveals that airports are comparable to large industrial plants in respect of their toxic emissions. In the US, the top four emitters of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are chemical factories, refineries, power stations and airports. A study of Frankfurt airport showed that it was responsible for three quarters of all unburnt hydrocarbons in the city. In an area measuring 9 by 12 km around the much smaller Zurich airport, almost 30 per cent. of nitrogen oxides were found to be of airport origin.
One exception to the near invisibility of British data on the all too detectable air pollution around airports is Heathrow. The nearly interminable terminal 5 inquiry heard from the British Airports Authority that present levels around Heathrow were not unlike those at Frankfurt airport. Present air pollutants in a 6 by 8 km area around Heathrow are, according to the BAA, largely attributable to the airport—three quarters of sulphur dioxide, 60 per cent. of nitrogen oxides and almost half of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.
Growth in air traffic linked to the construction of terminal 5—I shall not press the Minister for his predictions about the outcome of the inquiry—would

189WH
have a worrying effect on air pollution, especially from nitrogen oxides whose levels could be expected to more than double.
Two other pollutants in and around airports are ozone, formed in the presence of sunlight from VOCs and nitrogen oxides, and the particulate matter frequently produced by airports and aviation activities. Both pollutants are associated with a wide range of respiratory diseases and loss of lung function.
When does the Minister expect the publication of the interdepartmental group report on the costs and benefits of measures to improve air quality, which should help to achieve the targets n the national air quality strategy? Will he confirm that demonstrable health benefits to residents in airport communities as a result of reduced air pollution will be a significant factor shaping the development of our future aviation policy?
One of the most insidious and depressing effects frequently linked to airport development is the loss of, or damage to, natural habitats, attractive landscapes, biodiversity and heritage sites, collectively caused by land take—a phrase as unattractive as its impact. Evidence in my own constituency is not difficult to find. When those hon. Members present today are next on the Leicestershire section of the M1, I urge them to look carefully as they drive north from junction 23A—in other words, leaving the civilisation of the midlands or Leicestershire behind—and they will see the beginnings of an urban sprawl that threatens in he medium term to engulf the attractive villages of Castle Donington, Isley Walton and Kegworth. The location of those villages lying close to the east midlands nexus of the A42, the A50 and the M1 has been a key factor, but the nearby airport has certainly been a catalyst for the worsening position. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that much tighter requirements for the use of brown land will reduce to a minimum the land needed for any developments required by the airport and related activities?
Finally, I draw attention to the occasional problems associated with waste disposal and the discharge of water into inadequate drainage systems and water courses, which contributed to the serious flooding experienced last year in parts of the north-west Leicestershire villages of Hemington and Lockington.
What can the White Paper do to reduce the significant environmental costs that are being largely met by those outside the aviation industry? The Minister is a keen walker, and one useful short walk that he might make this afternoon is along the ministerial corridor in Eland house to the office of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—it might even be next door—whose richly varied brief includes responsibility for the nation's rail network, which he seems to be standing up to very well.
The two Ministers might then examine the report "From Planes to Trains", which was commissioned in October 2000 by Friends of the Earth. That looks at realising the significant environmental potential from shifting short-haul flights, both domestic and European, to rail. The pre-Hatfield findings ai e that the rail routes in the UK that offer the greatest scope for cutting large volumes of air traffic are the east and west coast main lines. There is some limited potential to develop the
190WH
midlands and the Great Western main lines, but as the majority of domestic air traffic is between the regions and London, rail links between air919ports outside London offer less scope for substitution.
The extent to which the transfer can take place depends crucially on the level of investment made in the rail network and rolling stock to reduce travel times, and on the provision of rail links to all major domestic airports. That would be achieved most easily in a rail network back under public control, as I am sure that the Minister would agree although he may not confess it now. Obtaining modal shifts from air to rail is one way to apply a gentle brake to unrestricted and harmful aviation growth. I hope that the White Paper will also take a more direct route to regulate environmental impact by improving the planning regimes and policies at local, regional and national level that have proved so ineffective in the past two decades.
The present planning system for airport developments is totally inadequate even when it limits its aspirations to mitigation packages to offset some of the environmental impacts or at most to attempt to slow the rate at which they worsen. I said that I welcome the abandonment of the predict-and-provide planning regime, which seemed continually to approve expansions or to pre-determine them. Long-dormant permissions, granted on appeal with few environmental constraints, as was the case in 1983 in my area after a decision by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, can still be reactivated to the chagrin of those affected.
Statutory environmental impact assessments are not the whole answer either. EIAs, especially when they are commissioned and financed by developers, are immensely variable in their scope, accuracy, detail, clarity and transparency. Those that cover airport developments cry out for a standard, more rigorous and well-defined approach. In any case, EIAs predict a level of impact of activities a decade or more in advance. Whether those estimates are borne out by future events, and whether the mitigation measures imposed prove to be adequate, never seems to be reviewed. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the White Paper totally overhauls the airport planning system, which satisfies neither the developer in its speed, cost or flexibility, nor the airport communities in delivering environmental safeguards, nor the planners in providing adequate opportunities to enforce them.
It is generally agreed that the aviation White Paper must be target driven. As the Aviation Environment Federation argues, tough but realistic targets for noise and emissions would protect the environment, reassure residents living under flight paths and ensure that the industry had clear incentives to obtain a much more sustainable and socially acceptable approach. All campaigners recognise that aviation is largely dependent upon a complex arrangement of European and international agreements, so collective action at those levels is crucial.
Britain must press hard for international aviation to become part of the Kyoto agreement on global warming and we must persuade the international community to adopt and implement the standards recommended by the World Health Organisation on noise. The Government also need to legislate for local targets for noise and air pollution levels.

191WH
After modal shift and tighter planning and legislative regimes, there remains one powerful way of levelling the uneven airfield that favours the interests of the aviation industry against those of the environment and airport communities—charges and taxes. It is therefore appropriate that this debate is taking place a week before the Budget. I shall send a copy of today's Hansard to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we are to manage the demand for air transport in a sustainable way—the present regime clearly cannot—we must ensure that the polluter pays, not just pay lip service to the principle. The aviation industry does not pay the costs of the noise pollution and climate change that it causes. A 1995 study assessed those externalities for the EU at an annual cost of £11 billion. Although charges and taxes seem to be best co-ordinated at European level, the Dutch have shown, through a noise tax at Schipol airport, that it may be feasible to introduce local environmental charging at national level.
The aviation industry does not pay for its pollution or its fair share of taxes. In fact, it is heavily subsidised. The White Paper must spell out the levels of that unjustified subsidy. There is no VAT on the purchase of planes or airline tickets. Vast sums are spent providing surface access to airports, particularly on roads. Worst of all from an environmental perspective is the fact that no duty is paid on aviation fuel. Indirect subsidies at EU level have been estimated at £20 billion annually. Again, changes in fiscal regimes can be achieved only by agreement at European or international levels, but the Government must start to move down that path, lobby for change and negotiate. Aviation has been a tax avoider for far too long. We must be realistic. In the short term, it will be impossible to reach global agreement on fuel taxation, but an OECD aviation fuel tax or a harmonised climate change levy on landing fees should be possible. Some of the revenues raised could go into international funding of projects to tackle climate change.
I hope that the White Paper will draw a vapour trail in the sky beyond which future growth in aviation must not go without addressing the serious environmental concerns that I have described. The frequently heard argument that restriction of aviation growth would inhibit general economic growth must be seriously scrutinised, but many observers believe that it will not stand up to examination. Indeed, it is probable that planning for limited growth would achieve the double top of improved quality of life for airport communities and enhanced standards of living for those who work both in the aviation industry and in the wider economy.
The new owners of East Midlands airport envisage that passenger numbers will treble to 6 million a year and that the number of jobs will double to more than 11,000. It is undeniably a major regional spur to help economic development to take off, but more than 40,000 people live near the airport and are deeply concerned about its impact on their communities and lives. That dilemma is repeated up and down the country as regional airports brace themselves to absorb the surplus growth decanted by the London airports.
192WH
I have shown how economic growth versus environmental protection can be made a win-win game. We need clear policies to reduce greenhouse emissions from aviation; fiscal changes to ensure that air travellers and freight hauliers pay the full environmental and social costs of their decision to fly; regulatory measures and incentives to invest in cleaner, quieter aircraft; investment in inter-city rail to reduce short-haul demand; stricter application of regulations governing airport use; and, vital to many constituencies such as mine, a more strategic approach to the consideration of plans for new airports like Finningley in Yorkshire, or expanded ones, such as East Midlands airport. A greater public debate, which does not pit the well resourced aviation industry against cash-strapped communities, is of the essence. There is a pressing need for a huge change in public attitudes and policy towards aviation. The forthcoming White Paper provides an opportunity to address that need for change. I have every confidence that the new Minister will not miss that opportunity.
11.24 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am pleased to take part in the debate as I represent Farnborough, the birthplace of British aviation.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) spent the best part of half an hour criticising one of Britain's greatest 20th century success stories. We were one of the first countries in the world to master the art of flying when, on 16 October 1908, Samuel Franklin Cody took to the skies from Laffan's plain in Farnborough. We remain one of the world's leading aerospace countries, through our manufacture of air frames and aero engines. Our airlines are also second to none. It is therefore astonishing that the hon. Gentleman, who has an airport in his constituency and who has been on innumerable councils in Leicestershire, should tell us what bad news that is.
I hope that he will tell his constituents the bad news that he has in store for them. If his recommendations to his ministerial colleagues were accepted—although I do not expect for a minute that they will be—the price of his constituents' air tickets to Ibiza, Florida or wherever would go up by 50 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's speech was seriously devoid of practical suggestions, other than that we should switch from plane to rail. That process is already happening and the privatisation of the rail industry will ensure that the process accelerates faster than it would have done had the railways remained under the dead hand of nationalisation.
Mr. David Taylor: No one, least of all me, is suggesting that the economic and social importance of East Midlands airport to the people of the region, and south Yorkshire and beyond, is not considerable. The proposed measures would enhance the profitability of the airport and its value to the region. Conflict between improved environmental considerations and economic performance is not inevitable.
Mr. Howarth: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman flatly contradicting himself. He said earlier that we needed to increase taxes on what he calls the polluters, that people need to pay more, that the cost of aviation in terms of its alleged pollution needs to be

193WH
more transparent, and so on—and now he says that of course he welcomes that investment in his constituency. I am sure that he does, and that when he goes back to his constituency he will find that the Conservative candidate there will, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be armed with a copy of Hansard, showing the hon. Gentleman's rather Luddite view on the development.
Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman deny aircraft pollution? Does he deny the effects on global warming or the effects of environmental pollution generally, particularly noise pollution, of which my constituents in north London are well aware? Surely it remains the policy of his party, along with others in the House, that the polluter should pay.
Mr. Howarth: I had hardly got into my remarks when the hon. Lady intervened. Of course I recognise that there is inevitably some pollution. There is a degree of pollution from motor cars, for which the motorist pays. Under the Government, the motorist pays extremely heavily—much more heavily than under the previous or the next Conservative Government, after May or whenever that will be.
However, Parliament needs to try to balance out the conflicting interests. I fear that, in trying to achieve a balance, the hon. Gentleman has skewed his argument so far in one direction as greatly to inconvenience the travelling public, whether the business community or holidaymakers. Air travel is a necessity for business people and one of the great joys of life for leisure travellers. It has opened up the world and given people easier access to distant regions, which once would have been impossible. I suppose that one could go to the far east with P&O, but one would need more than the four weeks holiday that most people get. Air travel gets people to such destinations more quickly.
Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is most generous. The core worry and our dominant concern is the night noise produced by freight aircraft, particularly the older variety. Dealing with that will not imperil or threaten package flights or holiday makers.
Mr. Howarth: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. When in London, I live about 300 yd north of runway 27 right. I happen to be an aviator, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my description; I mean the northern parallel runway at Heathrow. I am well aware that jumbo aircraft arriving at 4 am during the summer can disrupt people's sleep patterns. I understand that; I am talking about getting the balance right.
The hon. Gentleman seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge the efforts that the industry has already made, particularly in the United Kingdom. For instance, improved burn technology and air frame efficiency and better operating procedures have cut the consumption of fuel per passenger mile in the past 40 years by no less than 70 per cent. That fantastic achievement was achieved in part by the International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations on noise, and the fuel crisis of the 1970s may have helped; but it is also
194WH
the result of the industry's determination to operate more fuel-efficient aeroplanes. It did not happen by accident. It needed investment.
The Government have lauded their investment in the aerospace industry. For instance, Rolls-Royce has received another £250 million to develop the 900 and 600 variants of the Trent engine. It is hoped that those engines will produce even further efficiencies in power performance and reduce fuel consumption and, therefore, pollution. The aircraft will also become quieter. Everyone must know that aircraft have become less noisy. One needs only to hear a Boeing 707 go past to know that—although the only ones to be seen nowadays are probably owned by corrupt and incompetent African dictators, of which there are quite a few. However, at air shows one can hear the difference between a 707 or a B52 and an Airbus. It is amazing to see an Airbus go overhead at that incredible angle and seem just to hang in the sky.
Credit ought to be given to the aerospace industry, and we should certainly sing the praises of the British industry. I am sure that you would be extremely upset if I did not mention the contribution made by your constituents at Hawarden, Mr. Jones, where the Airbus wings are made. They have joined others across the United Kingdom to ensure the success of the British aerospace industry by making more efficient and quieter aircraft. The aircraft entering airline fleets today are typically 20 decibels quieter than comparable aircraft of 30 years ago. Ours is a success story.
I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire about the ludicrous nature of our planning arrangements. I congratulate the Minister on obtaining his position as Aviation Minister. Will he please ensure that the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions looks urgently at the matter? We cannot go on dealing with planning procedures in this Neanderthal fashion. The terminal 5 inquiry has been going on for five or six years and has cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The issue is simple. Of course there are passions on both sides, but there are arguments for T5 and against it; let us hear them and make a decision. We should stop fiddling around in this extraordinary way, damaging the United Kingdom's economic effectiveness and continuing the uncertainty for people who live in the environment of Heathrow.
I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire on the planning issue. If he wants to stop night flying at Heathrow, then fine; let us find a brand new airport, as has been done in Munich. We would need a brand new greenfield site. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us what part of North-West Leicestershhire would be suited to the new site.
Caroline Flint: Finningley.
Mr. Howarth: I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants to tell us about that. I gather that she will do so later. I flew in and out of Finningley when it was an RAF airfield, so I know it.
South-east England will not be given another airport. Under present planning arrangements, another airport is not realistic. The attitude of the antis is understandable. Who wants a socking great six-runway aerodrome taking up square miles of crowded

195WH
countryside in south-east England? We must maximise the benefit of what we have. Heathrow was the most successful airport in Europe because it was revolutionary. It had two parallel runways when no other airport in Europe did. Charles de Gaulle now has six and we are being overtaken by our continental partners. It is not realistic to consider an alternative new airport for London. We need to make the most of our assets and try to accommodate the demands of business and leisure travellers within the constraints of existing airports.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire talked about people who live near airports. We have new arrangements at Farnborough, which is the designated business airport for the south-east of England, as the Minister knows. It has now been agreed that a company called TAG, more familiar to the public as TAG McLaren, the Formula 1 operation, is to turn the aerodrome into the executive jet centre for southeast England, with 28,000 movements. That figure is causing my constituents some concern. The figure for Heathrow is something like 420,000. My constituents are concerned that the site will turn into another Heathrow, although that is simply not going to happen. I understand the worries that people express, but in any estate agency properties are marketed on the strength of easy access to Heathrow or East Midlands airport or the prospect of easy access to Finningley. The public want that access. What is at stake is the reconciling of the different demands.
We have a great deal to be proud of in our aerospace industry. It has served our people well and enhanced Britain's competitiveness. Good air links are a vital factor in companies' investment decisions about the United Kingdom. Without them—if we price those involved out of the market—we shall seriously damage the economy. That is the context in which we must consider the burdens that we are willing to impose on our industry, to its detriment against competitors.
11.39 am
Joan Ruddock: Noise is one of the prime problems for Londoners today. Despite what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has said, it is not only the noise produced by an individual aircraft that needs to be considered but the overall pattern of aircraft movements in London.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on having secured today's debate. I agree with absolutely everything that he said about wider environmental damage and climate change taxation. However, I shall refer to noise.
HACAN ClearSkies, the Londonwide campaign on the matter, suggests that 1 million Londoners are now affected by aircraft noise. Some of that noise comes from City airport, but the vast majority comes from Heathrow, where between 75 and 80 per cent. of the year prevailing winds mean that aircraft fly over London.
Like the hon. Member for Aldershot, the Department asserts that there has been a decrease in the amount of noise. We have reason to believe that the investigations
196WH
and records that the Department makes and keeps are inadequate in assessing the current position, as I shall explain.
The noise data maps collected by the Department measure only the noise of take-offs, not landings. Takeoffs have become quieter, but the big increase in complaints in recent years has related to landing aircraft. The data do not include noise of less than 57 decibels, yet in large areas of London people are complaining about noise levels of 54 decibels or less. The data do not take account of the number of planes, which is a continuing problem despite individual planes becoming quieter. The area measured is based on a study conducted more than 18 years ago, and it takes no account of what is happening today. Parts of London that were not previously affected are seriously affected this year and have been for the past five years, my constituency, Lewisham, Deptford, in south-east London being a case in point.
Furthermore, the hour between 6 am and 7 am, the busiest and noisiest hour of the day, is not measured. Londoners want the few aircraft that fly in and make the greatest noise in the early hours of the morning to be completely banned. I am sometimes woken in bed in south-east London, many miles from Heathrow, between 4 am and 5 am. The economic value of such flights is extremely small, and Londoners are insistent that that economic price is too great a price to pay for people constantly being woken in the early hours of the morning.
The numbers affected are much greater than the Department's data suggest. The United Kingdom data suggest that only 158,000 people are affected by noise of more than 60 decibels around Heathrow and Gatwick. However, there are several reasons for believing that that is a serious underestimate. Most notably, no account is taken of people who live under flight paths but not in the immediate vicinity of airports, my constituents being a case in point. A more recent study of noise levels around Heathrow shows that many more people are disturbed by aircraft noise. That study, which was conducted by the European Environment Agency, found that 440,00 people around the airport are exposed to noise of more than 55 decibels.
I have several questions to ask the Minister. I wanted to refer to the World Health Organisation, but I know that other colleagues want to speak. The WHO has shown the severity of problems ranging from insomnia and stress to mental disorders in adults and retarded learning among children subjected to intense aircraft noise around airports. The WHO proposals specify safe noise levels that are well below those operating at our major airports. Do the Government or industry have plans that offer a realistic prospect of reducing aircraft noise to the safe levels recommended by the WHO? What progress has been made on the European Commission's plans to draft a noise directive that would have further implications for aviation in this country? Can the Minister confirm that radar controllers' video map centrelines have been extended from 15 miles to 20 miles from Heathrow? When will the new night-time arrangements that his predecessor announced on 21 December last year be put in place? Does he have any idea when we will hear the result of the terminal 5 inquiry? Finally, what plans are there to extend proper

197WH
noise monitoring to areas such as my own, in south-east London, which are not near an airy ort but are under flight paths?
11.45 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on introducing this important subject into the debate today and for the comprehensive way in which he covered the subject.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the effect of aviation on climate change. As we had a debate in Westminster Hall on climate change before the COP 6 talks in the Hague, it may be best if I do not read into the record all the effects of climate change. I simply note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recently said that the effects of climate change in its worst-case scenario have doubled. The Government acknowledged that, when the Deputy Prime Minister said that the report from the IPCC showed that we risked major irreversible changes unless we significantly cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
Some 96 per cent. of the deaths from the changes resulting from natural disasters happen in developing countries. We in the western world must think about the impact of our activities on those countries.
Does aviation have an effect on climate change? International freight is projected to 1 row by 70 per cent. between 1992 and 2004 because of increased global trade. That is one of the fastest-rising causes of greenhouse gas emissions at the, moment. In effect, international trade is getting a free ride because those emissions are untaxed and excluded from the Kyoto principles. Members of the Conservative party who have great concern for the farmers, as I do, know that a reason why our farm produce is under-priced is that it is so cheap to import by air freight. Therefore, there is a good sustainable environmental reason, as well as a local economy reason, to support British farmers by reconsidering what aviation is doing to farming in this country.
Aeroplanes emit 2 per cent. of all man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere and some nitrogen oxide, which creates ozone—a potent greenhouse gas. The IPCC has developed a measure for calculating the effect of aircraft emissions, which the organisation calls "radiative forcing". The emissions, being at a higher altitude, have a higher warming capacity. Using that formula, the IPCC calculated in 1992—since when we have experienced growth—that aviation emissions contributed 3.5 per cent. of the effect of global warming. That is the equivalent of the entire CO2 output of Canada. Canada is involved in Kyoto, but aviation is not. Clearly, that situation needs to be addressed in future talks on global warming.
Emissions of CO2 are set to double by 2015, and nitrogen oxide emissions will rise by 96 per cent. The Government have acknowledged in their global change programme that by the year 2050, we should have reduced CO2 emissions by some 50 or 60 per cent. The Deputy Prime Minister said that that should be our target, but I cannot understand how we can approach that target without including aviation within it. The aircraft industry has made a huge social and economic
198WH
impact. We have until 2050, but let us start planning now so that there is an incremental change within aviation. No Member has suggested an overnight change that might frighten many whose economies and livelihoods depend on aviation. However, we have an opportunity to start planning now within international agreements to include aviation, as with any other form of transport, in environmental considerations.
Some argue that economic benefits are such that we cannot curb air growth. The same arguments could be advanced about the economic benefits of road traffic. However, during the past 20 years, road traffic has increased at a greater rate than economic growth. Air traffic is increasing similarly because it is so cheap to use air for both freight and passenger traffic.
Freight, in particular, undermines our own local economy. That was brought home to me by a recent constituency case. My local authority is considering an application to allow an MOD facility at Aberporth to become a civil aviation facility. Although it would be located in Blaenannerch, a rural village in remote west Wales, it would become the second largest civil airport in Wales—second only to Cardiff. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire about the planning process, which seems completely inadequate in terms of allowing local residents to have their say and make a real assessment of the impact of such a facility.
The environmental impact assessment has been funded by the developer, which means that local residents have no faith in it. It talks of reaching 8,800 flights from Aberporth within two years, increasing by 10 per cent. each year thereafter. That is clearly taking United Kingdom statistics and applying them to a remote site in west Wales. I do not share the same worry as some local residents about such figures, although I appreciate their concern at the potential growth in air flights. However, we are not talking about west Wales decanting from London. Aberporth is a five-hour car journey from London, so I doubt whether people will fly into west Wales to relieve pressures in south-east England. We are two hours from Cardiff.
Will the Minister explain the role for small civil airports, particularly in remote areas such as west Wales? I have some faith in the application because it is linked to a technology park and a move away from an MOD facility to a Civil Aviation Authority-controlled facility would be an improvement. In terms of the environmental impact, I have slightly more faith in the CAA than the MOD. My constituents want to know how the Government see aviation fitting into sustainable development. The Green Paper entitled "The Future of Aviation" mentions regional plans, and places them in a Welsh economic context.
There is no doubt that aviation has an effect on climate change, but that it is missed out from all international considerations. That is a clear sign that the problem must be addressed. The aviation industry must be part of sustainable development. All other industries are, and the aviation industry—important though it is in the economy—should not have an advantage over other parts of the economy. Several steps can be taken. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no tax on aviation fuel. That may be prohibited under the Chicago convention,

199WH
but an emission charge tax may be considered in terms of how we can internalise the full costs of the flight, including the environmental costs.
The industry has improved noise emissions. It has done so because it knew that the Government were interested in noise. Until now, not so much attention was paid to noise emissions. Perhaps the industry can work with the Government in improving emissions, but I should like to see some form of charges so that some of the older freight aircraft that are in use pay for their effect on the environment. We must also examine the removal of unfair state subsidies. There is a VAT exemption on air tickets. It is possible that Air France puts direct state subsidies into its operations. Let us consider the infrastructure involved in constructing an airport. A road alignment must take place for even the small airport that has been suggested for my constituency, and that will have to be paid for by the local taxpayers, many of whom are upset that we are using objective 1 money.
My understanding is that airports are excluded from the provisions of integrated pollution control, which were introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Will the Minister reconsider the matter? Why should airports be excluded when factories and other industrial processes are not? Airports have an effect in terms of local air pollution and climate change. It is worrying that airports are not included in IPC, which is the highest standard of pollution control in this country. Airports should be included.
The autumn assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation will provide an opportunity to press such issues. The Government have at least flagged up some of the concerns in their Green Paper, and I am grateful that they are aware of those matters. International standards for aircraft emissions have been agreed in the past through the ICAO, and it can be done again. With more work, international aviation can be included within our Kyoto targets. Given the disappointments in the Hague, some might feel that, if we cannot even address the current situation, more should be done on climate change. However, it is a clear omission if international aviation cannot be included in our Kyoto targets. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by Members today, and consider how to factor them into the Government's future programme and the White Paper.
11.52 am
Caroline Flint: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) to his new position as Minister, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) for securing the debate. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), one of my local colleagues, who shares my interest in seeing Finningley fulfil its potential in the growing industry of airports and aviation.
As Members may have become aware, the proposed Finningley airport is in my constituency. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) flew in, and I am also pleased to hear that he
200WH
flew out again. There is no doubt that many Members who have an interest in aviation are aware of the superb facilities at the Finningley site, which has one of the longest runways in the United Kingdom. It is a shame that the previous Government, who decided to close that excellent facility and advanced a proposal for yet another prison—there are already three in the area—did not use joined-up thinking to realise its potential for recycling millions of pounds of public investment. Stories abound that Manchester airport was interested in Finningley as its second runway at the time. We might have avoided a huge public inquiry in relation to that site if Finningley's potential had been recognised earlier.
I understand that airports must be good neighbours. I am not naïve enough to believe that there is never a conflict between short-term commercial interests and effective environmental controls. I have made a detailed submission to the Department in relation to its paper on the future of aviation and the separate consultation on aircraft noise.
More than 50,000 people have written to the council in support of Finningley being developed as a civil airport, and 500 people have written in against it. That is 100 to 1 in favour of the site rising from the ashes to be a major contributor to the local economy. That is what it signifies to many people who lived and worked with the RAF for many years. Whether the site meets its potential again is a question of sustainability. Considering the numbers who are against it, never have so few tried to thwart the ambitions of the many. I think that I am the only Member of Parliament who has presented to the House a petition of more than 20,000 people, in this case against a public inquiry into the proposed airport development.
Several simple proposals could significantly improve the environmental sustainability of UK airports. First, on a macro level, the Government should aim to reduce the average journey made by consumers to airports that provide an appropriate service. Each region should seek to provide suitable services for the majority of its residents. Government policy should deal with those regions where existing airports demonstrably fail to achieve the level and range of services to meet local needs. Yorkshire and the south-west are two such regions where new air services are desperately required. Where necessary, Government should recognise the availability of suitable brownfield sites—the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made that point well in respect of the development of the Ministry of Defence site in his constituency—and we should certainly consider using former RAF airbases. Where new airports are needed, we should avoid greenfield development.
Each region should guarantee a long-haul capacity. At present, we have too few airports capable of long-haul travel, unevenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. Our objective should be to have between 12 and 15 long-haul airports. Without those, there will be a rising trend of passengers travelling to the south-east or Manchester to take long-haul flights.
All of that is fully in keeping with the Government's other worthy objective of maximising the potential of regional airports to assist in economic regeneration for each region. The Government should develop sustainable access to airports and financially reward those that achieve the highest rates of access via public

201WH
transport and means other than cars. Rail-bus-air intermodal hubs should be created wherever possible. Two means of achieving that are diverting major intercity rail lines through airports and locating parkway stations at such interchanges. One Government target should be to reduce long road journeys to airports—mainly in the south-east—and the overall distances travelled to airports.
Every airport should have noise quotas applied and all new airports should match or better the noise controls of comparable airports. All airports should be given a timetable for meeting agreed minimum standards via nationally determined quiet operation policies and noise control programmes. Enforcement of noise controls should be separated from commercial considerations. The imposition of penalties on airports and airlines for breaches of noise controls or departure from noise preferential routes should be independent of the airport and local authorities, and should perhaps be administered by the Civil Aviation Authority. The present system discourages enforcement of noise controls for commercial reasons—especially, I regret to say, if the airport is partly or wholly owned by the local authority. Minimum noise standards should apply irrespective of how few or many residents are affected. Each household should be accorded the same minimum protection.
Freight should be encouraged by rail and then by air, rather than by road, and each region should be able to offer appropriate air freight services—Yorkshire and Humber makes a poor contribution in that respect, thereby adding to the number of freight-related journeys by road to airports further afield. The Government should deter and discriminate against internal flights that can more sustainably be undertaken by rail. However, the Government should not cap passenger numbers, which would only thwart legitimate consumer aspirations for international travel and have the effect either of driving up the price of travel as supply was restricted, or of driving passengers abroad to meet their air travel needs—neither is in the national or consumer interest.
The best way to improve airport capacity is to adopt policies to increase the number of regional airports that can provide long-haul as well as European flights, thereby increasing the chances of significant market penetration. That would assist in meeting the objective of reducing internal flights and short flights to European hubs, such as Amsterdam and Brussels, before a long-haul leg.
Government policy should seek a diversity of ownership and market penetration in the interests of competition and of the consumer, and of raising standards, including environmental standards. Policy should prevent a duopoly developing, with BAA and Manchester dominating the market and preventing the growth of other airport consortiums, especially in long-haul travel. By ensuring that, we will not only increase consumer and airline choice but raise standards through competition in this growing area of our economy.
12.3 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing
202WH
this debate. It is important that airport authorities never underestimate the impact of airports on local communities, nor should they evade their environmental responsibilities. However, I stress that we should not view developments at Birmingham international airport as totally a gloom and doom story, because the airport authority has made strides in recent years and provides a model of airports engaging in sustainable development but still entering legally binding agreements that protect the local community. Credit should be given for that.
Like my hon. Friend, I am conscious of airports' impact on jobs. Birmingham international airport employs as many people as MG Rover's Longbridge plant. Hon. Members will recall the shock waves that went through this House when Longbridge recently came under threat.
I want to focus on a couple of matters relating to noise. I, too, have noticed that noise levels in general are reducing thanks to the introduction of quieter aircraft, which is particularly important. My hon. Friend mentioned PAIN, and said that night flights are one of his core concerns. Birmingham airport operates what is probably one of the most stringent night flying policies in the country. Operators whose aircraft exceed agreed levels are fined the equivalent of a full runway charge, and the money thereby generated is diverted into local community schemes. Those sums are reinforced by a £50,000 annual grant paid by the airport, so it is not true to say that air operators do not pay. Stringent agreements can be entered into, and by and large operators observe them. Where they fail to do so, the money generated through fines can be recycled into local communities.
As is doubtless true of airports throughout the country, Birmingham has invested a lot of money—about £500,000—in monitoring and tracking equipment to ensure that aircraft follow noise preferential routes. In 1999, about 98 per cent. of aircraft taking off from Birmingham did indeed follow such routes. By investing in the right equipment and engaging in the right agreements, it is possible to ensure that local communities are protected.
Reference was made to American studies on pollution and the impact on health, but Professor Roy Harrison of the University of Birmingham, who is a leading authority on the subject, has also done some interesting work. His two-year study of respiratory disease in the area around Birmingham international airport, which involved some 9,000 people, concluded that there were no significant health risks. In fact, where respiratory illness and similar conditions were found, they were as likely to be associated with smoking and housing conditions as with the airport itself. The air quality monitoring scheme at Birmingham international airport has revealed pollution levels that are lower than those at other sites monitored by Birmingham city council. Therefore, we should not automatically make such claims about airports.
Reference was made to surface transport, which is a crucial factor in ensuring that local communities do not suffer as a result of attempts to develop airports. The bus network in Birmingham has been expanded extensively to serve most of the surrounding areas. The airport itself is building a dedicated public transport interchange that is linked to Birmingham railway station, and as my hon.

203WH
Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, such developments are crucial. It is also investing £10 million in an environmentally friendly people mover, and is engaged in green commuter plans that are crucial for staff who commute to the airport. It is therefore clear that there are steps that airports can and should be encouraged to take.
In conclusion, I agree about the importance of protecting local communities and ensuring that the environment does not suffer when airports develop and expand. However, we should not underestimate the positive impact—in terms of jobs and other factors—of airport developments and we should not negate the efforts of airports such as Birmingham international to respond to the concerns of local communities.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), may I ask him to be extremely brief? I had intended to call him earlier, but he did not rise in his place. We must allow the Opposition spokesman and in particular the Minister adequate time to reply.
12.10 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Winterton, and I apologise for failing to catch your eye earlier. I thought that I had made my intentions clear. I acknowledge that significant contributions are yet to come from the two Front-Bench spokesmen and I look forward to hearing them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate and raising an issue that is vital to this country's transport debates, but is regularly ignored in debates about sustainability. We must acknowledge—and I do nothing to detract from it—that aviation is a great UK success story. Its growth has been phenomenal and is expected to intensify in the next few years.
Too often, however, the environmental and social aspects of the sustainability equation have been either less well understood or not debated at all. The Green Paper, "The Future of Aviation", sets out some of the important arguments. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and I belatedly welcome him to his position. Last year, he and I spent some time considering the transport legislation. As he was often not able to speak at all, it is a rare treat to hear him twice in one morning.
The Oxford economic forecasting report has already demonstrated the economic success of the aviation industry but, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire pointed out, many serious concerns have been expressed about the limitations of that report.
We have had a measured debate, which has taken account of the delicate balance between environmental and economic issues. Hon. Members representing constituencies with airports have made valuable contributions. However, there can no longer be any escape from the need to tackle noise pollution, local air pollution and, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, the effects of global warming and climate change.
204WH
The Liberal Democrats accept that—directly or indirectly—aviation contributes hugely to the economy of this country and of the world, but it is not without cost. The British Airports Authority itself recently suggested the need for a sustainable aviation forum.
The "polluter pays" principle cannot be ignored and should be closer to the heart of aviation policy than it has been in the past. My hon. Friends have been vigorous in their opposition to terminal 5. Perhaps we can tempt the Minister to comment on it today. Urgent measures should be taken to deal with climate change in the international context, which means considering the introduction of an international aviation fuel tax.
The Green Paper starts the debate, which we hope the Minister will continue; and when the White Paper finally arrives, we hope that it will measure up to the task.
12.14 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. Let us hope that you are soon appointed Mr. Deputy Speaker officially.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing this important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, aviation is one of Britain's greatest success stories not only in manufacturing aircraft, but in respect of airline; and airports. British aviation is second only to the United States of America. It contributes £10 billion to our economy, 1.4 per cent. of gross domestic product, and it directly employs 180,000 people and supports the jobs of a further 380,000 people. Despite criticism during our debate, it contributes £2.5 bill on in taxes and represents 11 per cent. of UK export services.
The industry has been successful because it has allowed itself to innovate. In recent years there have been developments such as low-cost airlines, the growth of the charter market and the expansion of some regional airports. The Confederation of British Industry said that airport links with the rest of the world are crucial for any company or business that wants to invest in the United Kingdom. The industry has an excellent safety record, which I hope will continue.
There is no question but that air transport has an environmental impact and the forecast growth in air travel requires steps to he taken to tackle the issue. A rational debate is required, the starting point of which is that global aviation consumes 12 per cent. of fossil fuels burnt by the transport sector, and road transport 75 per cent. As a result of improved burn technology, air frame efficiency and better operating procedures, consumption of fuel per passenger mile over the past 40 years has been out by 70 per cent., which is a substantial improvement.
Aircraft are becoming quieter, and aircraft entering the fleet today are typically 20 decibels quieter than comparable aircraft 30 years ago, a reduction in noise annoyance of about 75 per cent. and a massive shrinkage of noise footprints around airports. Great progress has been made in the matter.

205WH
The industry's role has changed, and aircraft manufacturers appreciate what they must do in future years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke about aircraft noise recently. He said:
At present, aircraft noise is assessed against an absolute measure: decibels. However, the disturbance a noise causes depends upon the loudness in relation to the background noise. The noise of flights into Heathrow has little impact over West London, alongside traffic and other, daytime noise. But at night, London's suburbs are deadly quiet, and there are parts of the countryside that are noted for their tranquility. Some special areas are designated as such, citing their tranquility. There is absolutely no provision for tranquil areas in present policy. Public support for aviation depends upon the way these questions are addressed. The next Conservative government will not only expect the growing number of aircraft in our skies, a: technology continues to improve, to have less and less noise impact. We will also adopt relative systems of measurement for assessing the impact of aircraft noise. Furthermore, we will create a presumption that low flying air traffic should avoid tranquil areas and tranquil periods. This will not change much—or indeed anything— quickly, but it may lead to some significant changes at the margin."
That is a good start.
Terminal 5 and airport policy have been mentioned; if we have a difficulty, it is with strategic planning for airspace and airports. Governments of all colours have not always been willing to grasp the nettle, because of the four or five-year cycle of parliamentary elections and the longer-term cycle required to develop airspace. The terminal 5 inquiry cost between £70 million and £85 million and since it began, Charles do Gaulle airport has completed a third runway and started a fourth. Schipol will have five runways by 2003, yet the five London airports combined have only six runways. There is a problem, especially in the south-east, of ensuring that capacity is met. Those issues need to be addressed and it is difficult to set out a sensible regional strategy; it is a pity that we cannot look at things strategically, across the whole country, until we know the result of the terminal 5 inquiry.
Airport operators can do a great deal about improved surface access; we heard that pollution caused by cars going to and from Heathrow may be more than that caused by the aircraft. The airline industry is a profitable industry, and so are airports; what is needed is a balancing factor to ensure that profits go into improving the infrastructure for passengers and reducing the environmental impact around airports. There are numerous examples, such as the London to Heathrow express rail link and Manchester an port's development and public transport strategy, which should be pursued to develop a more sustainable policy.
Overall, if air traffic is increasing it is sensible to try to accommodate it with investment. The only effective way to dampen down demand, as the to hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire recommends, is by taxation or by putting people off flying. People have a right to travel. We hear stories about rip-offs in the selling of cars and fuel, but here is an efficient industry that is delivering good value in terms of flights and packages so that people can move around the world. The criticisms we have heard today are unfair. We have a successful industry and if we work with it to ensure improved environmental standards and investment it should not be beyond the wit of the fourth largest economy in the world to allow people to travel and to improve environmental standards.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive way in which he dealt with both the global and local issues. I will try to answer the points that were raised, but I am fairly certain that I will not get them all in. I give a commitment to write to hon. Members about any that I miss.
Our consultation paper, "The Future of Aviation", published in December, raises a comprehensive range of issues for the longer term, with the environmental implications of the industry right at the heart. We must seek to minimise the impact of aviation on the environment. At the same time, our present and future policies must and do take account of the economic benefits from a strong and competitive airline industry and from enabling capacity to be provided where it is economically and environmentally justified. That is emphatically not the same as what has been termed, perhaps simplistically, "predict and provide".
We must look critically at the environmental dimension, and that is what we are doing. However, we must also recognize that demand arises because people want to fly for business, for holidays and to visit friends and relations. Whether aviation growth is sustainable is a decision for Government. We have recognised that responsibility, but it also involves personal decisions on how, and how often, we want to travel. We are therefore consulting very widely.
Responses to the consultation paper are due by 12 April. We are not just waiting passively for people to respond. We are actively involving representatives of the industry, and environmental and residents' groups, in the various strands of work as they are developed. We have commissioned a series of studies of airport issues in six regions of the UK. The studies assess the economic, environmental and social impacts, and we shall balance all those factors before reaching a view about whether additional capacity should be provided, either at a particular site or at all. Again, I stress that there is not a blanket commitment to meet demand and then just to mitigate the environmental effects. The demand management option is on the table.
We are working towards a White Paper on air transport looking about 30 years ahead, which will set a course that the aviation industry, its users, and those affected adversely by its operations, can follow. As most hon. Members here will know, jet aircraft are subject to noise certification requirements agreed through the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The noisiest subsonic jets—those certificated to chapter 2 standards—are already being phased out and, apart from minor exemptions, may no longer operate in Europe beyond March 2002. That has already delivered significant benefits, but we have to move on.
The Government have been prominent among those in ICAO who have argued for tighter standards for new aircraft. After much hard technical negotiation, in January this year CAEP—the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection—agreed on a set of recommendations to the ICAO council. The headline in respect of noise is the agreement on a new noise

207WH
standard for new jet aircraft 10 decibels lower—cumulatively across the three certification points—than the present chapter 3 standard. The new standard will apply from 2006.
I make no secret of the fact that we had argued vigorously for an even more stringent standard than the new one, which will consolidate the technical progress in engine and airframe design achieved by the industry. We shall continue to work in CAEP for a more stringent long-term standard and for action to prevent noise from increasing in the short term. For three years we have been arguing for a standard that ensures improvement in future designs and for a phase-out programme covering the noisiest chapter 3 types. They are generally the oldest aircraft, including many of those hush kitted to meet the standard.
As well as reducing noise at source, our policy includes mitigating its impact around airports. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are designated under section 80 for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That provision gives the Secretary of State powers to impose requirements on the operators of the airport, and of aircraft using it, for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effects of noise. The requirements imposed include departure noise limits—which for daytime have been reduced with effect from this week; the new night-time limits come into effect next month—night restrictions, noise preferential routes for departures and certain regulations for the management of arriving aircraft.
Hon. Members will be disappointed if they expect me to comment on the Heathrow terminal 5 decision process beyond noting that the inspector's report is being carefully studied in the Department. A mass of evidence on environmental matters was submitted to the T5 inquiry, which the inspector has had to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire expressed a keen interest in the possibility of East Midlands airport being designated for the purposes of section 78, as North West Leicestershire district council and others have requested. Although I am not entirely unacquainted with the east midlands
208WH
region, I am sure that everyone will understand that I cannot comment in detail on that request. The council and the airport are still discussing the noise controls at East Midlands airport. Now that the airport's sale has been completed, subject to clearance by the Office of Fair Trading, it may be possible to expedite the dialogue somewhat. We shall take a decision when all parties' representations have been considered.
Currently, the Government impose controls only at the three London airports. Elsewhere, we continue the long-standing policy that operational noise controls are best addressed at local level as far as possible. Many larger airports tend to model their controls on those at the designated airports, modified to suit local circumstances. Noise charges, set by airports themselves, are also used at the London airports and elsewhere.
We are considering improvements to the regime for non-designated airports. Separately from the consultation on the strategic issues for the White Paper, we have consulted on legislative proposals to strengthen those aerodromes' powers to control noise. We propose to repeal section 5 of the 1982 Act, whereby the CAA could be required to address environmental factors when licensing an aerodrome, and replace it with a new power of designation with an emphasis on locally agreed noise amelioration schemes. That will continue the broad policy of local resolution and add to the incentives to find effective and appropriate voluntary controls, with the possibility of central Government intervening where necessary. The paper was published last July, and the consultation period closed in October.
I apologise for being unable to move on to the issue of emissions, which is very important and was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I make a commitment to write to my hon. Friend about the situation with regard to emissions and about where the issue fits into Government policy in international negotiations and the work being done in the run-up to the publication of the White Paper. I shall write to all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. We now move to the next debate.

Regional Policies (Dorset)
12.30 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions for agreeing to respond to the debate. I understand that on Friday she will address the south-west regional assembly in Exeter, in a debate on the south-west; she comes from the north-east, and both it and the south-west are badly affected by foot and mouth disease. I hope that she agrees that the current foot and mouth crisis shows that regionalism is an irrelevance. In the jargon of the management consultant, Government regional policies add no value; indeed, the bureaucracy, centralisation and interference with local decision-making involved in regionalism engender a significant waste of scarce resources and are a drain on local communities. Nowhere is that truer than in Dorset.
I am also grateful to the Minister for responding because she has the greatest responsibility for decisions on the distributions of taxpayer' money to local government. Today I am giving her the opportunity to apologise to the people of Dorset for the consistently unfair discrimination that the Government have exercised against them. Why does a band D householder in Dorset pay 50 per cent. more towards the cost of the police than a similar householder in Hampshire? It is not because the police service in Dorset is any better than that in Hampshire but because the Government's formula is unjust. Why does a band D household in Dorset pay some £45 more towards its county council than such a household in Hampshire?
Hampshire can afford to spend more per pupil on education. One might think that that would suggest that Hampshire council tax payers had higher bills, but the reverse is true. Why is that? This year, Dorset's education standard spending assessment has risen by less than the national average. The county council is forced to spend about 5 per cent. above that SSA, but is still not able to afford to fund its pupils on a basis comparable to that of Hampshire. That is partly because the Liberal Democrat county council insists on holding back too much money at the centre, but also because the Government's funding formula discriminates against Dorset for being in the south-west. In 2001–02, £132.50 less per pupil was spent in Dorset than in Hampshire on pupils aged between 11 and 15 and £82 less per pupil was spent on pupils aged between five and 10.
Why have the Government awarded a special cost-of-living supplement to nurses working in Hampshire when they have denied it to those in Dorset? My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has campaigned strongly on that issue because he has Poole hospital in his constituency. All Dorset Members of Parliament are united in their opposition to the Government for their unjust handling of that. When Dorset and Hampshire were both members of Wessex health authority, they received equal treatment. However, now that the Government have forced Dorset into the south-west, nurses living and working in Dorset not only pay higher council taxes, for the reasons that I have just given, but are paid less.
To add insult to injury, for the third year running, the additional funding made available by the Government to Dorset health authority is significantly below the
210WH
national average, despite the fact that Dorset has a rapidly expanding population, a high proportion of whom are elderly. Indeed, Dorset receives less than its fair share on many counts—not only for health, education and police, but for district council services. One is bound to ask whether the Government are engaging in pork-barrel politics. It seems that because no Labour Members of Parliament represent Dorset seats, the Government are taking it out on the Dorset people by starving them of an equal share of resources.
Why else are the Government discriminating against the two district councils in my constituency—East Dorset and Christchurch—in their concessionary fares policy? No less than £54 million of taxpayers' money was made available to pay for the Government's compulsory concessionary fares policy. How much of that money reached the people who live in the East Dorset and Christchurch district council areas? Not a penny of that £54 million has been made available to East Dorset council, despite the fact that a high proportion of pensioners live there, and only £20,000 has been made available to Christchurch council; yet the additional burden of concessionary fares costs about £150,000 in East Dorset and £93,000 in Christchurch.
Christchurch has been running a system targeted on those in greatest need, which costs about £72,000 a year. The Government have now imposed a new system that would cost up to an additional £230,000 if the council could afford it. Christchurch has thus been forced into providing the minimum reduced service laid down by the Government, and many of those who benefit under the concessionary fares scheme will now lose out because the council can no longer afford it. The Government do not seem to realise that many elderly people cannot get on buses—it is physically impossible for them—and that a voucher scheme that would enable them to use taxis would be much more attractive. The Government have removed Christchurch council's local discretion; they have instead imposed a new burden, and they expect that burden to be funded through the council tax.
Mr. Robert Syms: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust defence of Dorset, which I fully support. It is ironic that many of the elderly who are supposed to benefit from concessionary fares will now be paying far more in council tax for that benefit.
Mr. Chope: Indeed, they will. In Christchurch, about 32 per cent. of households are pensioner households; in East Dorset, the figure is about 25 per cent. The Government are expecting those pensioner households to pay more council tax. Council tax poverty—when householders have to pay more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax—is a fast growing problem in Christchurch and Dorset. I suspect—my hon. Friend the Member for Poole will know—that it is probably at its worst among pensioners who live in the more rural parts of Dorset. While the Government continue with such regional policies, we shall have to work within that framework when representing our constituents.

I gave the Minister of State's private office notice of some of my concerns about the impact of the latest draft regional planning guidance on my constituency. After extensive consultation and an independent panel inquiry, it seems that planning guidance is being altered

211WH
at ministerial whim. I shall illustrate that by referring to the status of Bournemouth international airport. In 1999, the south-west regional planning conference proposed as part of policy 12 that
"Policies should support the further growth of Bournemouth International Airport as a sub-regional Airport and employment location."
After consultation and public examination before a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, the panel reported that the regional policy guidance should contain a policy to achieve
"the continued development of Bournemouth International Airport as an important airport for the region and as a major strategic employment site".
The Secretary of State now proposes a further change in the wording, so that the policy would support
"the continued development of Bournemouth International Airport as an important airport for the region and as a site for airport related development".
That last minute change of wording has caused consternation in Christchurch district council and Dorset county council, and among local businesses. It is also opposed by the regional development agency. The change is not supported by evidence, yet the process purports to be evidence based.
I have given the Minister notice of my intention to ask where the proposed change of wording originated, so I hope that she will be able to answer. The introduction to the paper that set out the proposed changes in December stated:
"This consultation draft is based on the draft approved in July 1999 … It takes account of comments from consultees in autumn 1999 and, in particular, the panel report on the public examination held in March 2000 of key issues raised by consultees."
However, neither the planning conference nor the panel suggested the changes that are now being proposed for incorporation by the Government. Indeed, the Government seem to be making up the rules as they go along.
Why is the Secretary of State proposing the change in status? The reason that he gives is that
"the role of Bournemouth Airport should be recognised but its development potential should not be minimalised by the development of inappropriate activities on the site. It is important in this location, therefore, that future development should have a strong need to be located at or near this facility".
No one really knows what those words mean. Surely the best judges of how to use the airport should be its owners and the present tenants and lessees of the land. Suspicions are mounting that the significance of the Secretary of State's wording was not thought through. Indeed, in the latest draft the Secretary of State
"invites comments from parties on how this might be achieved".
Perhaps he could begin by explaining, through the Minister of State, why the change is necessary in the first place. At the same time, he could explain what the words mean.
The Government say that they want Bournemouth international airport to be recognised as having regional importance. However, the regional air service studies that are being undertaken clearly envisage the airport serving a catchment area far beyond the confines of the south-west region. Indeed, some people fear that the aim
212WH
of the regional air service studies is to meet airport demand in the south-east by supplying additional capacity in the south-west. The results of the regional air service studies could be of major significance, yet they are not to be published until after the date of the expected general election and after the closing date for further representations on the regional planning guidance. Is it unduly cynical to view the Government's timing as calculated to deny local people and their elected representatives effective input into the major decisions that may already have been taken within Government but which have not yet been shared outside, for fear of frightening the electorate?
The A31 presents another example of the Government's high-handed treatment of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, as well as the rest of the people of Dorset. The south-west regional planning conference said that policies should
"support the Port of Poole and associated regional and local transport links, particularly the A31-Poole link."
The panel reported that the regional planning guidance should seek to achieve
"the continued development of the Port of Poole including the improvement of regional and local transport links and in particular the A31-Poole link."
The A31-Poole link is important to my constituents in Ferndown, because it will bring them traffic relief. However, the Secretary of State has proposed in his latest draft regional planning guidance that references to the A31 link should not be included,
"as this scheme is being progressed through the local transport planning process".
If only it were. However, it is not.

On 14 December, the Secretary of State issued the results of the first full local transport plan settlement, which was undecided about the Poole bridge scheme. Care was taken to explain that, even if a favourable opinion were to be adopted on the Poole bridge scheme, there should not be a read-across to the Poole-A31 local link. All that has been offered is the possibility of a meeting between the local council and the regional office. All that I can say is, "Big deal." That is another example of the Government's ignoring the recommendations of the planning conference and the report of the panel, which examined the issue in detail and the evidence. What is the point of an evidence-based process if the Government tear up the recommendations and do what they like?
The boundary of the south-west region does not serve Dorset well, but I do not have time during this short debate to discuss that in great detail. The Government have decided to divide the south-west into four sub-regions. I have asked some parliamentary questions about that and have been told that the sub-regions cannot be defined by constituency or even by which constituencies are situated in more than one sub-region. We know that there are four sub-regions, which overlap. I have asked—I have not received a reply—whether the south-east spatial sub-region of the south-west extends into the south-west spatial sub-region of the south-east. The Minister has refused to answer that question, which is important to my constituents. The Government are imposing rigid, regional boundaries that are creating a host of anomalies.

213WH
If the Government want to insist on this regional nonsense, they could try to make the people of southeast Dorset feel part of the south-west by improving the road links between south-east Dorset and Exeter and Bristol. I do not know what means of transport the Minister will use when she goes to Exeter on Friday, but when she gets there, she might bear it in mind that to travel from Christchurch to Exeter takes the best part of two and a half or three hours in the summer. Someone representing Christchurch at a regional assembly would have to spend five or six hours travelling. It would be quicker to travel to London for a meeting and even quicker to travel to the so-called south-east regional headquarters that is emerging in Guildford.
Regionalism does not work in the south-west. We know that it is the means by which the European Commission hopes to destroy the individual nations of Europe; its agenda is to divide the United Kingdom and then to divide England by imposing top-down structures. The model that suits Dorset and England better is one in which local communities govern themselves through a network of truly local councils and are represented in Parliament by Members of Parliament who can hold Ministers to account. That is what our debate is all about.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on again obtaining an Adjournment debate or Dorset. Not much of his speech was about regional policy and most of it concerned local government, which is not part of the regional programme. He obviously could not find enough to say about regional policies to fill the time available. I shall attempt to deal with the substance of his comments.
The hon. Gentleman continually says that the Government have already made decisions; the conspiracy theory survives. The only reason for his believing that is that he acted in that way when he was in government. I have no experience pf the Government working in that way. I am sorry that he continued to push the cynical conspiracy theory until, eventually, we heard his real reason for fearing regionalism. He believes that it will draw us closer to the European Community. His hatred of that is such that it totally colours his perspective. That is very sad. If he ever comes to the north-east, he will see that people were interested in regional policy long before the European Union became interested, and long before the Government introduced a regional policy.
The hon. Member for Christchurch probably cannot remember, but when his Government took power, there were strong protests from people who sought a more regional approach and the equivalent of the Scottish Development Agency for the English regions. That suggestion was rejected by the Conservative Government. The regional policy is not just a whim of the Government but one that comes from a clear understanding of what is going on in the regions now. It is important to address imbalances from a regional perspective.
214WH
Our commitment to opportunity for all demands a new regional policy. Greater prosperity and rising employment, which I know has been a feature of life for many people in Dorset in the past three to four years, does not automatically mean fairer sharing of prosperity across regions, cities or neighbourhoods. We know that all too well. However, unemployment and child poverty have fallen in every British region since 1997, although I accept that unemployment remains higher in some regions than in the south-east.
Six out of eight English regions have incomes per head below the European average. We can ill afford to view regional prosperity as an optional extra, to be established only after we have established another tier of government. There is nothing inevitable about regional inequalities and incomes, employment or opportunity. We can achieve balanced growth and rising prosperity not only in one or two regions but in every region and city. However, that requires a new approach to regional policy.
Mr. Syms: Does the Minister realise that regional inequality is growing because the Government are giving us less grant? Hampshire gets more money; Dorset gets less. That applies to both Christchurch and Poole.
Ms Armstrong: I shall come to inequalities in local government funding in a moment. Given what the hon. Member for Christchurch said, I need to make it clear why the Government have approached these matters from a regional perspective. It is necessary to back regional and local enterprise and initiative by exploiting indigenous strengths in regions and cities. Regional policy must be bottom-up rather than top-down, and further steps are required to deliver greater accountability and scrutiny both regionally and locally.
The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to local government finance. He will know—I am criticised by my hon. Friends for this—that we have not substantially changed the local government funding system since the general election. We use the system that the Conservative Government operated of standard spending assessments that are linked to need, levels of scarcity and many other things that reflect the position in different areas. He will know that I am not content that that always gives us the best outcome possible, but we have been able to ensure that in Dorset there are now only 219 infants in classes larger than 30, whereas there were 3,736 in such classes in 1997. There are 9,314 people waiting for in-patient operations compared with 12,371 in March 1997. I understand that there was an increase of 8.3 per cent. in 2000–01 and 7.9 per cent. in 2001–02 in the Dorset health authority allocations. The hon. Member for Christchurch will acknowledge that no such increases occurred when his party was in power, and I reject his view—
Mr. Chope rose—
Ms Armstrong: If I am to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, I must make progress.
I was somewhat confused by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Bournemouth airport. The wording of the regional planning guidance is subject to a

215WH
consultation process that will not be completed until 14 March, so it would be inappropriate for me to say what the final wording will be. As with all consultation exercises, it is important that we listen to the views of everyone and respond to them, and the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed today will be taken into account. He asked why we rejected the local panel's recommendation on the green belt around Bournemouth airport. The matter was recently reviewed through the development plan process, and green-belt status would not prevent development of the airport. For example, its situation in the green belt has not inhibited extensive expansion of Bristol airport, which has significantly higher throughput than Bournemouth airport.
The hon. Gentleman said that the change to a policy to support "airport-related development" was not recommended by the panel. However, as he subsequently acknowledged, that phrase was intended to indicate that no one was anticipating general development. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman himself would want housing or industrial development on that site. As I understand it, he wants effective development of the airport and its associated functions, but as he knows, availability of land for development on the periphery of Bournemouth is limited. If land were used for general development, the growth of the airport might well be restricted, which is why the draft regional planning guidance supports airport-related development. However, that does not preclude other development. Primarily, the matter is one for the local district plan, which, as I understand it, states that land with airport access should predominantly be used for aviation-related activities that require such a facility. If
216WH
the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that the planning guidance runs contrary to the genuine concerns that he has expressed, we will be able to achieve the right wording. However, I suspect that rather more heat than light has been cast on the issue today.
The hon. Member for Christchurch also referred to the road and transport plan for Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth, and asked why the proposed A31 link to Poole had been cancelled. With the reinstatement in 1995 of the A31-A 35 trunk road, Poole has retained a core trunk road that is in close proximity to its port. The Government Office, Poole borough council and Dorset county council have discussed the matter constructively, and in the light of those discussions the councils will consider how best to take the matter forward. The local transport plan settlement recognised the importance to the area's regeneration of a second crossing for Poole harbour, and we look forward to examining the councils' proposals in July.
Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth submitted their first local transport plans in July 2000 and subsequently received substantially increased funding, but it is for Dorset county council to determine its local investment priorities and to hid as part of the local transport planning process. No proposals were made for improved links to Christchurch, so we could not fund them. Cross-boundary issues must be considered by Cornwall, Dorset and Hampshire county councils and by the Government offices. They are discussing those matters, and it is important that they do so. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see questions settled locally. Those are precisely the mechanisms that we have put in place, and I hope that those involved will work co-operatively to address the issues.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Time is up. We must move on to the next debate.

National Minimum Wage
1 pm
Angela Smith: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness here. I know of his commitment to issues affecting the rights of those at work, and I hope that he will give a sympathetic response to the debate.
We all have days when we wonder why we wanted to be Members of Parliament in the first place, and it is easier to find the reason on some days than it is on others. When I was appointed as a member of a Committee that considered a statutory instrument about daylight saving hours, I did not feel—important as that matter is—that such matters were a motivating factor in my having become a Member of Parliament. However, when I was appointed as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill, I felt that I was dealing with one of the major reasons why I got involved in politics, because it was an issue of fairness and equality.
During the 1997 general election campaign, the Conservatives claimed that the minimum wage was one of 10 good reasons not to vote Labour. On that basis, during the next campaign they will probably say, "Don't vote Labour because it will spend money on schools and hospitals." We believed the minimum wage to be economically and morally right. The Tory party believed that it was wrong and predicted gloom and doom for the economy. It is worth spending a few minutes assessing which of those two views was accurate. Someone recently said that in theory, theory and practice should be the same, but in practice they rarely are. In this case, the Tory theory certainly did not work in practice.
In Basildon and East Thurrock more than 1,400 people have benefited directly from the national minimum wage. In reality, the figure is probably much higher, because many employers, when they realised that the legislation was about to be introduced, raised their wage rates to the amount that they expected the minimum wage to be—or, indeed, higher than that. Low pay is more widespread in Essex than it is in the south-east as a whole, and my constituency has benefited significantly.
One of the biggest fears was that the minimum wage would cost jobs. The scaremongering story was put out that creating a floor in wages would price the low-paid out of employment. We were told by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that it was the height of irresponsibility, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—I have notified him that I am quoting his comments—confidently asserted:
"The truth is that a national minimum wage will not create jobs, but destroy them".—[Official Report, 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 103.]
and that it would be a "calamity". A Conservative party press release stated:
"The minimum wage, even if set at £3.60 an hour, will fuel inflation and necessitate further interest rate rises."
I am sure that at the time those who made such comments believed them to be true.
218WH
The Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill has the distinction of having had the longest sitting of this Parliament, and probably of other Parliaments. It sat throughout the night more than once, on one occasion until 1 pm the next day. Conservative members of the Committee left us in no doubt that they were appalled and horrified by even the suggestion of fair pay. They argued against a minimum wage for pensioners, the disabled and those in the voluntary sector—all tactics to try to prevent anyone from benefiting from something that they now cannot say that they would do away with. They argued late into the night, through the night, into the next day, through to the next day and into the next.
That was not merely token opposition but full-blown opposition to the minimum wage, based on the deep-rooted belief that it was wrong. Their acceptance of the policy must be one of the biggest U-turns in history—although I admit that my experiences on the Committee give me some cause for doubt. However, they were right to make the U-turn. The evidence is there for all to see. The minimum wage was welcomed by businesses across the country that had previously been undercut by cowboy workers. Before the introduction of the legislation, a man who owned a private security firm that employed quality workers was a regular visitor to one of my surgeries. He was desperate to see the national minimum wage introduced because he feared that cowboys would undercut him and his business would go bust. I am pleased to say that he has not felt the need to come and see me since the introduction of the legislation.
Fears that enforcement would be too difficult were unfounded—only six enforcement orders have been needed in the eastern region. The Low Pay Commission thinks that the majority of businesses have met their obligations on the minimum wage.
What of the other predictions? There has not been a sharp upwards step in earnings and inflation has not soared—in fact, it has gone down. Unemployment was the issue that caused the most worry. Tory scaremongering that the national minimum wage would cost more than 1 million jobs was unfounded. Since its introduction, we have more than 1 million extra jobs in the UK economy, so by any standards—even Tory standards—it has been a success.
The Minister will agree that the rate will continue to be debated. I support an increase in the overall rate, but the issue that I want to address today is the youth or developmental rate. When the national minimum wage was introduced, workers aged 18 to 22 were covered by a lower developmental rate. Last year, the adult rate increased by 10p an hour, while the developmental rate increased by 20p to £3.20, which narrowed the differential from 60p to 50p. That was welcome, but the time has come to consider removing the developmental rate to ensure that workers aged over 18 are covered by the adult rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) will recall a debate on the subject when the National Minimum Wage Bill was in Committee. The proposal would not mean that everybody was paid the same, but it would ensure the same floor under everybody's wages, which would prevent poverty pay. The then Minister of State, Department of Trade and

219WH
Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), stated that the clause allowing for a lower rate for those aged under-26 was
"essentially an empowering measure … It is important that we have the flexibility and discretion to ensure that when the Low Pay Commission comes forward with any proposals on young people in this category, we can take account of them if we are desirous of accepting them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 January 1998; c. 367.]
It was made clear that there should be no differentials for location or type of employment. The Government wanted the opportunity to listen and take account of the specific recommendations of the Low Pay Commission on younger people. The commission feared that the national minimum wage would price younger workers out of the employment market. Therefore, it was right to be cautious and monitor the employment market to see what occurred. I understood the fear that there would be problems in the youth job market, but those fears proved to be groundless. Youth unemployment has fallen to levels that many doubted were possible. In my constituency—the new deal has played a great part in this—youth unemployment has fallen by 94 per cent. The figures sound unreal, but the evidence is clear if one talks to young people in Basildon, where employment has risen to record levels.
The Low Pay Commission reported:
"We propose to monitor the progress of the developmental rate with the longer term expectation of linking it only to formal, accredited training."
That link has not yet been made for young workers. The second report of the Low Pay Commission in February 2000 stated:
"The developmental rate for young workers has meant a pay rise for many young people while not affecting their employment opportunities."
Ministers have rightly stressed that the developmental rate should be kept under review. Therefore, I hope that the Minister accepts that there is evidence to review the operation and consider making changes.
Modern business trends show a move away from age-related and time-served pay scales towards those based on performance and competence. In 1996, 51 civil service organisations abolished age-related rates—including the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, neither of which is known for being ahead of its time. Even McDonald's does not make a distinction on pay for those aged over 18.
The Trades Union Congress has found isolated examples of employers cutting their rates of pay for young adults as a result of the new law. The practice is not widespread, but it is not in the spirit of the law. The British Youth Council has said that workers should be paid equally for work of equal value. They do not want to encourage the employment of young workers on short-term contracts as cheap labour, displacing more expensive, older workers. The youth forum of the Trades Union Congress has taken an active role and it has described the national minimum wage as a landmark achievement. We all concur with that. The youth forum welcomes the right to a minimum wage, but believes that it stops short of delivering for younger people. Its argument is simple and based solely on
220WH
fairness: to introduce a blanket exemption from the full minimum wage, bused solely on an individual's age, is discriminatory.
Many organisations, including trade unions, understand the purpose of a raining rate, but in this day and age it is not only young people who undertake training in their employment and there is no reason to use the need for training to justify a differential youth rate. The suggestion that age and training are linked is not necessarily true An 18-year-old in a burger bar—we are back to McDonald's—is less likely to receive training than IT workers in their late 50s. The Government's skills task force found that employees in the hotel and catering industry were less likely to have training programmes, although that is the largest employer of younger people.
The youth rate has not worked as a development rate and the Low Pay Commission found that a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds were in jobs without formal training. Its latest report states that there is
"little change so far in employers' training policies in response to the"
national minimum wage.
What do young people think about the differential rate? I held a youth forum in my constituency and invited young people from Basildon and East Thurrock and sought the views of young people throughout my constituency on this and other issues. I have also received views from the TUC's youth forum, the British Youth Council and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. It is clear that the view of younger adults, many if not most of whom are already receiving the higher rate adult minimum wage, is that everyone aged 18 and over should receive the same rate. Even those who are already receiving the higher rate believe that everyone should be covered by it. It is interesting that the new earnings survey states that the median earnings of those aged over 18 is above the adult rate of the national minimum wage.
One reason for having one rate instead of differential rates is the cost of living. Young people, whether in full-time education or on a low wage, must pay the full price for services. Transport costs in particular hit young people hard and there are no bus passes for younger people as there are, rightly, for pensioners. Young people who try to live independently often have the same housing, transport and food costs as older people, but for those on a low rate of pay, the transition to adulthood can be more difficult and delayed because they cannot take on the same responsibilities.
The lower rate also means that younger workers may have to work longer hours, damaging their chances of continuing education in out-of-work hours. The Government are committed to extending and encouraging lifelong learning, but it is more difficult for young people on the lower youth rate. At the age of 18—not 21—people are entitled to vote, marry without parental consent, serve in the armed forces and are deemed in law to have reached the age of complete responsibility. I believe strongly in linking rights with responsibilities and if young people have those responsibilities, they should also have the right to the basic rate of national minimum wage.

221WH
I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should all be in full-time education or a combination of work and training that allows them to continue to gain skills and education. However, the reality is that many 16 and 17-year-olds have part-time and holiday jobs, as I did and as have many of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) recognised that in his excellent Bill to introduce stricter regulations and tighter controls on the working conditions and hours of young workers. Some hon. Members believe that it is always wrong for 16 and 17year-olds to work. However, that is not realistic because approximately two thirds of 16 and 17-year-olds work and 60 per cent. of them are in full-time education.
If we accept that younger people will work and that it is right to provide protection in terms of working hours and conditions, it is also right to offer some protection against exploitation in pay. Whereas employers in a high proportion of high street retail stores pay those over 16 adult minimum rates and more, rates of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds have been recorded of as low as £1 an hour. We must close a loophole that allows employers to take on younger workers at the expense of the over-18s, and we must not condone exploitation. We do not want to tempt 16 and 17-year-olds away from full-time education into full-time employment.
A sixth form in Suffolk that conducted a survey about the employment of sixth formers gave me some interesting information. The survey found that some employers sought to replace full-time adult staff with part-time teenage staff to reduce overheads. Many employees are under pressure from employers to work more hours during free study periods and after school, and they worry that if they refuse to do so they will lose their jobs. They feel pressured because of their low rates of pay. I recognise that the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds in work is complex, but I hope that consideration can be given to providing some wage protection to that age group.
It was a major step forward in April 1999 when we introduced the national minimum wage, giving protection to workers for the first time. On the night that the final Bill was passed in the House of Commons, some guests from America were having dinner with me. I was nipping back and forth to the Chamber, and they said, "What is the fuss about? Are you uprating the national minimum wage?" It was beyond their comprehension that, before the Labour Government came to power, we had no floor under wages. They could not understand that we had never introduced such legislation. Those days have gone, and everyone now accepts that it is right to have such a floor. The Government should be proud of their record. It is also a foundation on which to build.
I hope that I have outlined the reasons why I consider that the current exemptions and different rates are unfair and do not fulfil our commitment to balancing rights and responsibilities. Many 18-year-olds are already receiving a higher rate, so employers are moving in that direction. The higher rate will have little or no impact on jobs, and I ask the Government to consider moving that rate to offer all adults the same legal wage protection. I know that the Minister has an excellent record on such issues. I hope that he will be sympathetic, and I welcome his comments.
1.17 pm
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) for providing a further opportunity for us to debate the national minimum wage in this Chamber. As she said, it is one of the Government's most popular policies, and a manifesto commitment that has been carried out with—it is not an exaggeration to say—spectacular success. That success was by no means universally predicted. My hon. Friend was one of the shock troops, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), when the Bill was considered in Committee. She explained eloquently the kind of opposition that the Government faced in introducing a minimum wage.
Although it is fair to say that I have an excellent track record on the issue—as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was kind enough to say—I am afraid to admit that I went to TUC congresses year after year in the 1970s and, with my colleagues, voted against a national minimum wage. The success of its introduction must be seen in that context. The last time that we were in power, it was not only employers that were opposed, but the trade union movement as well, with one or two honourable exceptions. We were worried about jobs and concerned to preserve our precious differentials. When we look back at those arguments now, a blush should come to our cheeks. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the context in which we introduced a national minimum wage, as my hon. Friend says, for the first time in the United Kingdom, whereas other countries such as Japan, America and some in Europe have had one for many years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon is also right to point out that the issue has become a positive U-turn zone for members of Opposition parties. It was not only Her Majesty's official Opposition who went through a policy process known as the Portillo process, in which, immediately before Treasury questions, the shadow Chancellor decides whether any policies should be changed, and immediately changes them. I have pointed out many times, including during the debate on the statutory instrument that increased the minimum wage last year, that the Opposition are not wedded to a national minimum wage with no regional variations. They have spoken on several occasions about small firms being exempted from the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend is right to say that the national minimum wage would not be completely safe in their hands.
Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrat party has made a spectacular U-turn on the issue. When the Bill was going through the House, the Liberal Democrats argued that there should be a regional minimum wage, not a national minimum wage. Such a concept was so bizarre that it would have led to so many problems throughout the country and place genuine burdens on business. It would have been extremely difficult and bureaucratic for a company to operate a different minimum wage from a company a few yards down the road. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats now agree with a national minimum wage.
The national minimum wage has been extremely successful, as has been the influence of the Low Pay Commission, which is monitoring the impact of the national minimum wage. Its job is to consider it not on

223WH
the basis of formulae or headline figures, but of movements in earnings, the impact on the economy and the effect on some low-pay sectors. The fact that it is a minimum wage, without sectoral and regional variations, makes the commission's job more important. It must carry out a careful analysis, as it has done in all the reports that it has submitted thus far. It announced in its press release of 31 January that it intends to produce its third report sooner than its terms of reference proposed, which is early March this year rather than July.
The Government have already announced that we will implement changes to the rate in October 2001, so that businesses have plenty of notice of a new rate. Businesses have argued consistently that they need the longest possible warning period. Having collected all the evidence that it requires to recommend a new main rate, which will be volume 1 of its report, the commission's recommendations should be made public at the earliest moment. We welcome that decision. We can expect the rest of the report, which is particularly relevant to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, by May. That second volume will deal with the youth rate and the effect of the minimum wage on young people generally.
I welcome the debate. It is not about whether we should have a national minimum wage. We have gone well beyond that. It is about the level at which it should be set, whether there should be a separate youth rate for 16 or 17-year-olds and some other elements that I shall try to cover today. It is customary to ask whether hon. Members want the good news or the bad news. Unfortunately for the balance of the argument, there is nothing but good news. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics confirm that between 1.2 million and 1.5 million low-paid workers and their families have benefited from the national minimum wage. It was introduced only in April 1999. Women have been particular beneficiaries of it. In its first year of operation, the gender gap closed by 1 per cent., and that cannot be put down to anything other than the national minimum wage. The gap is now narrower than ever before.
Part-time workers have seen an improvement in their position, with the national minimum wage having been at least partly responsible for stronger growth in average part-time weekly earnings. The regional pay gap is also closing, a point that is close to the hearts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and myself. For example, earnings increased by 4 per cent. in Wales, by 4.7 per cent. in the north-east of England and by about 4.3 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside compared with the national average increase of 2.3 per cent. That is almost the first change in many years to what has been referred to sometimes as the north-south divide. We must ensure that people throughout Britain share in the country's economic prosperity. More than £3.2 million worth of underpayments have been secured for workers since April 1999 as a result of our enforcement orders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was right to say that we have had huge success in enforcing the national minimum wage. All that has been achieved without the slightest evidence of any damaging effects on the economy. It was said that the national minimum wage would lead to job losses. A million more people are
224WH
in employment now, and we have a national minimum wage. It was said that the national minimum wage would increase inflation. Inflation is at its lowest level for 30 years. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest since England won the World cup. More importantly, it was argued that the minimum wage would feed through into price increases Price rises are at their lowest since 1974. Wherever we look for the evidence, it suggests that the national minimum wage has had a positive impact on poverty pay without affecting the economy. Indeed, many arguments suggest that it has been extremely beneficial to the economy—not least the argument made by my hon. Friend. Companies are ringing our hotline number—0845 6000 678—to have the collars felt of some of their competitors who, they believe, are still paying less than the minimum wage and thus unfairly competing with them on poverty pay. That has certainly been an issue in the fish processing industry in my constituency.
It was evident both to us and to the Low Pay Commission from the start that setting minimum wage rates for young people was the aspect that presented the greatest risk of an adverse impact on employment. As the minimum wage had been introduced over many years in many other countries, we could analyse all the information about how it had worked. That demonstrated that the effect was most keenly felt for younger age groups and gave us reason enough to proceed with caution. We are also anxious that the minimum wage should support rather than hinder training and education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon says that it was right to be cautious in introducing the measures. It is right to continue to be cautious, because we must continue to ensure that the minimum wage is not only established but grows roots, and that no political party, whether on the right or the left of the spectrum, will ever dare interfere with it again.
It is in that context that we asked the Low Pay Commission to reconsider the matter. Its first report pointed out the dangers of setting one rate for everyone over the age of 18 and of setting a rate for 16 and 17year-olds. That was not merely a Government argument; it was the Low Pay Commission's argument, based on its analysis.
We increased the minimum rate for young people by 6.7 per cent. in June last year. We shall be cognisant of evidence and analysis is from the Low Pay Commission, which consists of representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC and several academics led by Professor Bain, who has done a remarkably good job.
Although our actions are based on the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, we are not obliged to accept its suggestions. For example, the commission's advice was that 21. year-olds should receive the adult rate. At present they count as young people. There are good reasons for our decision, which was not motivated by any animosity towards 21-year-olds; we were all 21year-olds once. However, we shall await the commission's next report to decide whether our position needs revising in the light of that report.
Our fear was that there was a spike, or peak, of youngsters coming through the system. Lots of evidence suggests that if young people lose a job at 22 or 23 years

225WH
of age and experience unemployment, that has a long-term effect on their future employment prospects. In taking a cautious approach to the matter, we wanted to see how that blip in the population developed through the system and to be absolutely sure that employment prospects would not be damaged. That is why we decided not to implement that part of the report.
All those issues are being re-examined. It is a specific part of the Low Pay Commission's job in its next report to consider young people, including 16 and 17-year-olds, who we believe should be in full-time education. We have a tremendous problem—which other countries do not have—of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school to go to work. That is what the educational maintenance allowance is all about; that is the right priority, and there is definitive evidence to show that giving the minimum wage to 16 and 17-year-olds would militate against our priorities.
We will consider the matter again; we understand the arguments. The Low Pay Commission's report will inform our decisions, and I welcome the debate generated by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon this afternoon.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): The Minister finished exactly on time. I congratulate him.

Bedford Hospital
1.30 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on Bedford hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) cannot be here, but he associates himself with what I have to say. I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) in his place.
Bedford hospital hit the national press on Sunday 14 January, when a local newspaper, Bedfordshire on Sunday, published a sensational picture, widely syndicated in national newspapers, showing bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest at Bedford hospital. One of the bodies was partially uncovered to show the legs and part of the head of the deceased. There was, rightly, widespread concern at such an unacceptable situation.
On Tuesday 16 January, the Secretary of State came to the House to answer a private notice question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The Secretary of State rightly described the situation as unacceptable, and informed the House that the initial findings of an investigation begun on the Sunday by the eastern region office of the NHS Executive had identified
"a failure of management within the trust."—[Official Report, 16 January 2001: Vol. 361, c. 201.]
and that the chief executive, Mr. Ken Williams, had "stepped down". He said that the final report would be published and placed in the Library. However, he went on to tell the House then and there that the situation had nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the failure of management. The clear implication to the world was that the failure was the responsibility of the chief executive, and he had rightly agreed to fall on his sword. That was it; it was a problem unique to Bedford and the fault of management; the report might be of marginal interest but, in effect, the matter was done and dusted.
As soon as I read the newspaper reports, I took the opportunity to speak to the chairman of the region, Mrs. Rosie Varley. There had plainly been strong pressure from the very top for immediate action. She told me that Mr. Williams had agreed to stand down. I confess that I was not happy, but the impression was given to me that somehow the practice had been allowed to become a regular occurrence; that no competent chief executive could have failed to have known what was going on, and that although everyone liked Ken Williams—there were considerable suspicions that the half-covered body had been something of a set-up—he was none the less right to have agreed to go.
When I questioned the Secretary of State on 16 January, I pointed out the excellent work that had taken place in Bedford hospital during the 10 years that Ken Williams had been chief executive, and his own hard work above and beyond ordinary working hours to help patients in difficulty. However, when I questioned the adequacy of the mortuary facilities, the Secretary of State indicated dissent. He insisted that the problem had nothing to do with cash—nothing to do with a shortage of resources—but everything to do with top management at the hospital.

227WH
I must tell the Secretary of State that the belief in Bedfordshire is different. One thing is common ground: that what was shown in the photograph, and in particular the fact that one of the bodies was uncovered, was unacceptable. However, views are very different about the fundamental causes, exactly how the situation came about, where responsibility should lie and what is a fair and proportionate reaction.
The Secretary of State now knows that the chief executive has strong support at every level in the hospital. He has received a letter signed by no fewer than 70 members of the medical staff committee—I think that that represents the whole committee—asking that Ken Williams be reinstated, and I understand that a petition supporting Mr. Williams has received more than 800 signatures from people working at the hospital. Above all, a strong feeling exists that, when the story broke, there was an almost immediate demand for a head on a plate.
It was said that the result was unfair, and that the particular incident was a set-up in which the chief executive and senior management were deliberately kept in the dark while the press was informed. Problems of adequate mortuary facilities at times of pressure are widespread in the NHS and Bedford's antiquated mortuary has been known as a problem to management at regional level for not only years but decades. Problems of underfunding were specifically set out in the original reports of the inquiry by eastern region, but were deliberately removed from the report before it was published at the insistence of the Department. Indeed, the fact that the report has been altered was, in substance, admitted both in an answer to a parliamentary question that I put down, and by Mrs. Kate Phipps, who chaired the inquiry, during a recent interview on the "Today" programme.
The debate seeks answers to a series of questions that, unless properly addressed, will lead to an unfair result. The background to the matter is a growing fear in the NHS, which is becoming all too well founded, of a steady growth of a blame culture. I am not happy about it. If things go seriously wrong, those who are genuinely to blame must take responsibility, but if we are going to be tough we must also be fair. The questions that I raise must be answered if justice is to be done and seen to be done.
Bedford hospital made real improvements during the years when Ken Williams was its chief executive. Its buildings have been upgraded, notably its marvellous Cygnet maternity and paediatric unit, and its new accident and emergency unit, opened in 1997 by the then incoming Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Relations between medical staff and administrators have improved, and the strong feeling among other staff is shown by their petition.
On other objective fronts, the hospital has won a series of awards. Cleanliness was a matter of recent concern in the NHS; Bedford hospital is the eastern region beacon site for cleanliness. In December 2000, it won a charter mark for its hotel services. It is among the top 10 for the lowest hospital mortality in the region. Recently, it won the Bedfordshire borough council
228WH
heartbeat award for food hygiene and healthy eating. It has supported Dr. Rob Thomas in his efforts to become hospital doctor of the year for his cancer services, which is of huge credit not only to him but to the hospital's support for him. It is a well-run hospital.
I come now to the mortuary facilities, of which the Secretary of State s statement to the House of 16 January fails to paint a fair picture. Like more than 100 other hospitals in the NHS, Bedford's mortuary facilities are antiquated. Under the present Government and the previous Government, of which I was a member, resources have been concentrated on front-line medical functions. Bedford has been significantly underfunded for decades, being either the worst or second worst funded trust in the whole of the eastern region, and consistently behindhand in the necessary catching up as money gradually ca me out of London to the provinces.
The health authority in the region was fully aware by the end of 1997 that non-clinical revenue costs were underfunded. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, when Secretary of State, was expressly told about that when he opened the new accident and emergency department. A letter from the Department, dated 22 June 1997 states:
"I recognise that significant contribution to Bedfordshire's problems is the distance between current funding and the capitation target."
The author of that letter was none other than the present Secretary of State when Minister of State.
Many mortuaries throughout the NHS are out of date. I say that not to blame the Secretary of State, who inherited the position, but to emphasise that that needs to be taken into account in doing justice to those who manage the hospitals. According to the chair of Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd., which supervises mortuaries, more than one third of the 300 mortuary and post-mortem facilities that were visited had significant problems relating to their mortuary conditions,
"some of them comparable to those at Bedford hospital trust".
The statement continues:
"What Bedford needs is a new mortuary and so do many hospitals across the country."
The CPA chairman fairly described staff at Bedford hospital as
"doing their level best against a background of underinvestment and underfunding."
Those were important matters to take into account, yet they were simply not mentioned in the published public report—and neither were the circumstances in which the photographs were taken.
I do not blame the press, which exists in a free society as a watchdog for the public. However, if justice is to be done, the circumstances in which the press was tipped off must be carefully considered. Mr. Willy White, the regional representative of Unison, freely admits that he deliberately told the press rather than the management, let alone senior management. In doing so, he deliberately breached the hospital's whistle-blowing policy, which he had helped to write only six months previously. His excuses were that it was a long-standing problem and that he was aggrieved over unfair treatment of another member of staff, Monica Carmichael. She is entitled to fairness and her case has properly gone to appeal, but the present problem was not of long standing.

229WH
The temporary mortuary had been installed only at the end of December and for four days it had been out of action due to a build-up of a partial vacuum with which anyone with a fridge freezer is familiar. We all know that freezer doors cannot be opened if warm air has got in. That should have been put right more efficiently, but how can that be laid at the door of senior management unless they were told about it?
Mr. Patrick Hall: On the temporary mortuary unit hired and then purchased by the hospital, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although it has the capacity for 24 bodies, it could be used for a maximum of only eight because of its siting and certain health and safety rules? Does that not suggest mismanagement of the use of that particular unit? If it had been used fully, we would not have seen the bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest in the mortuary. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that that problem should be acknowledged and addressed?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is right about the temporary mortuary units, which are not perfect. They have health and safety problems, but they were used in a dozen NHS hospitals with approval before Bedford bought this particular unit It was a problem, but not a hanging offence, and it had not been drawn to the chief executive's attention.
Much was made by the Secretary of State of the new guidelines issued in May 2000 and of their breach by Bedford hospital. I assumed from listening to the Secretary of State that those guidelines had made it clear that in no circumstances should bodies be stored in places such as the chapel of rest. It is not a consecrated chapel, just a nice little room. However, the guidelines do not say that at all. These much vaunted guidelines say no more than:
"any NHS Trusts should ensure that mortuary capacity is adequate to meet peaks in winter deaths and take steps to provide additional facilities where this is likely to be required. Temporary mortuary facilities must meet minimum standards to respect patients' dignity; refrigerated vehicles and trailers must not be used."
There is not a word about chapels of rest.
Let me explain exactly where the chapel of rest is. It is in a secure area. It is a small room, not consecrated, but reasonably nicely furnished, immediately adjacent to the mortuary itself. There is no question of it being open to the public. The only specific point in the guidelines was the prohibition of the use of refrigerated lorries.
Finally, on the basis of the facts, there remains a strong suspicion at Bedford hospital that the uncovered body had been deliberately placed there by someone to sensationalise the photograph. I do not blame the press; they photographed what they were shown. However, it is strongly believed by most of the staff, and others, that the scene was set up by the Unison representative because, as he said, he felt vindictive about the handling of another union case involving a member of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union.
There are further worries in relation to that case. The Secretary of State is a member of, and is sponsored by MSF. There are fears in Bedford that what was seen as his personal over-reaction may have resulted from lobbying on the subject by Mr. Roger Kline, who
230WH
worked closely with him in the past and who, like Mr. Willie White in the first 48 hours after the story broke, was loudly demanding the dismissal of the chief executive.
I am asking the Secretary of State to have the matter looked at again by an impartial arbiter, perhaps a Queen's Counsel with experience in the national health service and employment law. There is a widespread feeling in Bedford hospital, at every level and regardless of party affiliation, that the full truth has not come out and that justice has not yet been done.
As I said at the outset, the practice of storing bodies in an unrefrigerated area, albeit a secure one next to the mortuary, is not appropriate to modern conditions. The fact remains that priorities for funding over the years—it is not only this Government's fault—have been elsewhere. There remain scores of hospitals where mortuary facilities are inadequate, as they are in Bedford. The suggestion of the Unison official in the press that the chief executive should simply have indented for a new mortuary was unrealistic. Indeed, such a request was made 10 years ago. He could not possibly have been expected to know what was deliberately not reported to him.
When such problems arise, it is essential that they should be corrected for the future, but it is also important that the response should be proportionate, or confidence will be destroyed and morale undermined. If a manager is to be scapegoated in these circumstances, it will permit injustice not only in this instance, but will fail the staff of the health service as a whole.
1.47 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on securing the debate on Bedford hospital. I also acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall).
We need to look at the outcome of the investigation into the circumstances that led to the storage of bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest, although as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the chapel at Bedford hospital is not consecrated. This is a matter of great concern locally—indeed, it was of great national concern at the time the photographs were published. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the incident and the continuing debate are of great concern to me, and I welcome the opportunity to explain the facts surrounding those distressing photographs and to reassure him of our commitment to in-patients at Bedford or other hospitals to ensuring that they are treated with respect and dignity at all times. That must continue in the inevitable number of cases that arise when people die in hospital. It was in the interests of patients that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked for a full report into the circumstances surrounding the incident. Patients need to be confident that, in a patient-centred NHS, what happens behind closed doors is of the same standard as that which can be seen on the wards.
Most people found the published photographs shocking and it caused anguish to many, not least the constituents of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It cannot be right for bodies

231WH
to be left lying on floors over a period of days, in some cases, when people believed that their relatives were being looked after in a dignified way. The pictures showed that the patient's dignity was not respected in a way that we all have a right to expect in today's modern NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was as horrified as everyone else when he saw the photographs and he promised the House that a full report of the investigation would be placed in the House of Commons Library. The eastern regional office of the NHS executive had begun to carry out an investigation within hours of the photographs being published, and its preliminary findings confirmed that a fuller investigation was needed. It is worth saying that the investigation team included a non-executive director from Bedfordshire health authority; it was not solely a team put together from within the regional office. The team interviewed more than 60 people, ranging from the porters and managers at the hospital to the coroner and representatives from the newspaper who took the pictures. The investigation confirmed that those recently bereaved had been caused additional distress at the thought that their relative might have appeared in the photograph. It also became clear that a serious breach of hospital security had been committed.
In addition, the investigation established that some of the bodies had been there for some days, that this was not the first time that bodies had been stored in this way, that rules of patient confidentiality were broken, as one of the deceased could be identified from the photograph, and that the handling of coroner's cases was potentially compromised. The porters, it was established, were not involved in the purchase of the additional body storage facility and that had contributed to the problems with that facility.
It is worth reminding the Chamber that, by the time of the incident, trusts had received two sets of guidance—health service circulars 1999/239 and 2000/016—which detailed action to be taken in respect of mortuary facilities. HSC 2000/016, issued in May 2000, set out the arrangements required by NHS trusts to ensure that mortuary capacity was adequate to meet peaks in the number of winter deaths and to take steps to provide additional facilities where those were likely to be required. It also stressed that where temporary mortuaries were required, they should meet minimum standards to respect patients' dignity.
However, that guidance was not brought to the attention of staff involved in the handling of bodies, despite its having been reinforced at a regional meeting of chief executives in November 2000 and during winter planning meetings between the regional office and local health care systems. As a result, there was no recognition of the urgent need to repair a fault on the door of the additional mortuary facility. The report states:
"From the evidence provided it is clear that the practice of placing bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest had been custom and practice for more than five years. Consequently, the Trust failed to treat the deceased with dignity and respect".
It has been suggested that the root cause of this whole issue is one of funding. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear in the House,
232WH
that is not the case. Storage was available in the additional facility, which meant that the floor should never have had to be used. The floor was used because of a management failure to make it clear to all staff that the deceased should be treated with dignity. As the use of the floor had become custom and practice over a period of years, there was consequently no sense of urgency in getting a fairly minor problem with the doors resolved.
Things are changing in today's NHS and some of the practices common in the past are no longer acceptable. This is just such a case. Having pointed out that the alternative provision had been made, but there was a management failure to tackle the problems that arose in the additional facility, let me address the issue of funding.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: When one is considering fairness, would the Minister agree that the senior management can deal with a matter only if they are told about it? Is it not quite clear that they were not told?
Mr. Denham: Clear guidance set out in health service circulars was made available to chief executives right across the NHS. That guidance, in the eastern region, as elsewhere, was reinforced in the whole series of activities that now surround planning for the winter period. Everything was done to ensure that the chief executive of every trust understood the importance that was attached to the issue within the NHS, given the criticism that the NHS had received in previous years over the use of inappropriate temporary mortuary facilities. It is against that background that the events that I am describing should be seen. Indeed, it was when confronted by the findings of the preliminary investigation and public anger and concern that Mr. Williams felt it right to stand down from his post in the interests of the hospital.
On the funding issue, Bedfordshire has moved further from its weighted target allocation in recent years, but it is worth looking at what has been done with the resources. Bedfordshire will have received increased resources of £92 million, an increase of more than 30 per cent. since 1997, after taking account of the growth announced for 2001–02. Even after allowing for inflation, that has enabled more than £60 million to be invested in services. Bedfordshire has also benefited financially from the designation of Luton as a health action zone.
In recent years, the health authority has lived within its resources, and the trust has balanced its income and expenditure, so Bedfordshire has enjoyed a substantial real increase in NHS resources. Following a report in 1997 by the accrediting body, CPA, the trust upgraded its post mortem facilities. The report did not refer to the capacity of the mortuary, but since then, the trust has bid twice for pathology modernisation money without raising the expansion of the mortuary's capacity. The trust has never put forward a business case for a new mortuary; nor has the trust board raised the mortuary as a problem.
The investigation report acknowledged that the trust has less mortuary capacity than other, similar-sized hospitals and that it recently lost accreditation for its pathology services, including the mortuary, because of

233WH
core facilities. It is clearly in everyone's best interests that the problem is tackled as soon as possible. The regional office has been asked to work closely with the trust in developing plans for a modern and enlarged mortuary facility.
I return to the events that took place. The report states:
"On this occasion, additional mortuary capacity was available, but was not being used because of a door defect that was not rectified for four days. This was because of confusion about accountability at middle management level and poor communication between departments".
The failure of the door of the additional mortuary was never treated as an emergency, which is why it took four days to put right, and must be seen against a background in which it had been custom and practice to use the chapel of rest.
It has been suggested that the incident was the result of a conspiracy to discredit Ken Williams or to seek revenge against him. The investigation was not able to establish that that was the case, but irrespective of whether there had been action or activity of that sort, there was a management failure in respect of mortuary facilities and that would not be changed, whether or not people had acted with malicious intent or bad faith in the case.
The professional staff interviewed by the report team were unanimous in saying that there was an open policy in the trust and that they were confident that staff concerns would be listened to. That view was not shared by all the non-professional staff interviewed; some porters and union officials feared recriminations if they persisted in expressing their anxieties. It is clear that there have been difficulties in relationships following the
234WH
dismissal of a member of staff last year and the trust will need to address that matter over time. No one was prepared to admit to the investigation team that he or she had allowed Bedfordshire on Sunday access to the mortuary and there was no opportunity to question people about their motive in taking the course of action rather than raising their concerns with trust managers. Neither the editor nor the photographer from Bedfordshire on Sunday would say how they gained access to the mortuary, although they agreed to state the days on which the photographs were taken. That enabled the bodies in the photograph to be identified, as required within the investigation team's terms of reference, but it failed to open any other avenue of investigation to the team.
There were suggestions that parts of the final report were left out of the version placed in the Library. The report laid in the Library was that written by officials in my Department and the investigation team stands by that report. Before it was completed, an early draft was shown to the trust to ensure that there were no factual inaccuracies and it was amended accordingly. The draft report was added to and edited as the investigation team worked on completing the final document. I have been assured by the chairman of the investigating team, Kate Phipps, that nothing of relevance was removed or left out of the final report and it is therefore a true reflection of the findings of the investigation.
The investigation of the incident does not end here; the body that was clearly identified in a photograph was a coroner's case, which was the responsibility of his office until released to the family. The coroner—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.