With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on local and regional economic reform in England. The Government are today publishing the conclusions of the review of sub-national economic development and regeneration, launched in the 2006 Budget as groundwork for this year’s comprehensive spending review. In this report, we set out the compelling case for reform to give local authorities and communities greater responsibility and opportunity to boost economic growth in their area; to bring consultation and planning for jobs, homes, investment and the environment closer together at both local and regional levels; and to strengthen public scrutiny and accountability of regional plans and the work of regional development agencies, both in the region and in this House.

This report builds on substantial work since 1997 to devolve economic decision making to regions and local authorities. It is informed by Sir Michael Lyons’ comprehensive review, in which he underlined the important economic role of local authorities as part of defining and delivering a vision for the places that they serve. It is also informed by Kate Barker’s recommendations to bring together planning for homes and the environment with planning for economic growth.

The review takes reform a stage further, giving local authorities stronger incentives and greater powers to support economic growth. As the constitutional Green Paper, which the Prime Minister launched a fortnight ago, said, the sub-national review

“will signal a shift of focus to local authorities, open up the possibility of powerful city regions and give a clearer role for the regions of England”.

The report also reflects the Prime Minister’s vision of a modern democracy, in which power is exercised at the lowest level, and those with power are held more clearly to account.

Moreover, the reforms are essential as global economic and technological change places an increasing premium on skills, innovation and enterprise. That means that our Government’s commitment to increase growth in all regions, reduce regional disparities and deliver neighbourhood renewal will, in future, be all the more challenging and important. It means that further freedoms and devolved decision making are required for regions and local areas: first, to respond to rapid economic change; secondly, to deal with persistent local deprivation or poor economic performance, and thirdly, to enable all places to develop to their fullest potential.

Our year-long review has been very open—we have visited every region and consulted more than 300 stakeholders at all levels. I can confirm our main conclusions to the House this afternoon. First, to give local authorities greater powers, flexibilities and incentives, we will consult on creating a focused statutory economic duty for local councils; put economic development and neighbourhood renewal at the heart of the new local government performance framework; and consider options for supplementary business rates, working closely with business, local government and other local experts. We will require regional development agencies to delegate funding to local authorities and sub-regions whenever possible so that they play a more strategic role, and we will move funding for most 14 to19-year-olds’ education and skills to local authorities from the Learning and Skills Council, as announced in the recent machinery of government changes.

Let me deal with sub-regions. To reinforce our cities and larger towns as the engines of economic growth in their areas and to recognise that labour, housing, retail and other markets often do not correspond to council boundaries, we will allow local authorities that work together in sub-regions to strengthen management of transport; develop proposals for multi-area agreements to encourage groups of local authorities to agree collective targets and pooled budgets for economic development priorities; and work with interested city and sub-regions on scope for statutory sub-regional arrangements, which could allow greater devolution of national and regional economic functions.

To strengthen, simplify and improve scrutiny of the necessary strategic role of regions, we will combine the regional economic strategy and regional spatial strategy into a single integrated regional strategy. Following consultation, we will bring together the economic, social and environmental objectives for each region and charge RDAs with executive responsibility to prepare the single regional strategy on behalf of the region. In doing so, they will have a duty to consult widely. They will work closely with local authorities and the first step will be for local authorities to set out a vision for the sustainable development of their area. Regional assemblies in their current form will no longer exist.

The spatial and planning aspects of the strategy will continue to form the regional tier of the statutory development plan, which will remain subject to testing through independent examination in public and will be issued as a statutory document as it is currently. We will strengthen the scrutiny and accountability of RDAs, with the House's new regional Select Committees holding RDAs and others to account in Parliament and with local authority leaders holding the RDA to account in the region and approving the regional strategy. We will consult on how best to implement that.

Finally, at the centre, to improve support and reduce restrictions from central Government we will give the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform single-lead responsibility across Government for performance management of the RDAs and lead responsibility for the regional economic public service agreement; simplify the targets RDAs must meet; and appoint a Minister for each of the regions—we have already done this—to provide a sense of strategic direction to their region and to give citizens a voice at the centre of Government.

The report sets out the principles and direction for future policy and the consultation that we will undertake on our reforms. Important Government announcements will follow: implementing the Leitch report, the housing Green Paper and the welfare reform Green Paper and, in the autumn, the comprehensive spending review. My statement this afternoon is the start of further reform, not the final word. I commend the report to the House.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me early sight of the statement and of the sub-national economic development and regeneration review.

It is clear that the Minister comes here not to praise the former Deputy Prime Minister, but to bury him. The regional assemblies were the apple of the eye of the former Deputy Prime Minister—now little is left of the old regime but rubble, broken promises and chaos. Once the people of the north-east rejected regional government by referendum, the writing was on the wall for the assemblies.

Will the Minister confirm the words of the Prime Minister’s official spokesman this morning that sub-national government was

“just another word for regional government”?

This is a rebranding exercise masquerading as localism. The key tests are these: are the decisions taken locally and are the decision makers democratically accountable to local people?

On page 95, the review makes it clear that RDAs will become the regional planning bodies in place of the regional assemblies. The regional assemblies are unelected, unaccountable and unwanted and we will not mourn their passing. However, is not their abolition just a game of musical chairs, passing their functions from one distant regional quango to another?

We welcome the admission that Labour’s tiers of regional red tape are a hindrance to development and regeneration, with the farce of the regional spatial strategies contradicting the regional economic strategies. The RDAs are already failing to deliver on their existing responsibilities, as both the National Audit Office and the Institute of Directors have warned. Yet loading the RDAs with even more responsibility is hardly going to improve the quality of support that local businesses receive.

On page 94, the review asserts that the regional assemblies are not providing a strong voice for their region. Is not the reality that these unloved institutions have ceased to be the Government’s poodle because they stood up for local communities and local people? Now that the regional assemblies are criticising the lack of infrastructure and sustainability in the Government’s building plans, Ministers are seeking to sideline their opposition. The Government’s control freaks’ response is to abolish them and to hand their powers to a super-quango—rather than improving co-ordination, the different tiers of regional bureaucracy have caused confusion.

The regional spatial plans of the regional assemblies contradict the regional economic strategies of the regional development agencies—so much for joined-up government. If the Government wish to speed up the planning system, should the first step not be to scrap the quagmire of regional planning? How do the new regional economic growth initiatives outlined on page 93 square with protecting the countryside, planning against flooding, reducing carbon emissions and improving quality of life? Is not the environment now just a passing fashion for the Government? I fear that the RDAs now have England’s green belt in their sights.

The review concedes that there are too many funding streams. Indeed, there are 50 different, fragmented funding streams for social exclusion, housing and regeneration. How many will remain after this announcement? Has Labour not just created a baffling array of conflicting, confusing and inconsistent quangos, grants and agencies? Even the Government’s friend, Lord Rogers, has slammed the overlapping regeneration schemes as diluting effectiveness and reducing the vision of an urban renaissance to “mediocrity”.

We are, of course, receptive to new powers for local councils to fund infrastructure and transport and to promote economic development. Will the Minister guarantee that any additional revenue from a supplementary rate will not be taken into account in central Government grant allocations? Why are local firms not being given a direct democratic vote on any supplementary rate? How high will a supplementary rate go? Will it be 4p on the multiplier or even more? If local businesses can vote on higher rates in a business improvement district, why can they not be given a vote on a supplementary rate? Does the move not risk becoming a back-door way to hike up business rates?

A stealth tax.

Good man.

Is the measure not just a stealthy means for the Government to pass the buck of providing infrastructure from the Exchequer to the local taxpayer? Is the move not just higher taxation without any representation?

Month after month since the 2004 “no” vote in the regional assemblies, more and more power has been transferred to expensive and distant regional pen-pushers and politicians. Labour has ignored the voice of the people. Regional government agencies, regional development agencies, regional planning bodies and regional Ministers are all about imposing the will of Whitehall on local communities. Much of the analysis in the report is absolutely correct—it is a catalogue of failure. The problem is that it proposes to reinforce failure with more failure. It risks creating a regional tyranny of governance with no mandate, no legitimacy and no accountability. Only our party will dismantle the regional state, restore power to local communities and make government once more accountable to the people.

I am slightly disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s response, but perhaps I should not be surprised. I would urge him and his hon. Friends to read the report rather than simply rehearse their soundbites. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been one of the strongest and staunchest advocates of regional devolution and of giving greater powers to local authorities. He was one of the architects of our regional economic policy and my announcement this afternoon and the report take significant steps further in that.

The hon. Gentleman really must make up his mind on regional assemblies. Five days ago he said:

“The regional assemblies are unelected, unaccountable and unwanted.”

Four days ago, and again this afternoon, he said that regional assemblies had stood up for local people and that that was why we are abolishing them, and that:

“The Government’s move is expected since many of the regional assemblies are criticising the lack of infrastructure and sustainability in its building plans, and Labour wishes to sideline this opposition.”

Nothing could be further from the truth and, as I have tried to explain, our plans will mean that, for the first time, we are able to bring together the important planning functions within the regions and local areas on jobs, homes, infrastructure and protection of the environment. We will be able to do so better than before and better than through two separate processes. Council leaders will have a stronger role in the new system, not a weaker one—much more so, in fact, than they did through the regional assemblies.

Let me make it clear that we are committed to ensuring that there is strong local authority oversight of housing and planning. The hon. Gentleman’s party called for a stronger role for local authorities, and we are delivering that in the plans that I have announced this afternoon. His party also called for simplified arrangements in the regional and local areas, and we have announced such proposals this afternoon.

We have begun to consider options for supplementary business rates, working with business, local government and other experts. We shall continue with that work and report later in the year. We shall also ensure that there is full and close accountability to business in any of the options that we consider.

I welcome the general approach of the Minister’s statement in bringing together economic planning with housing, employment and spatial strategies. I want to ask him a specific question, however, about the proposals for the accountability of RDAs. He appears to be proposing accountability of the regional Committees to Parliament, and also, separately, to council leaders through some other, unspecified, mechanism. Will he consider the introduction of a hybrid committee to bring together MPs from the region and local authority leaders to hold the RDA accountable?

I applaud my hon. Friend’s interest in this area and the work that she does as Chair of the departmental Select Committee. The principle that we are planning to put in place is that, at regional level, the performance of the RDA in preparing the single regional strategy and in delivering its part of the strategy, as well as the content of the strategy itself, should be subject to greater scrutiny in the region and in Parliament. In the region, that should be conducted by local authority leaders, who will be consulted and charged with scrutinising the preparation of the regional strategy. For the first time, they will also be charged with the role of approving the strategy. In that way, without an elected regional assembly, we shall be able to reinforce public accountability and the democratic oversight of this important work that must be carried out at regional level.

I thank the Minister for providing advance copies of his statement and his report, although to read the latter in the given time would have required a reading speed of two pages per minute, so if I have missed any of its subtle nuances, I apologise to him.

We do not share the phobic hatred of all things regional expressed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). There are aspects of the statement and the report that we welcome, particularly the recognition that it is important to re-empower local authorities if we are to deliver strongly on the economy and other important features for our local communities. We very much appreciate the intention to encourage co-operation between local authorities, allowing them to take up additional powers devolved from the regions and, we hope, from central Government. It is also good news that there is at least an intention to bring some of the thousands of quangos—including the Learning and Skills Council budget, the Highways Agency and Jobcentre Plus, with which many Members have recently had difficulties—back under local democratic control.

There are also aspects that cause real concern, however. There is nothing substantial in the document or the statement about environmental sustainability; it is all about growth and expansion. For example, I notice that a regional economic public service agreement is to be signed off by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, yet there is no regional sustainability agreement to be signed off by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or agreed with central Government. Will the Minister therefore undertake to add environmental sustainability as a key objective of any regional policy reform?

I also note that the regional Ministers will

“provide a sense of strategic direction for their region”.

We could put that another way and say that this will involve a totally top-down process. Will the Minister explain how such a Minister—perhaps the Minister for the North West or, even more to the point, the Minister for London—will form a view about what the strategic direction for the region should be? Will he take his cue from the Secretary of State, from the regional development agency, from local authority leaders or just off the top of his head? The Minister may well feel that the loss of the regional assemblies is not a great one, but surely he would agree that any sense of strategic direction should come from the grass roots, from local communities and local authorities, rather than being imposed on high through ministerial edict.

Reference is made to moving towards a single integrated regional strategy. We have some difficulty understanding precisely what the Minister has in mind, so perhaps he can provide further explanation. Surely there has to be a diversity of strategies for different regions, and, within regions, the strategies need to be flexible enough to take account of the differences between the centre of Manchester, Carlisle and rural Cheshire. How, indeed, will a single integrated regional strategy apply to the region of London, in particular?

To summarise our view, we see this as a severe case of top-down, economic-growth-centred thinking that is some 30 years out of date, with the environment forgotten, democracy overridden and diversity scorned.

I was encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s early remarks, but somewhat taken aback by the latter ones—especially as I consulted a Lib-Dem policy document published a week ago today, which states:

“We would devolve real power back down to communities and local councils, bring quangos under democratic control and reduce central bureaucracy”.

Perhaps I should have borrowed those words and incorporated them directly into my statement, because that is precisely what our plans are designed to achieve.

Everyone in every constituency and in every local authority area is concerned about more jobs and more homes, particularly for young people, as well as about taking proper account of the local environment and finding ways up front to fund the infrastructure necessary to support such growth and prosperity for the future. It is by bringing plans for those functions together that we stand the greatest chance of achieving that.

On the environment, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that regional development agencies, which seemed to be the focus of his concern, operate under the legislation that set them up in the first place. They are under a statutory responsibility to pursue sustainable development in the regions. As part of the new arrangements, local authorities will take the first step in the preparation of the new single regional strategy. As I explained earlier, that first step will be to prepare, for their area, their vision of future sustainable development, taking strong account of the needs, pressures and concerns of the environment.

On the question of Ministers, may I gently explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has appointed some first-rate female as well as male regional Ministers, so it is not just a male preserve? If I know anything about my good friends and colleagues who are now the regional Ministers, it is that they will not take their cue from anyone in particular. They will consult and listen carefully, but they will come to their own views and make their own contributions to the debate about what is best for their regions.

Finally, to be as clear as possible, the proposals set out in this afternoon’s review do not apply to London, which has its own arrangements on economic policy planning and its own arrangements for democratic control. The regional strategies are, of course, precisely that: they are strategies for the region. If the hon. Gentleman looked into existing regional economic development strategies, he would find that in many cases they place at their centre the cities and sub-regions that are driving economic growth and prosperity within the wider region, creating new jobs and bringing in new investment. That is precisely what this afternoon’s proposals are designed to reinforce.

I hope my hon. Friend recognises that some of us feel that the establishment of regional Select Committees is overdue and welcome this commitment to them, but will the Government ensure that they have real teeth? Will they ensure that the Committees have power to oversee the activities of regional development agencies and all the other quangos, and that Government Departments and agencies are answerable to each of them? If we are going to do this, we must give the Committees teeth and power and make the system effective.

As the Prime Minister said two weeks ago, it is important to ensure that those who hold power are called clearly to account. The House has a much greater potential to play a strong role in doing just that at regional level.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the principle of the proposed reinforced scrutiny and accountability arrangements, but I should tell him that the setting up of regional Select Committees, their remit and the way in which they conduct their inquiries are a matter for the House. No doubt he will play a big part in discussions of those matters over the next few weeks, but it is not for me, as a Minister, to pass direct judgment.

If the newly empowered RDAs are to be accountable to council leaders in the region, what thoughts has the Minister had about appointments to them? At present it is common practice for council leaders to apply for vacancies on RDAs. Is there not a conflict of interest, in that those who are to scrutinise and hold to account see such vacancies as job opportunities?

Our report does not propose any changes to the process of appointments to RDA boards, which are conducted entirely in line with the established code of practice for public appointments. However, the hon. Lady makes a fair point and an interesting suggestion. In future it will be for Select Committees and those who wish to hold RDAs firmly to account in the regions to consider how they might contribute to, influence or in other ways become involved in the process of appointments to RDA boards.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. The changes he has announced have the potential to provide a stimulus to encourage renewed regional co-ordination and activity, and will be welcomed in the north-east if they provide the clarity and the new vision that they promise.

The regional assemblies brought together local government, business, voluntary organisations and trade unions. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the new structure he has announced will preserve the best of that inclusiveness, while also improving accountability and effectiveness at regional level? What powers will localities have over bodies such as the Highways Agency?

I am satisfied that the Government have set out the right principles and the right direction for the reforms that are necessary to ensure that the work of RDAs and other agencies at regional level is held to account to a greater extent both in the House and in the regions. If I were not, I would not have announced them today. We are ready to consult on precisely how best to implement the arrangements, and will do so later in the year.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the appropriate arrangements for local authority leaders in particular to exercise their role in scrutinising RDAs’ work and approving regional strategies in his area will differ from those in the south-east, where there are 74 separate councils. It clearly makes sense to identify, through detailed discussion and consultation, the arrangements that best suit the circumstances of each region.

The Minister delivered his statement with such pathos that I thought we would hear the theme music from “Schindler’s List” at any moment. I agree with him that city regions are very important, and they may well be the bit of regional geometry that is coming, but why is he so reluctant to endow them with effective powers? There is still a kaleidoscope of delegated responsibilities and conferred duties. Would it not make sense simply to ask city regions rather than the RDAs to deal with such matters as skills and economic development, so that they have real meaning?

If the Minister wants the system to work in Yorkshire, will he note that the parts of north Yorkshire that used to be in the West Riding and wish to be part of a city region should not be imprisoned in a unitary North Yorkshire council, and thus incapable of performing their duties and meeting their responsibilities?

I shall take the right hon. Gentleman’s last point as a late submission or representation on the local government restructuring that I am currently considering.

During the review, we were urged in some quarters to impose new formal arrangements in sub-regions. We took the view that the best approach was for there to be greater devolution of powers and freedoms to local authorities, and that they should collaborate where their city or region requires an economic effort that goes beyond their city council or borough council boundaries. We want to encourage such collaboration. Where that takes place, there should be opportunities for greater delegation of powers and management control in respect of transport—and also in respect of economic development, planning, housing and some of the 14-to-19 skills plans. If local authorities together wish to move to statutory arrangements—without pressure or prescription from central Government, because it must be their decision to do so—that will open the door for us to consider devolving more powers from national Departments and national agencies and to give sub-regions greater certainty and longer term funding for some of the transport functions that can best be delivered at that level.

First, may I welcome this timely statement? The regional development agencies were set up a decade ago—in 1997-98—and some of the Opposition’s arguments then are the same as those voiced against my hon. Friend today. The RDAs addressed an economic deficit that existed at that time; we inherited a dysfunctional regional policy in 1997, and the RDAs have addressed that. There is now a democratic deficit, and the report and today’s statement start to address that through the establishment of Select Committees and through empowering local authorities to play a proactive role. Therefore, I welcome that report and I hope that my hon. Friend will take no account of what the Opposition say. In the 1990s, the electors of Bradford chucked out the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles); he holds no sway with local authorities and I suggest that my hon. Friend continues in the direction that he mapped out in his statement.

Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was perhaps the principal architect of early moves to devolve economic policy making to the regions. Indeed, he steered through this House the legislation that set up the regional development agencies. He played an important role during his years in government, and I am glad that he welcomes the further moves that I have announced to devolve more to the regions and local authority areas. If we are able to bring together in a single regional strategy those policies that are currently produced by two different processes and two bodies, often using different bases of information and analysis, we will have the basis for a strong regional vision and strategy that allows us to address at the one and the same time policies on jobs, homes, investment in infrastructure and protection of the environment.

We will also have the basis for achieving what my right hon. Friend continues to want: stronger partnerships at regional and local level and a better alignment of central Government and departmental spending that can help economic development and regeneration through the learning and skills councils, Jobcentre Plus, the new homes agency, the Highways Agency and also the Environment Agency.

Why in a relatively small country such as England, where we already have well established counties and districts that people relate to, are the Government persisting in developing an unwanted, remote and undemocratic regional tier which people do not relate to?

Quite simply, if matters are left at local authority level, there will be concern about equity across regions. As well as that, some projects and priorities need to reach beyond local authority boundaries to foster strategic development in terms of jobs, homes or infrastructure. That is the simple answer, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the relevance and importance of some regional level functions. I hope that he will also accept that that is combined with a clear expectation and requirement for RDAs to devolve the funding to local authorities and sub-regions wherever possible and, by doing that, to reinforce the hand of local authorities to play, for the first time, a greater role in shaping the economy and prospects for their people in their area in the future.

rose—

Order. Many hon. Members wish to catch my eye and, as always, time is limited. I ask for brief questions and answers, so that more hon. Members will be successful.

I welcome the recognition of the importance of local authorities, but will my hon. Friend continue to stress the importance of policies decided at a regional level to address regional disparities? Does he commend the north-west’s efforts to invest major funding in Daresbury, which has resulted in the region having one of only two centres of excellence for scientific research in the whole country?

Yes, yes and yes.

As someone who wishes to see the South East England Development Agency bite the dust alongside the Assembly, may I ask the Minister to explain why it is that those regions of the UK that have had well financed RDAs for longest—and strong regional planning and intervention for longest—have become progressively less well off compared with areas that have not been blessed with such organisations?

Perhaps I should send the right hon. Gentleman the results and the figures that demonstrate that in recent years the progress on skills, employment levels and general prosperity has been faster in the poorest regions than the more prosperous regions, in part because of the economic leadership that RDAs and some local authorities, especially in the cities, have been able to provide.

The statement has many welcome aspects and I certainly look forward to further discussions in relation to the accountability arrangements for RDAs. When my hon. Friend talks about the welcome new flexibilities for local authorities, both joined together and on their own, will he address the fact that some of the bigger local authorities at city level, while important as a powerhouse for the region, can be remote from local areas? It will be vital for such authorities to be encouraged to devolve what powers they can internally inside the area, so that community regeneration may accompany economic regeneration.

Indeed, and my hon. Friend is the first advocate that I have heard in the Chamber for triple devolution. That is an important principle and it is entirely consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement two weeks ago and the Green Paper on constitutional reform. It is important that local authorities do just that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to further debate and discussion on these matters and consider offering his services to the regional Select Committee in the west midlands.

What does the phrase

“develop proposals for multi-area agreements to encourage groups of local authorities to agree collective targets…for economic development priorities; and work with interested city and sub-regions on scope for statutory sub-regional arrangements, which could allow greater devolution of national and regional economic functions”

mean in plain English?

In plain English, it means that local authorities that cover a wider city area can come together, pool budgets and decide on the priorities that they think are most important for economic development, transport and some of the skills aspects. They can agree those between themselves and with Government, and that will be how we will judge them, how local people judge them and it is what we want to see for the future.

I welcome the abolition of regional assemblies and the transfer of powers and resources to local democracy, but I remind my hon. Friend that almost all the powers and resources of the scores of regional bodies came originally from local government. Would not it make sense to go the whole hog and abolish all the regional quangos and thus empower the electorate instead of other parts of the quango state?

I know that my hon. Friend, a former leader of Manchester city council, is a leading advocate for that city and for city regions led by city local authorities. However, I must correct him: the arrangements that we have put in place and which we are looking to take further involve some devolution of powers and decision making from the centre. My hon. Friend follows transport policy very closely, and I remind him of what took place in the most recent funding allocations. In that process, £700 million of what would otherwise be determined entirely centrally was allocated according to the priorities set by the regions, and about which they had advised the Secretary of State.

I welcome some of the proposals that the Minister has outlined, and especially his recognition that communities of interest, such as the seven counties in the south-west, exist at levels below the Government’s regional architecture. Will he take seriously the aspirations of the people of Cornwall to have a greater say over their affairs, especially given the ambitious proposals for a unified structure of local government in the area? Also, will he look again at the case for a locally accountable Cornish development agency, in light of the important convergence funding from the EU?

Cornwall still faces some significant economic challenges. It has been greatly transformed by the objective 1 funding that it has received, and by some of the measures that the South West of England regional Development Agency has put in place. I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as another late representation to be considered as part of my work on local government restructuring.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, and his announcement that the regional assemblies will be abandoned. I am especially pleased that the South East England regional assembly will go, as it never understood housing policy or the needs of the east Kent ports such as Dover and Deal. Does he agree that the new devolved structure will reach out to such areas and allow the voices of deprived parts of Kent to be heard? In the past, they have been drowned out by the prosperity of the wider region.

Indeed it will, and it is important that those areas that do not shout the loudest or have the strongest clout are at the centre of our policy concerns, as they are in our regional-level planning. My hon. Friend may be interested in the proposals set out in the review for a more concentrated allocation of regeneration funding, and for ensuring that mainstream funding from central Government agencies does more to support local regeneration efforts in the most deprived areas.

May I assure the Minister that all my constituents will hear the promises made today to re-empower local government? Will he confirm that that will mean that the 18,000 new homes that have been imposed on my local community are dead in the water and that they will not go ahead if the local authority continues to object?

The hon. Gentleman will know that all the regional assemblies are engaged in revising their regional spatial strategies. With the exception of the West Midlands regional assembly, all regional assemblies are due to complete the process by next summer. Under the new proposals, local authorities will be involved in taking the first steps in preparing the regional strategy. They will set out their vision for the sustainable development of their areas, just as 40 towns and cities have raised their levels of housing growth under our growth points programme. The system will reinforce our ability to meet the need for housing, jobs and infrastructure development.

I welcome today’s statement, and remind him that the regional policy adopted by Conservative Governments of the past was very unfair, based as it was on the premise that success should go to the successful. If we are to build a genuinely one-nation approach, we must make sure that there is a regional process that delivers to the people whom this Government want to represent. However, people in my constituency will not know that the regional assemblies are to go, as they do not offer the accountability that we need. Will he guarantee that the Select Committee and local authority approach will mean that regional institutions are properly accountable to local people?

The plans we are setting out today for stronger public scrutiny and accountability within the region of the work that the regional development agencies and other regional agencies may do will improve public understanding and public challenge of the work being done in the region on the public’s behalf. Clearly, Parliament can reinforce that for the first time, through regional Select Committees, and I hope MPs on both sides of the House will play the most active possible role in making sure that the Select Committees are a success.

Does the Minister agree that infrastructure is the key to local growth and regeneration, and that building before the infrastructure is put in causes damage to local economies? Will he tell my constituents, who want to hear from him today, how the changes will get Canvey Island its much needed additional access road?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have mentioned that we are considering options for a supplementary business rate and the review also lays out plans for reforming the business growth incentive we introduced just over two years ago for local authorities. In addition, it confirms that we are considering innovative funding methods, particularly to raise early investment capital for local authorities and local areas to develop infrastructure to support growth in the future.

I welcome the abolition of regional assemblies and the contribution that will make to lessening global warming by reducing the amount of hot air and strategy papers they produce. I also welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to sustainable development, but in County Durham the regional spatial strategy outlined at present will actually stop development, so will he go one step further and bin the strategy, which has more to do with Soviet central planning than with a modern dynamic north-east economy?

Of course the elements of the spatial strategy as a whole, about which my hon. Friend is so concerned, will be subject to independent examination and public scrutiny and, ultimately, to formal statutory sign-off by the Secretary of State.

It would be far better were powers transferred back to county districts and boroughs, but if we are to persist with some form of regional quangocracy what consideration has the Minister given to establishing a region called Milton Keynes and the South Midlands? At present, that absurd sub-region, involving three parts of three different bigger regions, is meant to control all the housing expansion in Northamptonshire but simply does not provide the transport infrastructure that local people require.

I have given no consideration whatever to the creation of a new Milton Keynes region.

I welcome the generality of my hon. Friend’s statement, especially the enhanced powers for local authorities in 14 to 19 provision and in economic development, and the flexibility in allowing city regions to develop at their own pace, which is very important. As well as extra powers for local authorities, will he also consider extra mechanisms to enable economic development to take place, and especially, as recommended by the all-party group on urban development, enhancing the ability to enter into public-private partnerships and to use tax increment funding whereby future income streams can be brought forward to enable capital infrastructure to be put in at an earlier date?

I respect deeply my hon. Friend’s experience both as a Sheffield city leader before he entered the House and in his work on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. He is right to identify the fact that public money must be used to leverage in much greater private sector investment to help with regeneration and development. He will want to look particularly closely at the passage in the review on our work on innovative funding mechanisms, including possible options for regional infrastructure funds, better use of local authority assets and reliable revenue streams against which local authorities may be able to borrow to fund the infrastructure development needed in the future. We will report back on that work by the pre-Budget report this year.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but I have a concern about the use of private consultants. For too many years, there has been widespread use of private consultants in local economic development. They have been expensive, incompetent and unaccountable. Will he urge all local authorities to do the job in-house, with directly employed public servants, and not to use private consultants?

I thought that I had moved from the Treasury, where I had to deal with questions like that over the previous five years. My hon. Friend is right in general terms to challenge the way in which local authorities and other agencies may use their resources. I hope that he will play a part in doing just that on the regional Select Committee that will serve his region. However, sometimes it is important that expertise that may not rest within a local authority can be brought in so that local authorities can do a better job of analysing the economic circumstances of their area and plotting and planning priorities for the future.

Will Members who are not staying for this Statement please leave as quickly and quietly as possible? Thank you.

I would like to set out to the House how my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and I intend to take forward our work as Ministers for Women. We are publishing today a paper setting out our priorities. The Women's National Commission has agreed that it will take forward a consultation outside the House on the priorities and I am grateful to it. Our work in government will focus on three issues: first, helping families who care for older and disabled relatives, as well as those bringing up children; secondly, tackling violence against women and improving the way in which we deal with women who commit crimes; and, thirdly, empowering black and Asian women to help them as a force for good in their communities and as they build bridges between communities.

Families need to have enough time and money to care for older and disabled relatives, and to bring up their children in the way they want. They need proper support from good local services for both older relatives and children. As Ministers for Women, we will build on the strong foundation of support for families which the Government have already delivered to ensure that all families have real choices about how they live their lives. On this, we will be working alongside our ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Treasury, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

This first strand of work will also include pressing forward with the Government’s commitment to tackle the pay gap between men and women—a gap that is not only unfair in principle, but which plays such a large part in the unequal division of labour in the home, preventing fathers from playing a more active role in their children’s early years and preventing women from fulfilling their opportunities at work. As Ministers for Women, we will also work with Ministers in the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Communities and Local Government on how health and other local services can better support families who care for older and disabled relatives.

The second strand of our work will be about women who are victims of violent crime and women who are offenders. Domestic violence still results in two homicides every week. It not only harms women but has a devastating impact on children. Human trafficking takes many forms and blights the lives of men, women and children in many different continents. Britain is a major focus for the global trade in the sexual exploitation of women by traffickers, who trick or abduct young women and force them into prostitution. We have done a great deal to step up action against domestic violence, sexual offences and human trafficking, but there is more to do. We need to ensure that the substantive law is right and make it clear beyond doubt that domestic and sexual violence against women, and human trafficking for prostitution, will not be tolerated. We will be working alongside Ministers in the Home Office and with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to tackle this.

On women who commit crimes, my noble Friend Baroness Corston found that many of the women in prison are there for minor, non-violent offences, and that many of them have mental health problems, or problems to do with drug or alcohol abuse. On women offenders, we will work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice on taking forward the agenda so ably mapped out by Baroness Corston. We can and will do more to ensure that women who have offended are rehabilitated, and that women who are at risk of offending are prevented from doing so. As Baroness Corston outlined, we will do so through ensuring effective services for drug and alcohol addiction, and for mental health problems.

Thirdly, we will work on the issue of empowering women in black and Asian communities. Women play a crucial role working together in their communities, whether they are working to reduce crime in their area, like Mothers Against Guns, or working to improve local services by taking part in tenants and residents associations, school governing bodies and parent teacher associations, or whether they are Asian women, like Southall Black Sisters, working to support other Asian women. We want to do more to support and empower those women as they tackle problems within, and build bridges between, communities.

We will work closely with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to take our agenda forward. We will also work with Ministers from across Government to ensure that black and Asian women have fair opportunities to work and take part in wider public life, including by becoming councillors and Members of the House of Commons. I hope that we can take that work forward with the support of local government, and supported by, and working with, Members of the European Parliament. We will also work alongside voluntary organisations, women’s organisations such as Women’s Aid and the Women’s Institute, trade unions and employers. We want to work not just with our ministerial colleagues, but with hon. Members, both women and men, on both sides of the House.

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for coming to the House to make her statement today. I certainly welcome the sentiment behind what she has said, and I look forward to working constructively with her, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did with the Minister’s predecessor, to improve the lives of women in Britain. However, I am disappointed by the lack of ambition that has been shown in an area where there is still so much to be achieved. Will she confirm that not a single part of today’s statement is a new policy? I have to ask why, after 10 years in power, the Minister is only launching a consultation on the important issues that were mentioned.

We live in a time of rapid social and economic change. Even in the 10 years since 1997, the workplace and the world beyond it have changed remarkably. Government policy relating to women has to keep pace with that change, but it has not always done so. The issues confronting women are diverse and complex, so instead of having a one-size-fits-all idea of how women should lead their lives, Ministers must pursue a policy based on choice for women who are free and empowered to make their own decisions.

The right hon. and learned Lady said that she would focus on helping families, tackling violence against women, and empowering women in black and minority ethnic communities. Those are laudable aims, and when she comes up with new policies, we will support her if she gets them right, but as usual, the rhetoric exceeded the reality by some distance. She said “the Government have already delivered to ensure that all families have real choices”, but what about the 90 per cent. of families who use a relative or neighbour to care for a child? They do not get the support that is available to those who use Government-approved child care. What about women’s pensions? One in four single women pensioners lives in poverty, yet the Minister did not even mention pensions in her statement.

The Minister said that she will be “pressing forward with the Government’s commitment to tackle the pay gap”, but that implies that the Government are already making progress, and they are not: women who work full time earn 17 per cent. less than men. Does she accept that progress on equal pay has stalled? She mentioned violence against women. The Government have indeed acted on the issue of domestic violence, but does she agree that we need further action—and, I suggest, a change to police attitudes—on stalking, an issue on which the Government have so far done little? The Minister said, “We have done a great deal to step up action against…human trafficking”. The Government signed up to the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, but it still has not been ratified. In questions to the Minister for Women on 5 July, I asked when it would be ratified and what specific policy changes have been made as a result of signing the convention. The right hon. and learned Lady did not answer. Will she do so now?

The Minister said that she will work with the Justice Secretary to address problems with women in prisons. We know his answer to problems in prisons—he tends to let people out—but the crisis caused by the lack of prison capacity exacerbates the problems experienced by female prisoners. In the outside world, women are three times less likely than men to commit suicide; in prison, they are twice as likely to do so. Women prisoners are twice as likely as men to be held more than 50 miles from home. How can the right hon. and learned Lady reconcile the hope of improving the lot of female prisoners with the reality of overcrowded jails?

Today’s statement betrays the problem behind the Government’s approach to women’s issues—a problem that goes all the way back to 1997. While some changes are indeed welcome, there is no coherent philosophy or joined-up strategy that underpins that policy. That needs to change. I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Lady has set out priorities for women today, but I do not welcome the fact that there is so little substance in her statement. Women of all types and in all circumstances—mothers with children who are juggling their work-life balance, women in pensioner poverty, and vulnerable women—are looking to her for more than fine words. When she returns to the House to make her next statement on women’s issues, we expect substance, not style.

The right hon. Lady appears to agree that these are the right priorities—it is right to focus on families, violence against women, and to support women in their communities. I assume she believes that those are the right priorities, but she criticised us for a lack of ambition. If she wants us to be more ambitious, I would welcome her support for our programme becoming more ambitious. It is important that we will the ends as well as the means. It is not right to say that one supports families who want to balance work and home but then vote against the legal rights necessary to help them. It is not right to say that one supports the fight against human trafficking but will not work with colleagues in Europe to deal with a Europe-wide problem. It is not right to say that one supports women in black and minority ethnic communities if one will not support the financial investment in those poor and deprived communities that the Government have made.

I urge the right hon. Lady to join us in our commitment to do a great deal more, and will the means, not just the ends. Rhetoric—she is absolutely right—does not help a single family, does not protect one single victim of crime, and does not help any minority ethnic woman struggling in her community. We have done a great deal, but we have brought to the House a focus on priorities in areas where we need to do more. I acknowledge that we have not set out a list of new policies. We have said what our three priority areas are so that people in the House and, importantly, people outside it, know what we are focusing on and can work with us to achieve it.

The right hon. Lady talked about choice and people being free to lead their lives how they want. Part of the problem is that the less money someone has and the fewer services available to them, the less choice they have, so I look forward to her support for extra financial support and public services. She talked about the difficulty of families caring for children, and it is true that one of the big demands from families is that people should have more time so that they can care for young children within the family, which is why tax credits and the minimum wage are so important. If someone has to work all hours to make ends meet, they do not have any time with their children, so the minimum wage is not just about money but about time.

The right hon. Lady spoke about pensions. Women in retirement suffering from inequality and having a poor standard of living is a very important issue for the Government, about which my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform will say more when we discuss the Lords amendments to the Pensions Bill in the next item of business.

The right hon. Lady said that action on the pay gap had stalled, and she mentioned some figures. It is true to say that the pay gap between women working full-time and men working full-time is about 12 per cent., but the pay gap between women working part-time and men working full-time is 40 per cent., so I agree with her that much more needs to be done to tackle unequal pay, and I look forward to her wholehearted support for more radical measures. I will pray her in aid when I am talking to my colleagues on the subject.

The right hon. Lady said that we had not done anything about stalking. That is not the case. We introduced the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and we have done a great deal of work with the police, prosecutors and the voluntary sector to deal with the menace of stalking.

On human trafficking, it is not just a question of signing up to and ratifying conventions. It is what we do about the problem, working with the police, prosecutors and the courts. It is what we do about what is happening in our communities. I have a local newspaper, the Ham & High. The whole House should think about this. Here are some extracts from the personal ads:

“New Polish girls”,

“New Japanese & Korean girls”,

“Romanian ladies”,

“New oriental beauty”,

“All girls 18-25”,

“New tropical models”,

“Beautiful girls daily. All nationalities”.

We need to think—

If the Government ratify, we can deal with it.

No. We need to think of the demand side of the problem. Who is reading those ads? This is a very difficult issue. There is no consensus about how we deal with the demand side—the men, the fathers, the sons, the brothers, the husbands who are reading those ads and who are fuelling the demand side of global sexual exploitation of women.

I welcome the support of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for our focus on women in prison. I think we can make progress on that. We would welcome working co-operatively with her on it. She says that the problem behind our approach is a lack of—did she say ideology?

A lack of ambition.

A lack of ambition, but the right hon. Lady did say something about a lack of ideology. Our commitment is to making sure that we tackle inequality and empower women. I hope she will work with us on that.

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for the courtesy of allowing me prior sight of the statement. I take the opportunity to welcome her to her position. She has an impressive track record of working on women’s issues, and I hope that in government she will be a strong advocate for women on a wide range of issues.

In the statement, the right hon. and learned Lady rightly put support for families up front. One of the biggest challenges facing women is balancing their family responsibilities and their work commitments, although that is an issue for men as well. We should not pigeon-hole it as a women’s issue. Indeed, we will probably be able to conquer the problems only when men, too, are engaged with the changes that are required.

On the pay gap, the figures have already been quoted—12.6 per cent. for full-time work and 40 per cent. for part-time work, and we need to do more to reduce the gap. Will the Minister consider extending equal pay audits to the private sector? On flexible working, the paper published today alongside the statement says that the Government are considering extending flexible working to parents of older children. Does that mean up to the age of 18? Will the Minister go further and accept that extending to all the right to request flexible working would help to change our working culture and reduce some of the resentment that can be created when some colleagues have an opportunity to request flexibility and others cannot?

Clearly, affordable child care is an important part of that, and I welcome the Government’s moves to make child care more affordable. Are new resources being announced to facilitate that? If not, how does the Minister expect that that will be achieved?

I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the part that was missing from the families section of the statement concerned women’s pensions. Later today we will debate the Pensions Bill. Although there are some welcome improvements for women who have taken time out to care for families, they will be applied only after 6 April 2010. The difference that that will make to women who reach pension age the day before is that they will lose out on £27,000-worth of pension entitlements. I urge the Minister to comment on whether she thinks that is fair. If we are really going to be fair to women on pensions, surely it is time that the Government went one step further and based pensions on residency rather than national insurance contributions, because even under the new plans women with fewer than 30 years of NICs will not be entitled to a full pension.

On violence against women, it is welcome that a lot of cross-Government working is planned. The End Violence Against Women campaign has been scoring the Government in this respect. They got one out of 10 in 2005 and two out of 10 in 2006, so I hope that the trend is on the up. I hope that this will lead to better cross-departmental working, because that is what the campaign says has been missing, although individual strategies have been in place, for example on domestic violence. What steps will the Minister take to create an integrated strategy involving all Departments to tackle violence against women, instead of a piecemeal approach?

The moves on women in prison are welcome. We will of course scrutinise the Government on delivery and the action that is taken. However, given that four out of five women prisoners have a mental illness, it is urgent that the situation is tackled, and we will give the Government support in doing so.

On trafficking, it is welcome that the Government have now signed the European convention against trafficking in human beings and is planning the new legislation that is needed to implement the actions necessary to deal with the problem. The advertisements that the Minister read out from the newspaper will have been shocking and horrific to us all. However, while all these things are being put in place, it would be helpful for the House to have some idea of roughly when we can expect the convention to be ratified.

It is well documented that black and Asian women in communities across the UK suffer more discrimination than white women or black and Asian men, so that is clearly an important issue for the Government to tackle. However, the Commission for Racial Equality recently expressed disappointment about the discrimination law review and is concerned that there may be proposals to wrap the equality duties into one single duty that ends up being weaker. What reassurance can the Minister give that new proposals to simplify existing equality legislation will not result in a rolling back or weakening of the current race and gender equality duties?

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and look forward to working with her. I thank her for her comment about the decades of work that I have done in this area. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and I do not find ourselves on our own in taking forward this agenda. As well as the many men on the Labour Benches who support it, 97 women Labour Members of Parliament will ensure that it is taken forward.

The hon. Lady rightly says that this is an issue for men as well as women. If a new baby comes along and the father is earning much more than the mother is, he has to work increased hours to bring home more money while she works fewer hours to care for the child. The difficulty is that there is no choice. Because he is earning so much more, she has to be the one who takes more time off—they cannot share the responsibility equally or even decide that he will be the one who stays at home and looks after the child. Unequal pay is not just a matter of principle but a matter of choice within families at home. We have taken forward greater rights to paternity leave. Families are not just about women. Women shoulder most of the responsibility of the work of caring for young children and elderly relatives, but men increasingly want to share that responsibility, and we must ensure that the labour market and pay rates do not prevent them from doing so.

I agree with the hon. Lady that equal pay is important, but it is difficult to make progress in tackling discrimination in pay, or unequal pay, while it remains hidden. That is why I welcome our commitment to ensure that Departments publish gender pay audits, so that we can see what is happening in terms of pay rates.

The hon. Lady spoke about the right to request flexible working and suggested that everyone should have the right to request it. It is argued by many, particularly the Equal Opportunities Commission, that if everybody, not just those with children, or with disabled or older relatives, were entitled to request flexible working, it might reduce the hostility of those without children, or such relatives, towards those who have them. We must recognise that it is a social policy imperative to ensure good family care and support for children, disabled relatives and the elderly. We have to argue that case to people and say, “If you don’t have those responsibilities, you are freer at your work, and can do more work than those who are working on behalf of their own family and society as a whole in supporting and caring for elderly relatives, or bringing up children.” There is not a public policy equivalence between allowing flexible work in order to let someone play a round of golf, and allowing it so that someone can care for an older relative. I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s line of argument on that.

We have made progress on affordable child care, but—heavens above—we are just at the start. Many families are tearing their hair out because affordable, flexible, high-quality child care is still not available to them. We have a long way to go—there is no doubt about that.

The hon. Lady talked about inter-departmental working on violence against women. We are considering merging the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence and the inter-ministerial group on sexual offences in order to take an overall view across Government on violence against women.

The hon. Lady recommended that in order to tackle the problem of the inequality of men’s and women’s incomes in retirement, we should simply use residence in this country as the main criterion, rather than the contributory system. My view is that we must ensure that people can contribute when going out to do paid work, which should be recognised in their national insurance contributions, but when they stay at home, caring for elderly or disabled relatives, or children, that too should be recognised as a contribution, and they should be credited for it. The problem with our system is not that it has been contributory, but that the only contribution, which has been disproportionately recognised, is paid work, not the valuable unpaid work that women do in their families. That is the historic problem.

I agree with the hon. Lady that overcrowding in women’s prisons is a particular problem. It is cruel for women prisoners with mental health problems, who have offended because they were victims of violence and sexual abuse in childhood, or because of those mental health problems. We have a positive programme concerning women offenders, which has been ably mapped out by my noble Friend Baroness Corston.

The hon. Lady spoke about the review of discrimination law. There is no intention to have weaker legal duties; it is a matter of strengthening the role that the law can play in equality.

Finally, on the ratification of the convention on human trafficking, when I was Solicitor-General—a role that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) now has, and she is doing a terrific job—I worked with prosecutors in Brussels and many European countries, and with Interpol, and I can tell the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that what we sign is very important, but beyond that is what we actually do. It is a question of what we do about the demand side. We are talking about billions of pounds of serious, organised crime.

I am in favour of ratification and implementation of any such treaty, but we need to consider some serious issues. What are we going to do about demand? Why is trafficking a multi-billion pound, lucrative serious organised criminal business? It is because men pay for sex with exploited, trafficked girls. We need to consider what we are going to do about that. We need to work further on whether and how to criminalise such exploitation. In Sweden, the problem has been tackled by making paying for sex a criminal offence. We must examine the way in which other countries try to deal with the problem.

rose—

Order. Many Members want to speak. May I make a plea for brief, single questions and short responses?

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her statement. It is great to have the priorities laid out at the beginning of her term as a Minister and I welcome the fact that consultation will take place. I especially welcome the section of the statement on carers. What more can we do to help carers who are unable to work outside the home because they look after a disabled or elderly relative and may consequently live in poverty and also be isolated? Has she considered those issues?

My hon. Friend may well be aware that the Prime Minister announced a review of support for carers. We must all acknowledge that the subject will move up the agenda, given that people with disabilities live longer, older people live to a greater age and family care is the choice of the older person and of the family. The question is, as my hon. Friend points out, how we support people to make those choices without their suffering financial destitution and social isolation.

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about me and my work. I pay tribute to her work in setting up Cardiff Women’s Aid, which is an exemplar of tackling violence against women, and in child care in Cardiff, including Chwarae Teg, which was a joint organisation of employers, trade unions and women’s organisations for greater flexibility at work.

I warmly welcome the right hon. and learned Lady’s priorities for women in public policy, but they must be reflected in such priorities in the work of the House. Given that she is both Minister for Women and Leader of the House, will she conduct an urgent conversation with herself and then agree with me that it is monstrous discrimination against her that she is allowed to answer oral questions for only 10 minutes a month, that the time should be at least tripled, and that, given that she is Minister for Women, it is only right and proper that, in 2007, we should have a Select Committee on women’s issues?

The idea of having a conversation with myself and ending up agreeing with the hon. Gentleman is interesting. The point about setting out our priorities is that we will work alongside our ministerial colleagues as they take policies through their Departments, and they will be accountable to the House. Additionally, as women Ministers we are accountable. We must ensure that the priorities and objectives are clear and made mainstream in the work of different Ministers, who are then held to account by Select Committees.

All the time, we need to think about the structures of accountability and how we create a greater focus on the issues that we are considering. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments in that spirit.

I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s emphasis on violence against women and her reference to the impact on children. I know that she is aware of the project that I am currently running with Women’s Aid called Kidspeak, through which we listen to the experiences of children who are affected by domestic violence. Does she realise that some of the evidence already shows that impacts include truancy, self-harm and poor school performance? There is also a terrible lack of resources to support those children. Will she urgently look into that as part of her priorities?

My hon. Friend set up the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence, which made me remember what a long way we have come since the days of Jo Richardson, who was politely ignored if she mentioned domestic violence once in the House and had people muttering behind their hands if she mentioned it twice.

My hon. Friend’s Kidspeak work reminds us that the old view that people should stay together for the sake of the children even while enduring violence misunderstood the effect of domestic violence on children. All the evidence is that even if children are not physically caught in the crossfire—sometimes they are and sometimes they are killed at the same time as their mother—they are always traumatised and damaged by being in a household where there is domestic violence. That is why it is important not just for women, but for children in the family.

I thank the Minister for her statement; we expect great things from both her and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). The Director of Public Prosecutions gave a rousing and informed address to the all-party group on human trafficking yesterday and admitted that trafficking was on the increase. The Minister will not be surprised to know that the statutory police performance targets do not include trafficking, so there is no pressure on the police to apprehend traffickers.

In her consultation, will the right hon. and learned Lady look at the question of compensation for victims when traffickers are apprehended? At the moment, not one penny piece has been given by traffickers to their victims. One of the most important things that the Minister could do is to make sure that the victims of trafficking receive not only the identity cards that give them the right to stay in this country, but compensation for the awful ordeal they have gone through.

The hon. Gentleman says that he expects great things of myself and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We will make great progress if we all work together on this. Many of these issues are difficult, but we need to recognise the scale of the problem and to take radical action. We have to build on these agendas or we will not make progress; we cannot be cautious. I hope that we can work with the hon. Gentleman, to whom I pay tribute, along with the other members of the all-party group, which does good work. I will consider and discuss with my colleagues his point about targets.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about compensation. The CPS has been focusing more not just on apprehending, prosecuting and punishing the offenders, but on seizing the assets. There are vast assets involved and the problem is that someone can spend a couple of years in prison, then come out and live like a millionaire. The more assets there are, the more they get reinvested in bringing more women from different parts of the world to be sexually exploited and raped in this country. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of freezing and seizing the assets. He is also right about the importance of the courts using the powers to order compensation. I am interested to hear that he has already had a discussion with the Director of Public Prosecutions and I will discuss this with my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and with the Solicitor-General to see whether we can encourage further progress in this respect.

rose—

Order. May I once again ask Members to ask a single question and for there to be a brief response? Many hon. Members are still hoping to make a contribution.

I very much welcome the priority given to women at work, especially tackling the pay gap. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the outstanding work being done by the YWCA, in its “More than one rung” campaign, in getting women apprenticeships in areas of skilled work that attract higher pay, such as building, electrical engineering and car work, so that they can earn more pay when they are training and throughout their working lives?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the work that the YWCA is taking forward. She is absolutely right that it helps to tackle the pay gap. However, the additional point is that if young girls can see a future for themselves and have aspirations, that is the best way of avoiding teenage pregnancy and ensuring that they have financial independence. It was said to me a few moments ago by one of the officials with whom we were talking about teenage pregnancy that the best contraception is aspiration.

As my party’s spokesman on health and women’s issues, I welcome genuine attempts by the Government to improve the lot of women generally. However, I have some issues concerning the objectives. The right hon. and learned Lady has said:

“We are creating the Commission for Equality and Human Rights—a single equality body for race, religion and belief, gender, disability and sexual orientation—and we are currently consulting on the Discrimination Law Review.”

What will the Government do to protect the Christian ethos of the United Kingdom, where currently we cannot have nativity plays or send Christmas cards because that is deemed to be offensive to ethnic minorities? Could the right hon. and learned Lady expand on that?

Also, in relation to recognised—