With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government.

I have today laid before the House a White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People." Copies are available in the Vote Office, together with a summary leaflet.

Today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister published the Government's annual report. It shows that we have made a cracking start in modernising Britain: 177 manifesto commitments, 50 kept or done and 119 under way. There is plenty more to do, and our White Paper today is part of doing more.

The Government are building a modern Britain and a fair society. The White Paper that I am publishing today will help to achieve both. After two decades of creeping centralisation, the White Paper returns power to the people. It sets out proposals to modernise English local government. Those reforms are at the heart of our programme for constitutional change.

The Parliament for Scotland, the Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland, a mayor and assembly for London and the regional development agencies are all part of a package for decentralising power in Britain. It is the most radical and comprehensive package of local government reforms for generations. Previous Governments have changed local government boundaries and structures. Those are not unimportant, but they are not the whole story either. We have seen over the past few years what a distraction such boundary and structure changes can be.

The changes that we are proposing today are about how councils work and how they can be more in touch with the people whom they serve. The changes have been developed in consultation with local government. I have been pleased to work with the Local Government Association, and I want to place on record my support for the LGA. I fully support a single all-party voice for local government. It has enabled my right hon. Friends and me to have regular dialogue with the leaders of the LGA in our central-local partnership meetings.

We want the changes to be the start of renewed, stronger and more accountable local government. It is a programme of reform for the next decade. Councils educate our children, house the homeless, care for the elderly, encourage arts and sports for all, plan better health care, help to regenerate local communities, plan better local transport and create real and lasting jobs. People look to the local council for support when things go wrong. From family breakdown to factory closures, from fire to flood, the local council picks up the pieces.

Earlier this year I visited Warwickshire, where communities were devastated by the worst floods in memory. I spoke to local families whose houses had been wrecked and who had nowhere to go. They looked to the local council and its emergency services. They knew that the council was there for them. When I visited Manchester, I saw the public-private partnership rebuilding the city after its centre was shattered by a terrorist bomb. I spoke to local business people whose enterprises were brought to the brink of disaster. They were dependent on their local council and they knew that their council was there for them.

It is right that the House should be reminded that councils serve the country well. Many thousands of councillors of all political persuasions do an excellent job under difficult circumstances. It is time for the House to make that clear when so many criticisms, often unjustified, are levelled at our councils.

I want all our councils to be up to the standards of the best, not hampered with political organisation from the previous century as they face the new millennium. These proposals will help councils to modernise, to improve their performance and, where necessary, to rid themselves of old-fashioned and inward-looking attitudes. The best councils will act as beacons to the rest. They will be pace setters and centres of excellence, and they will gain new freedoms to show how much the best councils can achieve.

Through best value, all councils will have to learn from and adopt best practice in the delivery of efficient public services, so I want to strengthen local accountability and streamline decision making. I am therefore proposing to allow local choice on new ways of running councils. I want voters to know who is responsible for taking local decisions and how to hold those people to account.

Councils will be required to review their political management structures and to draw up a plan, with a timetable, to introduce new arrangements which will separate the executive. Too often today, too many councillors get sucked into the meetings culture in their town hall, rather than representing their community to the council. We want to give all councillors clear and important roles in representing their communities—some as mayors and cabinet members, and others holding the executive to account.

At present, by law, passed by this House, councils have to conform to a single model of political organisation—the 19th-century committee structure. In place of centralised conformity, we propose a local choice. The local choice will be from a range of models including: an executive mayor directly elected by the people, with a cabinet of council colleagues; a cabinet with a leader appointed by the council; a mayor directly elected by the people to give a political lead, with a full-time manager to run the council; or local people will decide whether they want to keep a directly elected mayor. In special circumstances, if the authority tests the opinion of the electorate, the existing structure can be retained if the electorate so decide. Local people will vote if a council proposes a mayor, and they will have the right to demand a referendum themselves to create a directly elected mayor.

Local systems of political management can be adapted to suit local needs, but the Government will not allow complacency. All councils will need to review their structures and make proposals for change. The Government also want to improve accountability.

We want more people to vote, thus giving more local responsibility for taking crucial spending decisions. Reading the beginning of the White Paper—I cannot recall the page—it is remarkable to learn of the low level of participation in voting in this country as compared with others.

That is because of the first-past-the-post system.

It is indeed a challenge for all of us to secure a better voting system, but I might add that the countries that do better do not necessarily have proportional representation, which is the Liberals' answer to everything. [Interruption.] I must be protected, Madam Speaker.

Our proposals are as follows: yearly elections in most areas, with councils also having a new power to hold referendums on local issues; improved procedures for councils to consult local people; and making it easier to vote. Councils will be able to try out new ideas to make voting easier—wider use of postal votes, electronic voting, mobile polling stations, and voting in supermarkets, railway stations and town centres.

Crude and universal council tax capping is over. As we said in our manifesto, new safeguards will mean more responsibility locally for council spending and taxation, and protection for local people from excessive council tax rises through new reserve powers. As I told the LGA conference earlier this year, I will have those reserve powers, and I will not hesitate to use them if necessary. It will not be crude capping, but it could be called crude Prescott.

Like all public servants, councillors must be beyond reproach. The overwhelming majority of the 2 million people who work for councils and the 20,000 councillors who serve on them perform an outstanding service to the public. They have a tough job and they do it well. Those councillors and public servants resent the doubts that are cast on their integrity by the activities of a few. Hon. Members have much experience, some of it as councillors. I have never been a councillor but I have a great deal of respect for councillors' hard work, dedication and commitment. It is my respect for the greater majority that makes me intolerant of the tiny minority who are guilty of dishonesty, corruption and sleaze.

Local government already has a strict regime—I might point out that it is stricter than the one that operates in the House. However, it has not proved enough, just as our arrangements here have not necessarily proved enough. We shall introduce for local government a tough new ethical framework with strict codes of conduct for councillors and council employees and an independent standards board to deal with complaints about improper behaviour. There will be no hiding place for dishonesty, corruption or sleaze. This is not a political issue: it must be the aim of all those who are in public life.

I now turn to the delivery of local services. I am pleased to announce the end of compulsory competitive tendering. It was divisive and was not always the best way to provide efficient services to local people who had no say whatever in those contracts. We propose a new and demanding duty for councillors to deliver best value. It will give councillors the flexibility that they need to be fair to the many dedicated people who work to provide our public services and it will guarantee the best deal for those who use and depend on those services.

Councillors will give more say to service users and, in partnership with local people, they will set clear service standards and targets for continuous improvement and will publish them so that local people will know the standards that they can expect. Services will be subjected to regular and independent inspection, and I am pleased to announce the creation of a new best value inspectorate as part of the Audit Commission. Local people will play a part in the inspection process. The Government will act swiftly and effectively if councils fail to tackle serious or persistent failures.

We propose a new duty on councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas in co-operation with public, private and voluntary bodies and local people. That will make councils more effective in leading their communities and serving their people. The capital finance system will be made simpler, so that councils can organise their capital investment and assets in the best way.

Just as I want to improve the accountability of councils to voters, I also want to strengthen the relationship between councils and their businesses. National business rates will stay but, within defined limits, we want councils to be able to vary the rate locally, with councils and business agreeing on how any extra money that is raised will be spent. Once again, that will give councils a stake in the success of their local businesses, and local businesses a stake in the success of their councils.

The proposals are good for councils and will enable them to fulfil their potential to be a powerful force for progress and social justice. The proposals are good for councillors because they will be able to do more for their local communities and able to serve and represent their voters more effectively. Above all, our proposals are good for local people. They will have better services that will be delivered by more accountable councils. The purpose of the proposals is to give people a bigger say and a better deal—to put local people first. I commend the White Paper to the House.

I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for making his White Paper available to us at 2.45 pm. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government are now addressing a wide range of local authority issues. The Opposition share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the vast majority of councils and councillors conduct themselves properly and responsibly. I should mention that, of course, it is not councils that educate our children but teachers, many of whom, although not all, are employed by councils.

The Opposition will judge the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, first, by whether they improve value for money for service users and for taxpayers and, secondly, by whether they increase the accountability of councils to voters. Is he aware that the White Paper is published at a time of great concern about the rising cost of local government? This year, there were record rises in council tax, averaging 8 per cent. in England, which is more than double the rate of inflation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures that I received from the Library this week, which show that, as a direct result of the comprehensive spending review, council tax will rise by 5 per cent. a year in real terms for each of the next three years? Will he confirm that council tax payers will therefore pay substantially more council tax every year for the rest of this Parliament just to maintain existing services? Is he aware also that there is great concern about abuses in local government, to which he made some reference?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the replacement of compulsory competitive tendering by best value is in danger of being a smokescreen behind which the discipline of competition is removed? Will he not admit that CCT did bring huge improvements in the quality of service and delivered massive savings for the taxpayer? Will he confirm that many Labour councils are already anticipating the end of CCT by awarding more contracts in-house?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reserve powers that he retains over council spending mean that, effectively, capping continues in all but name? From the point of view of councils, does that not simply replace crude and universal capping, which he has pledged to abolish, with crude and arbitrary capping, another broken Labour promise, alongside tax, class sizes, waiting lists and the welfare state.

On business rates, are not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in effect just another new tax on business? Do they not mean that, for the first time since the uniform business rate was introduced, all businesses face the possibility of above-inflation increases in their business rate? Will he explain how businesses, especially small businesses, will be consulted before councils put the business rate up?

Will all types of council apart from parish councils be invited to adopt a new model of operation? Will councils be forced to choose one of the models that he has referred to, or can they opt to continue with present arrangements? If they choose the option of a directly elected mayor, with a full-time manager, what will be the role of elected councillors? Does he believe that those new models will involve more or less spending on administration? Does he claim that any of those new models will improve the scrutiny of council decisions?

I welcome the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses about ethical standards. I fully agree that concern about that issue is not a party political matter. Nevertheless, will he not admit that he is worried, as his Scottish counterpart is, about evidence of widespread abuse in Labour councils, of which we have had more reports even today?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the level of turnout. In the light of his comments—which were not in his written statement—I invite him to join the campaign against proportional representation that Conservative Members will shortly launch. Can he produce any evidence that introducing annual council elections will increase voter turnout? Indeed, given the poor turnout in the recent London referendum, what makes him think that the turnout in other local referendums will be any higher?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will examine the detail of his White Paper because we have found that the fine print of new Labour documents often contains nasty surprises? Finally, is he aware that best value will not automatically improve services or cut costs; that a new model of political organisation does not put a single extra teacher in the classroom or care for one more old person; and that no one will be persuaded that allowing him to select beacon councils, as the White Paper suggests, will return power to the people?

It is nice that the Opposition have finally found some policies and are prepared to campaign on proportional representation. We await with interest what else will come about. We have applied different voting systems to elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the mayor and the assembly for London. Lord Jenkins's commission is looking at proportional representation and we are committed to a referendum in respect of parliamentary elections. We will have to see how those matters affect local councils, but no decision has been taken, and the White Paper does not address the issue.

The Opposition seem to have changed their mind since they were in government about a mayor and assembly for London, devolution and a Scottish Parliament. They soon adjusted to the reality of political life, and we await their proposals on proportional representation.

You have changed your mind.

I have given examples of adjustments that have to be made. It is up to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to show whether I have changed my views. I certainly welcome his endorsement and that of many in the House of my view that, despite all the attacks that have been made on local councils, we should remind ourselves what an effective job they do.

There is common agreement on the need to improve the position of local councils, to give them powers and resources to be more accountable; and for local people to have a greater say. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition made that point to the local government conference when he said that he wanted people to have a greater say in matters relating to local councils. I welcome those remarks.

The hon. Gentleman referred to value for money. The efficient production of services is important and the White Paper is designed to achieve it. The compulsory spending review—[Laughter.] I gave the Opposition the chance to get a laugh in, but I think I was well ahead of them. I have done it before and perhaps that shows an attitude of mind.

On the comprehensive spending review, the settlement to local authorities is generally agreed to be most generous as compared with previous settlements. It also covers a three-year period so that local authorities have sufficient time to settle their planning priorities. Our projections for inflation and growth in the economy are consistent with that. We must wait to see what happens in the coming years, but most people would agree with us.

We have planned for three years instead of one. That will provide greater stability to local authority financing and it is what local authorities wanted. It is at the heart of what we have done. As for efficiency and value, the idea of having beacon councils is to say that certain councils are excellent and that we want to reward excellence and encourage other local authorities to reach their standards. That is another step in the right direction of getting good service efficiently at the best price and for the best value.

In regard to best value, it is generally agreed that compulsory competitive tendering was extremely expensive in the long run. It concentrated solely on price, largely at the expensive of the people employed in the industries concerned, and it resulted in a reduction in the quality of services. I do not have to make the case; it has been pretty well made by any analysis of compulsory competitive tendering.

Although we are interested in efficiency and price, other issues of best value must be considered. That has come out of all our surveys, and we intend to bring it home to people. It has been demonstrated in the 40 pilot areas where we have implemented new systems. There were some improvements in productivity under compulsory competitive tendering, and certain practices were changed that should have been changed.

The activities of some local authorities show that the initiative for change—whether or not it arose in that way—is to be welcomed, but other factors must be taken into account in achieving best value. That is why we have highlighted the fact that under compulsory competitive tendering there was much too concerned to pay contractors—

The unions.

In many areas, they were not trade union members. If the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) looked at the facts instead of indulging his obsession with trade unions, he would discover that many of the people involved were not trade union members. They could not be protected because, under compulsory competitive tendering, local authorities were obliged to accept the cheapest price.

The hon. Member for North Essex might also be concerned for the taxpayer because the consequence of reduced wages under CCT was very often a considerable rise in the cost of family credit. The taxpayer paid for the low wages enforced by CCT. The Opposition often lecture the Government on cutting expenditure on welfare and subsidies, yet at the same time, they propose policies that would have the opposite effect. Under CCT, employers avoided their responsibility to pay employees a fair wage for providing a decent service. That is the argument concerning best value and CCT.

I have made the position on capping reasonably clear. We need legislation on the reserve powers to which I referred. Present laws will, of course, apply in the next financial year. We have made absolutely clear to local authorities that they have a three-year expenditure programme and that we want them to take that into account. We will be setting rates for average council tax increases over that period on which we will make an announcement in—I think—November. It is then up to councils to act responsibly, as I hope they will.

To be fair, most councils spent within their expenditure ranges. Only a handful found themselves facing conflict and the imposition of capping. That applied only once most recently—and there were special circumstances—as it did the previous year. We are quite prepared to allow councils a three-year programme, and we want them to be flexible on it. We are not indifferent to levels of council expenditure—no Government can be. After all, central Government provide councils with about 75 per cent. of their expenditure. I will properly take into account the reserve powers.

On the issue of new model organisations, we provide different choices. If we move more towards having paid councillors and reducing allowances, if we want to attract more and different people to council work, and if we have full-time mayors or executives, there will be some cost involved. That is the same for Parliament, where we have moved more towards full-time than part-time conditions. That is a price that one can pay for democracy. We want an improved democratic local council structure, which allows much more open and accountable decisions to be made and which gives councillors more power to check the executive's decisions.

All the models split the decision-making power between, on the one hand, an executive, as we have in Parliament, and, on the other, councillors who can openly question what is going on. All too often, decisions at council committee meetings are decided beforehand and councillors merely act as administrators, putting their hands in the air. We want to change that; I do not think that people like that. We want fundamental change, and that is what we will bring about.

I welcome the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in order to implement it, we need legislation? What timetable does he envisage for such legislation, and when does he hope that it will begin affecting local councils?

As early as possible, I sincerely hope. My hon. Friend will know that the matter is for the Ministerial Committee on the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation, since it proposes which Bills are to be in the Queen's Speech. I cannot comment on that at the moment.

We very much welcome much of the language in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, although, when we look at the White Paper in more detail, I think that we shall find quite a few areas in which our approach will substantially differ from the Government's. The Liberal Democrats believe that local government is in need of reform. Too many councillors do not listen to the public. Too many councils are one-party states, and complacent about the way in which they run town halls. That is why the White Paper is a missed opportunity. Rather than a White Paper that tackles the first-past-the-post voting system, which so undermines local government legitimacy, we shall have annual elections and supermarket voting. We will return to the subject time and again, no matter how much certain hon. Members snore.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that the prospects of a close result, the possibility of a change of council, and councillors who are more than just mere agents of Whitehall will do more to increase voter turnout and interest in local government? Is he aware that a fair voting system based on the single transferable vote would have done more to open up town halls and challenge one-party states? Will he confirm that the proposals give the Secretary of State wider powers to intervene in the affairs of town halls? If councils deliver new Labour's agenda, they will be rewarded with beacon status, which is not so much freedom as a slightly longer leash from Whitehall.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his proposed changes to the capping and financing regime fail to clarify accountability, and that local electors will still be left wondering whether Ministers or their councillors are responsible for council tax rises? Will he also take this opportunity to go a little further with the proposals for citizens' initiatives with regard to directly elected mayors, and provide for the electorate to seek to recall a directly elected mayor if he proves incompetent?

The White Paper hands more power to central Government and reduces local discretion; it sees democratic local government as nothing more than an administrative arm of Whitehall. Do not the Secretary of State's proposals therefore represent another victory for Whitehall over town hall?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, especially his congratulations on my use of language—not something with which I am usually associated, as Mr. Parris will tell us if he is in the Press Gallery. That is welcome praise, wherever it comes from, and I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Nevertheless, like many hon. Members on the Government Benches—and, I suspect, on the Opposition side too—I still do not feel that many of the evils and wrongs in our society could be removed simply by changing the electoral system to one of proportional representation. I do not want to enter into that argument now, but we can examine electoral systems in different parts of the world and see that such changes are not necessarily guaranteed by this or that voting system. Participation in voting is crucial, and there are also other factors, as well as the type of vote.

I do not dismiss other ideas entirely; we have tried different types of votes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Scotland, in Wales and in the London mayoral elections, so we are being quite radical in introducing change. We may not perhaps be as radical as —

We want more.

I understand that, but we choose to strike a balance. We are not convinced of the argument for local authorities, although we are now examining it in connection with constituencies, through Lord Jenkins's commission on proportional representation. I am not a great fan of that myself, as hon. Members may have guessed. None the less, that is where we are at the moment.

We need to make a judgment, and turnout certainly does not depend simply on the voting system. We will consider the commission's findings and all the ideas; I agree that it may contribute to the arguments and debates on the Government side of the House. However, new ideas will have to be judged in terms of accountability. I have always thought that proportional representation means that 5 per cent. of the electorate run the Government, as we have seen in Germany and other countries. So I am not convinced about that either. [Interruption.] Of course, the 5 per cent. in Germany were Liberals, so I can see why some hon. Members argue that case.

As for the Secretary of State's powers of intervention, on balance, Secretaries of State will have to reserve powers for themselves. They cannot be indifferent to levels of expenditure on providing services when 75 per cent. of it comes from the state. Both the Government and local councils will carry the responsibility for what the electorate feel about the bills for council spending, because people are aware that it is both the Government and councils that make the choices. We are saying that it is reasonable to expect a certain level of services to be provided and a certain level of finance to be required. That is a matter for political decision.

As we said in the White Paper, if councils want to spend more than we allow, they can, but they will not necessarily get a subsidy from central Government to do so. Councils can make that choice and explain it to the electorate. That is taking things further than any previous capping system, and it is a step in the right direction. Local authorities have to make the decision themselves.

As for the powers of intervention and the powers of local authorities to get on with some jobs, new powers and new resources are involved, and the procedures that we have set out for partnerships give them greater authority and autonomy to do some of those things within the balanced framework that we have set.

I cannot read my notes here; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman made one last point—[Interruption.] The point about Whitehall—

I said "recall".

I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman was talking about the right to recall the mayor. Where a council does not carry out any of the changes, the electorate will have the chance to have a kind of referendum—a 10 per cent. petition, we could say—to call for a mayor. However, the argument that, once the mayor has been elected, there should be a right of recall if he has not done too well after 12 months in office will, I imagine, send a shiver through the House, when hon. Members think that judgments could be made on individual Members' competence within their first 12 months. I am not convinced of the argument, and I suspect that, if I invited hon. Members to vote for it, I would not carry the Liberals with me, either. None the less, it is another interesting idea from the Liberals, who never get the chance of having the power to implement their ideas.

Will my right hon. Friend totally reject the lectures from Conservative Members, who brought us the poll tax, continually denigrated local government and changed our constitution by making local government merely an agent of central Government? In wholly welcoming the White Paper, may I say that his celebration of local government's performance will be widely welcomed in the county of Durham? His words represent one of the best ways in which to ensure that local councillors will embrace his modernising agenda. May I ask him to go further and to pay tribute to all local councillors, who in many cases have sacrificed their careers, families and social lives without any thought of return?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks; I very much agree with what he says. To be fair, the Opposition have agreed with us on the need for change and I welcome their commitment. Indeed, that was almost bound to come, as the Leader of the Opposition said to the Local Government Association:

"I've come here today to tell you the Conservative Party is changing."

That little I accept and welcome; change in the right direction is for the good whether in the Tory party or in the Labour party.

My right hon. Friend was right to say that councillors feel almost besieged by press comments. We should say loudly and more often that the great majority of councils are not involved in any wrongdoing. As I know from my experience in Hull, if I may be so bold as to mention it, the press pays a great deal of attention to any allegations that are made. I wish the same amount of publicity was given when it is found that there is no evidence to support the allegations and the allegations are withdrawn. We would all welcome balanced reporting and more credit being given to the work that councillors do.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the intellectual paradox whereby the Government are delegating greater powers to local authorities, but power in the Labour party nationally is being increasingly centralised?

I will not pray in aid Mr. Archie whatever his name is. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to say that the intellectual paradox was that central Government wanted both to give local government more power and to retain some influence and control—striking the right balance is the problem at the centre of any debate about local government. In the White Paper, we have tried to strike a balance; it will not be acceptable to all, but at least we have tried to outline the proper responsibilities of central Government and local government.

I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the thrust of the White Paper is to decentralise, as that is contested in other quarters. If I have time, I shall tell him all the things that the Labour party has decentralised in the past two or three years—they are considerable, they are consistent and they work.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that he is taking to lift the shackles that the Tories imposed on local government over the past two decades. I also thank the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who has worked hard to improve the relationship between the House and local government—long may she continue to do so. I believe that the problems in local government commenced in 1974, when the Tories reorganised local authorities and moved responsibilities from local communities to remote metropolitan district authorities.

As chairman of the special interest group of metropolitan authorities in the House of Commons, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at financing? The distribution of resources needs to be fairer. Some London authorities receive one and a half times as much as some metropolitan authorities do to teach a pupil, and the same applies to community care. I thank him for tackling the problem of capital debt, but will he also ensure that resources are much more fairly channelled to local government nationally? The electorate would be much more interested in electing people to serve them if they realised that they would receive the services that they wanted.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The House will have listened to him with considerable care owing to his long experience, not only in local authorities but as an Opposition spokesman on these matters. He made some interesting points. He asked whether we should begin to change the financial distribution between different types of authorities, and he referred to metropolitan, unitary and district authorities. There is an argument there. We have talked about changing the standard spending assessment distributions, and our commitment to a three-year review will bring some stability to achieve that.

I was struck by all the delegations which used to come to see me and my Ministers each year to discuss and marginally change the SSAs—in most cases, not change them. That was not a good use of the time of councillors or of Ministers. I have said that we needed to change that, and the three-year financial programme for local authorities means that we can settle down and look at how SSAs can be properly distributed. There are many complaints about the system.

Finally, I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong). Anyone standing at this Dispatch Box as Secretary of State knows that much of the hard work is done by Ministers of State and by Under-Secretaries. I could not be better served than by the present Minister of State in this matter.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a rising group in local government are concerned at his replacement for capping which they see as interventionist and subjective? What will be his criteria for action in that matter?

We have said that capping is unfair and we have made our case on that. We accept the responsibility for public expenditure in that area. We have chosen to use an element of reserve powers which identify what councils can spend. That will have an implication, as I will announce, for what we think the average rises will be. If a council chooses to go above that figure, it will face the first penalty—it will not receive the Government support. With the reserve powers under the new legislation, persistent offenders will be faced with a situation where the penalty is made retrospective, and we will take that into account in the settlement of their expenditure over that year. That allows us greater flexibility.

The hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience in local government—he has more experience than me—that capping was very much limited to the one year. People had to make the case within that year. In some cases, authorities got into difficulties with public expenditure or Government financial support—as was the case in Derbyshire—and to ask them to try to settle that in one year was absolutely impossible. Councils could face real penalties of cuts, as in Derbyshire. We did not concede everything that Derbyshire wanted, but we thought that there was a case because of the difficulties over the years. This three-year programme will allow us to deal with the matter in a fair and flexible way, and with a great deal more social justice.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new scrutiny powers there will be strong powers for back-bench councillors to inquire into the activities of councils—powers sadly lacking under the present system, which so frustrated those of us trying to dig out the Westminster scandal during the 1980s? A condemnation of the Westminster scandal by those on the Opposition Front Bench is sadly lacking. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be powers to take enforcement action where such scandals are detected, and that these can be brought into effect quickly—rather than waiting years and years for, so far, no outcome whatever in the Westminster scandal?

This is an area of some difficulty, but I do not wish to enter the party political exchanges. We can all reel off councils, but the response should not be just to turn round and say, "What about Westminster?" That does not help us. We should all agree that something has to be done. That is the general will of the House. To name councils with problems does not help the House and certainly does not help the councillors.

We need to ensure that councillors have the powers to deal with the problems. We are increasing the powers of scrutiny by introducing a new structure. There will be an executive—it could be a mayor or a leader—for councillors to scrutinise. Council decisions are generally taken in groups. That is the same for any political party. Even when there is power sharing between political parties, agreement has to be reached.

The overwhelming majority of councillors are asked simply to have a little discussion and put up their hands in a committee meeting to endorse a decision that has already been made. Scrutiny is a far better system, and we have endorsed it and put it at the heart of our White Paper. Councillors will be able to check the executive and the chairs—even those of their own party—and scrutinise decisions.

When the citizens listen to councillors putting their case, they often complain to their Member of Parliament that the decision had already been made and that all the councillor could do was say, "I'm sorry, I can't say anything." That does nothing for accountability or for democracy, and it affects turnout at elections. Scrutiny will put greater pressure on the executive, and decision making will be much more open and transparent. The press and everyone else will be able to see an open, public debate on decisions that affect so many people's lives.

Scrutiny is a major step towards dealing with wrong decisions, corruption and other problems. The strengthening of the standards board will mean that there will be a readily accessible body for people to complain to, which will serve democratic accountability in councils.

On the matter of finance, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will look sympathetically at the authorities that share the characteristics of urban and rural areas and are represented by the town and country finance issues group.

The White Paper, however, is more about restoring the credibility and integrity of local government, which must be an important task for us all. Is it not therefore all the more deplorable that, when we are seeking to ensure that taxpayers' money is not used for party political purposes, the White Paper should be published on the same day as the most deplorable example of such an abuse that I have seen in 15 years? Page 31 has the caption, "I am still hopeful that Tony Blair will keep his promises." That is no different from a party political document, but it is funded by the taxpayer nationally. That is no example to set local government, and I intend to take the matter up with the Cabinet Secretary.

I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be worrying about that. I say that with a certain amount of cynicism, because most of us remember the practice of the previous Administration in their 18 years in office. I do not normally get into slagging off different periods of government, because it is not useful, but I remember that the Government's policies and achievements used to be recorded by asking Ministers what a Department had done since such and such a date, and that that would always happen to be the date of that Government's election.

All we have done is put our achievements in a proper annual report, record what we have done and be accountable for it. I call that democratic accountability. I would have been very happy for the previous Government's achievements to have been in a report that we could have debated in the House. The report makes it easier to have a debate than under the old system, whereby a question had to be put to the relevant Minister.

This is a new form of accountability. Much recent argument in the House has concerned whether the Labour party is keeping its promises. That is constantly asked at Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister can make a statement here, so why cannot we as a Government make a comprehensive statement in an annual report? I hope that all Governments will follow that practice. Governments can be in favour with the electorate one year and out the other. Good year or bad, Governments will now be accountable for their record: the record of what happened and not of what the Opposition put about.

My right hon. Friend will know that only a minority of the country still has two-tier local government. Does his White Paper give such authorities the option to become unitary authorities? If that is not possible in the short term, does not the fact that the authority that spends the least—less than 20 per cent. of the total—has to collect the money go against the accountability that he seeks? Should not county councils have to collect their own money so that there is direct accountability, and so that people know where the money is being spent?

I said at the beginning of my statement that much legislation over the past couple of decades, has been about organisational structure rather than services. Unitary authorities exist, and the general opinion on both sides of the House is supportive of them. Unitary authorities have increased during the past few years. Two-tier government remains in metropolitan areas and in county areas where there are district authorities.

Three-tier.

In the background, there is also regional government, which I have always supported, which may shock the hon. Member for North Essex. There are questions about the structure of local government, but it would take two Parliaments to be able to deal with them. Anyone who considers organisational change in local government will know that there must first be a consultation document, then legislation that will take time to pass. I am an advocate of regional government, but for now there exist local authority structures that are both unitary and two-tier. We will seek to make authorities work as best they can. Where there are injustices, particularly as regards finance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, we shall seek to make matters fairer.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the consequence of today's announcement will be that people up and down the country will pay a lot more in council tax without any improvement in quality of service? His White Paper is entitled "In Touch with the People", but does he accept that he is out of touch with the people if he cannot tell us that people will get better quality services for the same or less council tax?

Some of our changes to local authorities will make for better value, greater efficiency and improved provision of services. If we can do that, we can get more services for the same money. That is what efficiency and effectiveness are about. We have made changes to local authority financing regarding Treasury rules with which I was in considerable disagreement. Trading corporations in local authorities, such as airports—Manchester was a classic example—found themselves in difficulties because they had to borrow against the requirements of local government, instead of the requirements of a profitable company with considerable assets.

Changes to those rules will relieve local authorities of some expenditures and difficulties, and will enable them to put resources into providing better services. That will not cost the taxpayer one penny. We are making more intelligent use of the financial framework in which local authorities operate. Along with our best value system, that will mean better services. That belief lies at the heart of the White Paper, and we will be able to judge it over the next couple of years.

I welcome the Secretary of State's reaffirmation of the value of public service, and the measures for greater local accountability and local scrutiny that must go with it. Would he say more about the criteria that will be used to assess progress by local councils in considering political structures to meet that aim, and the aim of being closer to the people? Who will decide, and how, which councils are beacon authorities?

The final point is highly relevant, and the White Paper contains a considerable section about beacon authorities. We use the term to identify centres of excellence. Some authorities, as we know, can build houses or provide services more efficiently than others. We want to highlight those authorities as offering the standards that we want for local authorities.

Like Wandsworth.

It might be Wandsworth, or it might be a Labour authority. I do not seek to make any ideological point about it. Where best practice exists, we should try to use it. Where good practices do not exist, we should act to say so. The White Paper says that they will be unacceptable, and that we are quite prepared to take action in areas that do not improve.

Local democracy is not about having the worst, inefficient services; it is about being proud of running local services. Most citizens have no chance of determining a council one way or the other, and we are obliged to do something about services. Beacon councils meet that argument. On setting targets, whether for housing, or for provision of services, the Audit Commission has already done some work.

We should like to talk more about the outputs than about the inputs. The Audit Commission is largely concerned about getting value for money. That is quite proper, but the services that emerge are equally important. That is where we draw the distinction between compulsory competitive tendering and best value. We shall negotiate those targets with the local government associations and we shall take that matter into account. Governments always come under a certain amount of pressure when dealing with public expenditure to bring about the best practice. We stand for better quality services and best practices. That is what the White Paper is about.

I am delighted with much of what the Secretary of State has had to say this afternoon. When the White Paper materialises into a Bill, I hope that he will not give up completely on the idea of having a change in the voting system for local government. Some of us think that that exercise would bring more accountability.

Can he explain how the options for change in the way in which a local authority is organised and run will be put to the people? I know from my experience of over 30 years in local government, some 20-odd elections and four changes in local government organisation that the party in power at the time decides on how the options are put to the people. The end result is nearly always geared to support the continuation of power rather than to give more democracy to the people.

I am refreshed to hear that the matter of regional government remains high on the Secretary of State's agenda, as it is on mine. As his White Paper passes through its consultation exercise I should welcome him adding weight to the idea that regional government is an option to which we should look forward.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, particularly for his words about regional government. As we all know, these major constitutional changes or, at least, boundary changes, are extremely controversial. There great heat generated by whether the area we live in is called one thing or another. I shall not pick an example because these matters get particularly hot. I believe in these changes and I shall take every opportunity to push in that direction.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set up the Jenkins commission to look into types of political representation and voting systems. We have a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the issue also. Those are some steps towards what he is asking for. We are trying different electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, the London mayor. The system of election for the mayor is different from that for the assemblies. It tries to encourage the maximisation of the vote.

The election of mayor requires a candidate to achieve 50 per cent. support. We will use a system of voting that will encourage that. If there are more than two or three candidates, it will allow for it to be judged which of the last two candidates gets more than 50 per cent. of the vote. The maximisation of the vote is designed to encourage support for the mayor. Indeed, the additional member system allows for a combination of the system of direct election of a member to a constituency and the top-up principle.

Given our proposals for these elections, it is fair to say that this is a radical agenda and a major change in our electoral process. It is right for us to claim that, even if we do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman wants us to do.

These are innovative proposals which will transform the face of local government and will be widely welcomed. My right hon. Friend said that local authorities could trigger referendums. Given that we want local authorities to speak on behalf of their entire community, will there be any restriction on the types of issue and question that can be put to the voters in a referendum? Is there any provision for the voters themselves to trigger a referendum?

Our White Paper may not go as far as my hon. Friend wants in regard to questions in referendums. We have chosen to suggest ways forward. For example, with regard to the mayor, the local authority is required to put its proposal forward and have a vote on it. If citizens are to initiate a referendum they must produce a petition signed by 10 per cent. of those involved. That is not a unique idea. It is used for parish councils—where a certain area calls for a parish area. In Hull, either Beverley or East Yorkshire—I think it was Beverley—was campaigning hard for that. My hon. Friend has granted Beverley the right to have a parish area because 10 per cent. of the people involved produced a petition.

We are prepared to consider a number of suggestions and one could be a proposal for an authority that wants either the mayor, the chief executive or the change in structure. We should also bear it in mind—I have said this once, but think that I should repeat it, particularly for those councils that might not like the idea of changing those structures—that, if the existing structure is found to be acceptable, that option can be put to the electorate, who can say, "We don't want a change. We're happy to accept the council's verdict." In many cases, the referendums will not be decision-making referendums but will merely offer advice.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister go into more detail about his conclusions on page 40 of the White Paper regarding more frequent elections? What will be the position for councils affected by the Local Government Commission's ward redistribution, whose cases are before his Department and which have not taken into account the possibility of yearly elections? Will he take it from me that such elections are not necessarily the answer that he seems to think they will be?

Derbyshire Dales district council is elected every four years, whereas Amber Valley district council has yearly elections, but the turnout in Derbyshire Dales is, in the main, higher than that in Amber Valley. Therefore, annual elections will not necessarily result in a great increase in turnout. There is a difference between district councils, which do not spend much money, and county councils, which provide the majority of services in the shire county areas. The White Paper states that the counties will have elections every two years. However, as the wards will be much larger, that policy is worrying, particularly in large rural areas such as mine.

We made it clear in our manifesto that we wanted more regular elections and we are taking into account the different election cycles. For example, some unitary authorities are elected by thirds, with elections each year for three years and the fourth year fallow. That will also be the case in London, where we propose to hold the elections for the mayor and the assembly in the fallow year; so we will have elections there every year.

There are real difficulties in having multi-member arrangements for the counties, so we have decided to allow elections for half the seats every two years—so all the seats will be covered in four years—with a district holding its elections every two years. That will allow more regular and frequent elections, but will also take into account the fact that whereas towns and highly populated areas can have multi-member constituencies, that is not the case in the county areas and so we have to provide a proper balance for them. That is why we have arrived at that conclusion and why we have received a certain amount of criticism about the fact that there will not always be yearly elections. I hope that we have found the best way to make elections more frequent and will achieve that.

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business of the House for the first week back after the summer recess.

MONDAY 19 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the conclusions of the Government's strategic defence review.

WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Human Rights Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the 10th report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on housing; followed by a debate on the seventh report from the Trade and Industry Committee on reform of European structural funds. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.

I am grateful for notice of the business for the first week back. I welcome the right hon. Lady to her first business questions, and look forward to working with her. In that spirit, may I suggest that she glance at the website at No. 10, whose Cabinet page still shows her as President of the Board of Trade?

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be an oral statement at 11 am tomorrow on the roads review, and explain why all the other oral statements after the comprehensive spending review took place within a few days of it, while this one was held back until the Friday that the House rises? When we return, can we have a debate in Government time on the new role of the enforcer at the Cabinet Office, to give the House a clearer idea of how he will operate and what his remit is? How will he kick-start the stalled programme of welfare reform, caught, as we heard yesterday, between two warring Departments? How will he arbitrate between No. 10 and No. 11 on such issues as the future of the Paymaster General?

When do the Government hope to receive and publish the report of the Jenkins commission on electoral reform? Can we have a debate on it? Will the Labour party do what the Conservatives have done, and place in the Library of a copy its submission to the commission?

On today's costly and revisionist annual report, should the Prime Minister not hold himself to account in the Chamber of the House of Commons rather than in the rose garden at No. 10? Should he not do so before all Members of the House, rather than a hand-picked team of Ministers?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is not my first business questions, because I have been shadow Leader of the House. I do not know whether he thinks that I am on performance-related pay but he asked a lot of questions, all of which I will endeavour to deal with. I assure him that there is no significance in—and nothing sinister about—the roads statement being made tomorrow, which is a sitting day. It has not been held back; it is a matter of it being ready. At business questions, Members always want statements, but every other day they do not want them, because they take time from debates. It is always difficult.

The right hon. Gentleman seeks a debate on the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I am sure that there will continue to be Opposition days, so it is a matter that he and his colleagues can continue to pursue. I know that they are looking for ways to fill the time, as they have no policy of their own to debate. He will have to consider that.

On the Jenkins commission, I do not know the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I will inquire about the issues that he raised on that. He asked about why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's annual report was not presented to the House. He overlooks the fact that, obviously and inevitably in the annual report, the Government report on what has already been done and that a parliamentary question on the annual report was answered. Scrutiny in the House through statements and questions and so on are for future policy. I assure him that all the issues have been aired in the House. I commend the example of producing such a report to the Conservatives, though I am not sure what they would put in it.

I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box—I know that all my colleagues join me in that. I particularly commend her good sense in debating the Select Committee report on housing in the week we return. Having set such a good example, will she also allow us to debate the Select Committee reports on regional airports and other aspects of transport, because they are all equally good?

Any report produced by a Committee in which my hon. Friend had a role would be worth reading. I shall bear in mind her view that the reports merit examination in the House—but not, I fear, in the first week back.

In welcoming and congratulating the right hon. Lady, may I say how much we appreciate the work of her predecessor as Leader of the House? I hope that she will extend my felicitations to her predecessor.

I remind the right hon. Lady that the Leader of the House has two roles. She must ensure that the Government's business is carried through, but she must also represent the views of all Back Benchers and parties. I draw her attention to early-day motion 1569.

[That this House is appalled at the behaviour of a small but organised group of Tory honourable Members who appear to be acting as 'a party within a party' in blocking the progress of Private Members' Bills that have the support of the House; notes the inability of the leadership of the Conservative Party to deal with these backbench honourable Members who seem to be running the Party; and hopes that the House can find time in this Session to consider and pass those Ballot Bills that were blocked by those Tory honourable Members in the order that they appeared on the Order Paper for 3rd July, namely the Fireworks Bill, a safety measure which would decrease firework accidents, the Energy Conservation (Housing)Bill, which would help people living in cold homes to keep warmer, the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill, which would ensure that customers get full measures in public houses, the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, which would help stamp out cruelty in puppy farms, the Energy Efficiency Bill, which would help home buyers insulate their homes and cut fuel bills and the Local Authority Tenders Bill; and further hopes that, if necessary, provision can be made to bring proceedings to a close on each of those Bills after reasonable time.]

A total of 180 hon. Members of all parties have expressed concern about the treatment of private Member's Bills. I appreciate that a debate will not be possible tomorrow, but will she see if some action can be taken in the spillover period to deal with the matter?

Can the Leader of the House give us any information about the timetable for the freedom of information Bill? Will there be time in the second week of the spillover Session for a debate on the White Paper on local government published today and just introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister? During the long recess, when she perhaps has more time for reading than has yet been available to her, will the right hon. Lady carefully examine the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee's first report on the legislative programme, in the hope that they will be of use to her and her colleagues in deciding how next Session's business may be undertaken in the House?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am aware of the excellent work done by my predecessor, and I know that she will be grateful to him for his observations. She said that the Committee would examine the procedure for private Members' Bills. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that, in due course, the Committee will examine that matter.

I have taken due note of what the hon. Gentleman said about what we might discuss in the spillover. I cannot, I am afraid, cast any light on the timetable for the freedom of information Bill. I hear his concern to debate the White Paper that has just been announced, and I will bear it in mind. I assure him that I intend to take some time during the recess to study the work of the Modernisation Committee.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position? When she is thinking about business for next Session, will she consider the possibility of holding a series of debates, preferably opened by the Prime Minister, to give the House an opportunity to debate the performance of each Government Department?

I do not wish to cause my right hon. Friend any embarrassment, but will she ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry is at the top of that list of debates, so that we can highlight its achievements over the past 15 years——[Interruption.]—-15 months—including the national minimum wage and the White Paper "Fairness at Work"? It is necessary that we highlight those achievements and the work of the previous Secretary of State, who introduced those measures. If we have such a debate opened by the Prime Minister, we shall be able to question him on the reasons why changes were made in that Department recently, as well as in other Departments.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestions for discussions in the House, and for his kind remarks. I take seriously the observations of all hon. Members. I will certainly take seriously his suggestion that we should debate the way in which Government Departments handle their business. He will know that the time of the House, especially with a heavy legislative programme for a reforming Government, is always at a premium, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the achievements of the Department that I previously headed, where a great deal of work has been done. I am confident that work will be taken forward in the future.

I look forward to the debate on the strategic defence review. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that a specific issue is raised with the Secretary of State for Defence in the context of the new spirit of openness and open government to which we are committed? I received a reply from him on the 28th of this month about costs relating to the nuclear weapons establishment, in which he declined to come up with the information, on the basis that it was exempt on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

As the information was already available in Companies House, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the full costs associated with the nuclear weapons programme are as available to Members of Parliament in the House as they are to members of the public outside, so that a full and proper debate can take place here.

I certainly hear the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that, if the material that he describes is available in Companies House, it is available to hon. Members as well as more widely to the public.

Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—in the modern vernacular, the enforcer—come to the House at 11 am tomorrow to make a statement on the ethical implications of the appointment of Lord Sainsbury to the Department of Trade and Industry, and how he will dispose of his £1.4 billion of supermarket shares, in view of the fact that his Tuscan tycoon friend the Paymaster General is trying to promote the sale of individual savings accounts through supermarkets, and that is germane to Lord Sainsbury' s responsibilities at the DTI?

There is no question of any need to make such a statement. There are no ethical implications in Lord Sainsbury' s appointment. He has already met the permanent secretary of the DTI to discuss the handling of his affairs. The ministerial code sets out roles on avoiding conflicts of interest, and they will of course be followed.

Early after our return, will the Leader of the House make way for a debate on the increasing number of deaths from drugs overdoses in Strathclyde this year, especially the recent alarming reports that the deaths may have resulted from heroin taken from a missing batch imported into this country by Customs and Excise for use in tracking drug traffickers?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern at the tragic events that she describes. I am not familiar with the report to which she draws attention, but the Ministers in the relevant Departments may be. If they are not, I shall ensure that it is drawn to their attention.

I welcome the right hon. Lady back to business questions. May we have a debate in the spillover period on departmental responsibilities in the Scottish Office? It will not have escaped her notice that the new Minister of State at the Scottish Office has a dramatically lighter work load than that of her predecessor. The reason seems to be that she has been given the "bash the Nats" portfolio.

I welcome the sign of panic from the Labour party. I welcome the recognition that they have been trounced in the polls in Scotland. I even welcome the ministerial changes that acknowledge that, but is there not an issue as to whether a part-time Minister should be given a full-time salary? Should not the Labour party pay for its own politicking rather than ask the public to do it?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. His question seems to be hypothesis piled on hypothesis. I have not studied, I fear, the detailed allocation of work in the Scottish Office, but we have excellent and hard-working Ministers there. I am confident that they will do an excellent job in handling the affairs of the Scottish Office. If that handling has some impact on the electoral fortunes of the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that it will be a job well done.

Looking ahead to business on our return, may I invite my right hon. Friend to make a statement following the resignation comments of Lord Richard, who has implied that it is unlikely that there will be any Lords reform other than setting up the wholly undemocratic, unelected council of life peers? As a proud moderniser and, along with her, diligent custodian of the Labour manifesto—[Interruption.]—new Labour manifesto—may I draw to her attention the commitment we gave to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to look into reform? In other words, we gave a commitment that the further reform would be Parliament-led, not Executive-led. Is it not time, first, that we had some specific proposals on the reform of the House of Lords, and, secondly, an indication that we will see this right through to the end, and to a democratically elected House?

I am well aware that my hon. Friend is a diligent custodian of the Labour party's manifesto. I heard some, though perhaps not all, of the remarks of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Richard. I must admit that I did not read into them the implication that has been read in by my hon. Friend. The reform of the other place is an issue that will certainly be thoroughly debated in this House, and I am confident that, in the end, my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the outcome.

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. Will she be able to give us a debate both on the Government's annual report, and on the way in which the Government deal with the House? She will know that I pressed both her predecessor and the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has also lost his job, to ensure that we found out how long it is taking Ministers to reply to letters from Members of Parliament, but we have still not been given that information.

I know that the right hon. Lady's former Department, the DTI, had one of the best records under her control—indeed, one of the Ministers said that he was sacked because he had achieved too high a return rate for letters from Members of Parliament. Can we have an early debate on that issue, because it does concern all of us, and affects how we can do our job for our constituents?

I cannot undertake to find time, although I can generously offer that the Opposition might find time, to debate the Government's annual report, but I shall certainly bear the request in mind.

As for the way in which the Government deal with the House and the length of time taken to reply to letters, all Ministers are anxious to get the turn-round as fast as possible. My predecessor will probably have told the hon. Gentleman that, in every Department under the Labour Government, the level of correspondence, not only from Members of Parliament, but from members of the public, and the overall work load has actually gone up like that—almost vertically. That is one of the things that is making it harder to achieve a fast turn-round. When a Government are reforming and modernising, as this Government are, it increases the work load.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new job, and I associate myself with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). Will she look in the new parliamentary year for time for an early debate on health and safety? That would be particularly pertinent, as the first week back is European Safety Week; and the 20th, which is the second day back, is the 21st anniversary of the expansion of the role of the health and safety representative under the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974.

Such a debate would give us an opportunity to discuss the Health and Safety Executive report on the reporting of accidents in mines, which shows 52 per cent. under-reporting. That figure is contested by the mining unions, which argue that the level of under-reporting is far greater. An early debate would be much appreciated.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I must admit that I was not aware that it would be European Safety Week when we come back, and I am grateful to him for that information. At present, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in that week, but I shall certainly bear his views in mind.

I too congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new appointment. May I return to the issue drawn to her attention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—that ministerial correspondence is being returned far too slowly?

I wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 4 April, but I have still not had a substantive reply. If a difficult question were posed in the correspondence I sent to the Minister, I could understand the need to look into it with some care, but the correspondence does not deal with a difficult matter. I invite the Leader of the House, as the protector of the interests of Back Benchers, to ensure that Ministers get their heads around their correspondence rather more quickly than they are currently doing.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks, but, without knowing the particular issue to which he refers, I cannot know what the reason is for the delay, although I agree that the delay is not usual. It would be a matter for regret in any Department, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister. However, all I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman is to repeat that the work load undertaken by Government Departments has, in most cases, quadrupled, and inevitably that has implications for the time it takes to deal with these matters.

Does the Leader of the House share the concern of hon. Members, the Playpen Campaign, many parents and child care professionals about the apparently conflicting statements emanating from the Government in respect of child care regulation? On the one hand, the former Secretary of State for Social Security published the excellent Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge" which made the case for better regulation; but, on the other hand, we had the better regulation task force report, which made the case against better regulation.

Is there not an urgent need for these matters to be clarified? Is there not an urgent need for a debate in the House, so as to ensure that we have no more Louise Woodwards, Helen Staceys and Louise Sullivans?

All hon. Members on both sides of the House share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend that there should be no more tragedies, but I must admit that it does not appear to me that there is a conflict on the issue. Everyone is well aware of the importance of ensuring the safety and welfare of children; the issue is how best it can be secured. My hon. Friend will know that the consultation document was issued in March. The Government are studying the responses to that consultation, and will come forward with proposals in due course.

Now that we have the constitutional innovation of the Government Chief Whip being in the Cabinet, will there be a slot for the House to put oral questions to her?

That would certainly be a constitutional innovation. I must confess that I had not considered the matter, but I shall certainly do so.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that, on four occasions, I have raised the case of my constituent Ricky Reel in the House. He was the young man who, last year, following a racist attack, went missing and was found dead in the Thames a week later. There was a Police Complaints Authority investigation into the investigation of his death; that has now come to a conclusion, and it is hoped that the report will be available during the recess.

May I ask that we have a debate on the PCA report as soon as possible after the recess; and that the report be made available, together with all the investigatory evidence? That will ensure that we can have a thorough debate on the case, which will help to restore the confidence of the family in the overall investigation, and to identify where possible what actually happened to Ricky.

I am well aware of the great interest and concern that my hon. Friend has shown on behalf of his late constituent and his family. I cannot today give any indication as to whether it will be possible to find time for a debate, although it is open to him to seek an Adjournment debate. However, I shall certainly draw his remarks and his request for full publication to the attention of the relevant Department.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and ask the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement to the House about the role and responsibilities of the new Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology? She will no doubt be aware that Lord Sainsbury has indicated that, because of his commercial interest, he does not intend to involve himself in matter relating to food technology, and that is welcome.

However, does the right hon. Lady recognise that, to name but a few, plants and soil, wood and metal, textile and garment manufacturing technology are also matters in which, because of Lord Sainsbury's commercial interest, he should in future have no ministerial involvement? An early assurance on that point would be greatly welcomed.

There will, of course, be opportunities to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Trade and Industry questions in the autumn. I can only repeat what I told the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood: there are rules to prevent conflicts of interest arising, and those rules will be followed.

What has become of the much heralded statement on the proposal for a trial in a third country—Holland—of the Lockerbie suspects? Since Madeleine Albright apparently agreed, the idea that American objections are stopping such a trial is somewhat question-marked. Is it because of the nine-year-old cynicism of the Crown Office in Edinburgh? To put it quite cynically, the last thing it wants is an actual trial to take place, because, if it did, the poverty of the evidence that the Crown Office claims to have would be exposed. Is that the real trouble?

No. I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a long and sustained interest in the matter, that the Government continue to give priority to seeing justice done through a criminal trial of those who are accused. There have been discussions about the possibility of trial in a third country. A great deal of work has been and continues to be done on the matter. Complex issues are involved. If and when they are resolved, we shall make an announcement. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is not being held up by any concern of the kind to which he referred.

May I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post, and congratulate her on her outstanding performance in her previous job, which was widely appreciated on the Back Benches. [AN HON. MEMBER: "But not by business."] I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1589 on freedom of information, which is now signed by 185 colleagues from all parts of the House.

[That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement in 1996 that a Freedom of Information Act 'is not some isolated constitutional reform' but 'a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years'; congratulates the Government on its Freedom of Information White Paper; expresses concern at the prospect of any delay in bringing the measure forward; and calls on the Government to publish its draft Freedom of Information Bill before the end of the current session and to ensure that the actual Bill is introduced in the coming session.]

Can we have either a debate or a statement when we return in the autumn, so that we can remind ourselves that, before the election, we campaigned on the basis that a freedom of information Act was crucial to restore trust between Government and the people? I understand that that is a major theme of the Prime Minister's annual report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.

May I say to the Opposition Member—I did not identify the culprit—who said that my stint at the Department of Trade and Industry had not been welcomed by business, that he is wrong, and that I have had a number of nice letters from people in the business community, expressing their appreciation.

Of course I am aware of the great interest across the House in proposals for freedom of information legislation. As my right hon. Friend will know, I cannot promise at this stage an early debate or a statement when the House returns, but I shall bear his views in mind. He is entirely right to say that that pertains to trust, which is central to the Government's record and understanding. The annual report has been published today so that the Government can make it plain how they are delivering against the benchmarks we set ourselves before the general election. I understand why that is so objectionable to the Opposition, just as I understand why they never did it.

With regard to the House of Lords, has my right hon. Friend seen the comments of her former Cabinet colleague, Lord Richard, who said that an elected second Chamber would undoubtedly be troublesome for the Commons? As Leader of the House of Commons, will she bear in mind that there are differing views about that?

Although I am strongly in favour of getting rid of the hereditary peerages, as there is no justification for such people to remain in the House of Lords, it would be unacceptable, to some of us at least, that there should be an elected second Chamber, which would be a direct challenge to the authority of this House. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the Government consider proposals for the House of Lords.

I share my hon. Friend's view, as do the whole Government, that the continuation of the hereditary principle in another place, and of it being the basis of the right to vote there, is unacceptable. As he rightly says, there are differences of view about what should be done in place of the present situation. It would be unacceptable for those differences of view to be used as a further excuse to prolong the process of reform, as has happened when the issues have been debated in the past.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Leader of the House. Will she ensure that, before the debate on the strategic defence review in October, the Ministry of Defence publishes all its estimates on expenditure for this year which have not yet been published?

In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), will my right hon. Friend also ensure that the Ministry of Defence publishes all the costs of nuclear weapons, which under section 13 notices it has tried to hide by refusing to reveal them to the House? Without all the details of nuclear weapons research expenditure by the Ministry of Defence and by my right hon. Friend's former Department, a debate on defence expenditure and its implications would be rather unbalanced.

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He has made a number of requests for information that he considers should be available before the debate in the autumn. I shall draw those views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I am sure will take them on board.

May I join my hon. Friends in calling for an early debate on the Government's annual report, and in particular the choice of illustrations and the words put into the mouths of the people illustrated? I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to page 17 of the annual report, which shows a lady pushing a supermarket trolley owned by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The lady is portrayed as expressing views about the Government. Does the Leader of the House think that perhaps she was expressing views about the quality of the supermarket produce?

I only glanced at the cover and the photographs in the report. My understanding from that glance was that a photographer went around, took photographs of people, and asked them to comment on the Government's record so far. It is therefore wrong to suggest that words were put into anyone's mouth. Those words were, I understand, their words.

I join others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on her new position. May I bring to her attention the issue of private Members' business? Even after just a couple of days, she will be aware that this year little private Members' business has completed all its legislative stages in the House, primarily because of the blocking manoeuvres of the Opposition. Can the process be examined by the Modernisation Committee? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about the matter early in the new Session?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that my predecessor told the House that she thought that the Modernisation Committee should consider the handling of private Members' business. I am happy to share that view. However, as the Committee has not yet done so, I fear that it is unlikely that we will be able to make a statement early in the new Session. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's comments. I share his view that it is always a sadness, and it is difficult for people outside to understand, when worthy and sensible pieces of legislation are lost as a result of maverick behaviour by Members of the Opposition.

In the current climate of pay restraint, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about boardroom pay excesses, in particular the example set by some company directors, including none other than: the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as a director of Gartmore Shared Equity Trust, gave himself a 13 per cent. pay rise; the deputy leader of the Conservative party, whose board gave themselves a 40 per cent. pay increase; and the shadow Home Secretary, whose board of directors on Aggregate Industries plc gave themselves an astonishing 64 per cent. pay increase?

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and powerful point on an issue to which he and others will no doubt wish to return in the new Session.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post. In line with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will find time in the new Session for a debate on a Select Committee report published today on the welfare of former British child migrants? That excellent report outlines the appalling scandal that took place under the auspices of British Government agencies and the receiving agencies. Many children, supposedly in care, were subjected to appalling physical and sexual abuse.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am indeed aware of that report, and understand that it identifies some appalling treatment and practice. I share his view that it is an issue of importance. I cannot at present say whether or when we might find time for a debate, but I shall bear his views in mind.

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position, after an outstanding stint at the Department of Trade and Industry. Is she aware that today the Association of Professional Political Consultants described Derek Draper as "a rogue elephant" who brought the lobbying industry into disrepute, and that the chairman of the firm that formerly employed him, GPC Market Access, has written to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and to you, Madam Speaker, calling for a statutory register of lobbyists?

Given that the Prime Minister on Monday issued advice to civil servants on how they should deal with approaches from lobbyists, who are absolutely everywhere these days, is there not a compelling case for an early debate on the role of lobbyists when the House returns from the recess?

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I was not aware of the report to which he has just drawn attention, and I do not think it will be easy to find time for a debate early in the new Session or in the overspill. All I can say is that it is an issue to which various agencies of the House—perhaps even the Modernisation Committee—will have to pay attention at some point, as it seems that it is a developing role.

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the Government's annual report—this colour supplement to end all colour supplements.? Is she aware that the first page states that it is "presented to Parliament"? Should it not be presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister in person? Should there not be a debate in which he answers to Parliament rather than to a small coterie in the rose garden at No. 10?

If this is to be an innovation—I am not opposed to it as an innovation—does the right hon. Lady agree that there should be an end-of-term debate in Parliament led by the Prime Minister, so that hon. Members from all parts of the House have the opportunity to probe, scrutinise and criticise, and to expose the fallacies within the document?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the document reports on issues that have been thoroughly debated in the House—indeed, it makes a point about the scale and size of the Government's legislative programme—and that, in that sense, the Prime Minister has been available to discuss these issues on many occasions. I also remind him that the matter was laid before the House in answer to a parliamentary question. It is, of course, open to the Opposition to use some of their own time to debate the Government's annual report—they have no policies of their own, so they might as well debate ours.

I find it interesting that Opposition Members are so keen for the Prime Minister to lead a debate in the House. It was, after all, during the 18 years of the Conservatives' period in office that it became so rare that Prime Ministers took part in debates. I agree that it is important that the Prime Minister is available to the House to be questioned, and he is regularly, every week. Full advantage is taken of that.