How many pensioners in Scotland receive the free television licences for people over 75 years of age. [25070]

More than 300,000 pensioners in Scotland benefit from free television licences, but this measure forms just part of our overall package of generous support for pensioners.

I thank the Minister for his reply, which shows just what an excellent and worthwhile measure that is. Will he convey to his ministerial colleagues the suggestion that the qualifying age should be reduced from 75 to 70? In view of the difficulties that many poor people and those on low incomes have in meeting the ever-increasing cost of the television licence fee, will he also convey to them that now is perhaps the time to consider alternative methods of funding the BBC?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial helpful remarks. As far as funding the BBC is concerned, it has been looked at a number of times and this and previous Governments concluded that the licence fee is the best way to achieve that. On reducing the age of qualifying for free television licences, perhaps my hon. Friend and, indeed, I might have to declare an interest in that in the near future.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland, and we had a number of demands for the then Tory Government, none of which was accepted. This Government have implemented those demands one by one by one, including free television licences for the very elderly, who are less able to take advantage of other things, such as concessionary fares. That shows the generous way in which the Government have dealt with our old people.

As we are discussing benefits that are available to pensioners in Scotland, are the Minister and his colleagues in the Scotland Office disappointed that the dead hand of Westminster has put paid to free personal care for Scottish pensioners as originally envisaged, or are he and his—

Order. The hon. Lady should sit down. She is going way beyond the scope of the question, so the Minister should not respond.

Can the Minister give an idea of the cost of reducing the age of those eligible for free television licences from 75 to 65?

I cannot off the top of my head give an exact figure, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to. What I can tell him is that the cost would be very substantial and we would have to consider it in the light of all the other demands placed on the budget, especially as they relate to the elderly. I think that it was more important to introduce the £200 winter fuel allowance for every old person than it was to provide free television licences for them, which would be very expensive.

How many new regulatory measures affecting Scottish business the Government have (a) introduced and (b) abolished since 1999. [25071]

I n introducing new regulations, the Government are very careful to take account of the needs of the business community.

I am grateful for that concise reply. Given that small businesses in Scotland spend more than 31 hours every month trying to comply with regulations, does the Secretary of State agree that those regulations represent a burden and put Scottish businesses at a competitive disadvantage? Does she also agree that the improving regulations in Scotland unit has failed in its particular task?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I know something about the small business community in Scotland, having previously run a small business, having been a sole trader and having set up other small businesses. I believe that the small business community in Scotland, like the overall business community in Scotland, is very grateful for the fact that since 1997 the Government have reduced corporation tax by nearly 25 per cent. In addition, we are committed to extending the 10p corporation tax rate, we are reducing and simplifying value added tax procedures and our capital gains tax regime is one of the simplest in the world and much more favourable than that in the United States. Indeed, in introducing what is in effect an MOT on regulation, which ensures that regulations are checked on a 10-yearly basis, the Scottish Executive are taking the sensible way forward, and it has been mirrored in the approbation that the small business community has shown towards such an approach.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Trades Union Congress research on the burden of regulation on business? Does she agree that at 5p a week, the cost of maternity provision is certainly a price worth paying for women of child-bearing age? Does she also agree that issues such as fire prevention, which costs less than 1p a week, are very important? If our businesses honoured their responsibilities, we would not need such legislation.

My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. In reality, much regulation is aimed at ensuring that the good employers who implement good conditions of work for their employees are not undercut by unscrupulous cowboys. Indeed, I draw attention to the fact that the national minimum wage has transformed the lives of 135,000 Scots. The benefits of regulation far outweigh the costs. Notwithstanding that, the Government have been anxious to ensure, through the introduction of the Small Business Service, that the level of regulation is proportionate, so that small firms continue to grow and our economy becomes even more competitive.

Is it not the case that much unnecessary regulation in Scotland comes from the Government's block on using derogations available under EU legislation? In that regard, will the Secretary of State seek to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to use the derogations available to alleviate the plight of small farmers and crofters who are drowning under a sea of paper?

One of the Government's commitments is to be an active player in the European Union, but we also want to make sure that the systems under which we operate are proportionate and suited to the operation of our economy and our industries. I believe that we are doing that. In 1997, Britain was very much on the sidelines of Europe, and we have since become leaders in the EU. As a consequence, we are able to have a much greater impact on regulation to suit the economy not only of the urban but of the rural community.

May I caution the Secretary of State against the siren voices that call for complete absence of regulation? We are mindful of the financial scandals that are occurring—for example, those concerning Independent Insurance Co. Ltd. and Equitable Life, whose policyholders are writing to us. We need to exercise a light regulatory touch while fostering economic progress. Is not the big issue in Scotland's economy today the historically low growth of Scottish businesses? There is a need for the Government and local communities to ensure that those businesses are stimulated so that their growth equals the UK average and there are least 200,000 more people in employment.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Like most Members of the House, whenever Equitable Life is mentioned I have to declare an interest because, again like most Members, I have policies with that company. It is important that we create the proper climate for entrepreneurship so that new firms can be set up. Historically, Scotland has a problem with the formation of new firms, and the Government and the Scottish Executive are working together to address that. At the same time, there is a need for transparent and easily understood regulation to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities—in that group I include pensioners and those nearing retirement age—have the maximum protection available.

Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit to the House that Labour's extra burdens on business are destroying jobs? Is she aware that, in 2001, 20,842 jobs were lost in Scotland and that Britain as a whole fell from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league? How many more people have to lose their jobs before Labour realises that the business of government is not the government of business?

Despite the fact that many members of the right hon. Gentleman's party lost their jobs in 1997—losses that were consolidated in 2001—I point out that Scotland has the highest levels of employment and the lowest levels of unemployment for more than a generation. Perhaps if he knew rather more about Scotland he would be able to understand that, and he would be prepared to join me in congratulating those businesses that have created jobs in Scotland and those people who have moved themselves from welfare into work, particularly the long-term unemployed, and he would be prepared to recognise the scale of the achievement in Scotland. There are more people in work now than there were when his Government left office in 1997.

What plans she has for future activity as part of her Friends of Scotland initiative. [25072]

At the end of this week I shall travel to Hong Kong and Guangzhou in China and to Malaysia on trade-related business, and I shall take the opportunity to launch the Friends of Scotland initiative there. Indeed, in all my international travels I shall make a point of raising the initiative, both with posts abroad and with the expatriate Scottish community.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. It is important that we use her visit to make sure that millions of Scots all over the world know about Friends of Scotland and know that they can play a part in the initiative. To some extent, we are pushing an open door. People want to help and we need to use my right hon. Friend's visit to say to people, "If you want to come back to Scotland on holiday or on business, you will be made very welcome and you can play an important part in shaping Scotland's future."

I thank my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to attending a Burns supper in Hong Kong next Tuesday night, and I shall certainly make a point of reiterating the fact that we always welcome expatriate Scots who return to Scotland. My hon. Friend made an important point. I am have been much taken with the response of the business community and people in diplomatic posts abroad and their enthusiasm for the Friends of Scotland initiative, which has been helped by the ready response to it from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the First Minister and the leaders of Scotland's business and commercial communities.

We are pushing at an open door and it is incumbent on every Member of Parliament, regardless of which political party they support, to do what they can to encourage expatriate Scots and those who regard themselves as friends of Scotland to come back and visit Scotland and see the changes that have taken place, not least the establishment by the Labour Government of the Scottish Parliament, of which Robert Burns would have approved.

Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the best friends of Scotland work in the film, television and music industries and that one of the best ways to help them in their work promoting Scotland throughout the world would be an early start to the construction of a central Scotland film studio?

Matters such as the construction of a film studio are for the Scottish Executive to deal with, but I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of the creative industries, particularly film and television. We have only to consider the huge success of "Monarch of the Glen", which is now viewed by 50 million people, to see that it is a fantastic showcase for the highlands of Scotland. I was glad to be able to support that with a reception in Dover house just before Christmas. The advisory committee that I have formed to help me with the Friends of Scotland initiative includes Douglas Rae who, of course, is the producer of "Monarch of the Glen" and the upcoming new film "Charlotte Gray".

When my right hon. Friend makes her visit to east Asia, on which I warmly congratulate her, will she take the opportunity to reach out to the many thousands of Malaysian students who have studied in Scottish universities, many of whom have got degree certification at their universities through a joint partnership with the university of Abertay in Dundee? Will she use the connections that she will make with Malaysian business men who have graduated from Scottish universities to bolster Scottish commerce and trade in future?

As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), my Opposition shadow, well knows, Scottish universities have strong links, especially with Malaysia. She and I, as graduates of Strathclyde university, know about huge initiatives in Malaysia, particularly in business education. I know from the connections of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) with the university of Abertay that he is well aware of the huge opportunities available there.

My officials have met, and are meeting, representatives of the Scottish universities so that we can join together to promote Scottish education internationally. In both China and Malaysia, I intend to meet representatives of the academic community so that we can showcase the best of Scottish education and the huge benefits that our economy derives from students from the far east coming to Scotland, particularly to get postgraduate degrees.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Friends of Scotland initiative and I look forward to the day when we have a dedicated Westminster Minister to promote friendship with Northern Ireland as well. When the Secretary of State is in the far east, I hope that she will be mindful of the near west and the strong Ulster Scots tradition in Northern Ireland. We are willing to be supportive and trust that she will develop further the existing links with Northern Ireland.

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his supportive remarks. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is very much a friend of Northern Ireland and, indeed, a friend of Scotland. As the Prime Minister has recognised, in showcasing all the component parts of the United Kingdom we present an even more attractive picture of the UK, not just to tourists but to bring in inward investment. Our standing in the world is high at the moment; this is an ideal opportunity for us to cement warm feelings for all the component parts of the UK, wherever we work internationally.

When she last discussed the future of the Barnett formula with Treasury Ministers. [25073]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House for the third time that there are no Government plans to review the Barnett formula.

I ask my supplementary question as a totally committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House. Does the Minister accept that the Barnett formula was introduced some two decades ago as a temporary measure, and that it currently produces levels of public expenditure per capita in Scotland far greater than in many areas of England, where there are equal problems of poverty and deprivation? For that reason, does he not believe that the current situation is unfair? Although he speaks as a Scottish Minister, does he not believe that there should be a review and reform of the Barnett formula, despite his initial response to my question?

I have never doubted the hon. Gentleman's Unionist credentials. One of the reasons why I enjoy Scottish questions is that I hear English Tories such as the hon. Gentleman say that the Barnett formula is far too generous to Scotland. I am fed up of hearing the other point of view—the moaning minnies, the whingers of the Scottish National party, saying that the formula is unfair to Scotland. The truth is that the Barnett formula is stable, flexible and fair. If the English Tories think that it is too generous and the SNP thinks that it is too mean, I think that it is just about right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Barnett formula has brought tremendous benefits to Scotland? For example, in 1997 when the Government came to power, the Scottish Office spent £15 billion. Today, the Scottish Executive spends almost £21 billion. Is not that the benefit of Scotland being within the United Kingdom?

There speaks the real voice of Scotland. It is the success of the United Kingdom Government's economic strategy and our policies that enable the Scottish Executive to have the extra money to spend. An extra £3.4 billion of new money has been spent in Scotland over the period of the current spending review, plus an extra £200 million in last year's Budget, and, as if that were not enough, an extra £86 million in the pre-Budget review. I wish that some of those who try to pretend that they represent Scotland would understand, appreciate and acknowledge that.

As health spending comes under the terms of the Barnett formula, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Scotland Ministers have had discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions or the Scottish Executive since 12 October last year on the subject of attendance allowance for the elderly receiving free personal care in Scotland, what advice they have given, and whether they would be prepared to publish the correspondence?

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for asking me that question. I can therefore announce to the House that the Executive have announced today, after dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Whitehall Departments, that they will meet the full cost of delivering free personal care from within Executive resources.

I am delighted that the Scottish Executive have resolved the dilemma that they had with Whitehall, but that does not negate my question about the discussions that Scotland Office Ministers have had. For the sake of clarity, can the Minister tell us whether he or the Secretary of State backed the transfer of funds from Whitehall to Scotland or supported the Scottish Executive?

I had a number of discussions with Malcolm Chisholm during the consideration by the care development review. I made the views of Whitehall extremely clear on every occasion.

When she last met the Chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy; and if she will make a statement. [25074]

I meet regularly with a wide range of bodies and people to discuss aspects of the Scottish economy, including Scottish Executive Ministers and senior officials from Scottish Enterprise. The fundamentals of the Scottish economy as part of the United Kingdom remain strong—high levels of employment, low levels of unemployment, strong public finances, low inflation and the lowest interest rates since the 1960s.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, since she told us last month that the Scottish economy had been performing well, there have been further thousands of job losses in Scotland? We are only three months away from the imposition of the aggregates tax, which will take another £40 million out of the Scottish economy and increase the cost of every infrastructure project in every constituency and council area of Scotland. Now that the Northern Ireland Assembly has successfully negotiated with the Treasury exemption from certain aspects of the aggregates tax, will she open discussions with the Treasury, or will we have another swindle in which, as we have just heard, Whitehall Departments take more money out of the Scottish economy, with further thousands of job losses in Scotland?

Not only is the hon. Gentleman content to whinge for Scotland, but he does not even care about its environment. The extent of his self-interest is dramatic. This is the man who was going to leave Parliament and decried us; he was going to go to the Scottish Parliament and then he was going to come back. At Christmas time he told us that the Scottish Parliament would soon be good enough to accept him back. There is no end to his self-interest—

Order. The Secretary of State should tell us about her policies, not those of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

If she will make a statement on the operation of the Sewel motions procedure. [25039]

The Sewel motions procedure, which is reflected in the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the devolved Administrations, states that this Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the agreement of the devolved legislature. The devolved Administration are responsible for seeking such agreement. Sewel motions are the method by which the Scottish Executive seek to obtain the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. They are a matter of practice, not law. A Sewel motion, whether it is approved or not, has no bearing on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998, or on the legislative competence of the UK Parliament.

I thank the Advocate-General for that answer, but does she agree that the operation of Sewel motions presents a number of practical problems? It does not allow Members of this House to question the Ministers who have direct executive responsibility, because they are part of the Scottish Executive. Will she have discussions with the Leader of the House to ensure that, in future, when legislation that comes before this House as the result of a Sewel motion has been given its Second Reading, it will be committed to a Special Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 91, which will allow evidence to be taken from Scottish Ministers?

I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I see no reason whatever to enter into such discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Of course, he is entitled to enter into such discussions if he wishes to do so.

On procedure in the Scottish Parliament, it is entirely a matter for that Parliament to decide how to deal with the motions. As for procedure in this House, the UK Parliament always has competence to deal with these matters. Hon. Members are always entitled to raise any issues about which they want to speak that are within that competence.

Does the Advocate-General accept that the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is currently travelling through the House, is a very good example of legislation that has been supported by the Scottish Executive and by the Government in this House and that it will bring enormous benefits to Scotland? Does she agree that, rather than trying to invent mechanisms to cause difficulties, the Liberals, whom I thought were our chums, would be much better advised to co-operate with us in processing the Bill as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Scottish Parliament has co-operated on many occasions with the UK Government in order to bring forward legislation, probably more quickly than the Scottish Parliament alone might have done, bearing in mind its heavy legislative programme. The Proceeds of Crime Bill is a very good example of that. Therefore, my view is that the two Parliaments are working well together to help the citizens of Scotland to get the sort of legislative programme that they deserve.

When she last had discussions with the Scottish Executive on human rights cases involving devolution. [25040]

My officials and I have discussions with the Scottish Executive when necessary about devolution issues that raise human rights points.

Following my supplementary question on the same point during Question Time last month, will the hon. and learned Lady confirm that she intervened in 20 cases? Rather than simply saying that she has saved money, will she explain, without false modesty, what added value she has brought to her position?

I think it was 20 cases—I thought I had written to the hon. Lady about that. I shall give her the exact figure, which is in that region. I cannot go through the whole 20 cases now, but I intervene in cases for a range of reasons. For example, I might wish to bring to the court's attention the position of the law in England and Wales. In the misuse of drugs legislation, it was important to clarify the position and its effect in England and Wales. The reasons therefore differ in the 20 cases. I am more than happy to hold informal discussions with the hon. Lady about them.

What plans he has to encourage more applications to join the lay magistracy; and if he will make a statement. [25043]

The Lord Chancellor's local advisory committees tailor recruitment initiatives to local needs so that magistrates benches are representative of the community. In Norfolk, the advisory committee participated, for example, in a regional television broadcast and had interviews with magistrates published in the local press. Such activities led to an increase in the number of magistrates in Norfolk from 13 in 1997 to 30 in 2001.

The Lord Chancellor has commissioned a national strategy for recruiting lay magistrates, which will be announced shortly.

I am grateful for that reply, but the Government are not doing enough. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a record number of lay magistrates resigned last year? Many of those in my constituency cited low morale and a sense of being undervalued by the Government. Is he also aware that 22 magistrates courts closed last year and that Fakenham court in west Norfolk is threatened with closure? That makes local justice more remote from local people, not least because the local press does not report cases in much detail. Why do not the Government do more for local justice?

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I explained that the number of magistrates recruited in Norfolk increased from 13 in 1997 to 30 in 2001. That hardly squares with his allegations of a lack of interest or morale among those who wish to be magistrates. We take local justice seriously, but he knows that the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for magistrates courts committees.

My hon. Friend knows that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, through the advisory committee for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, tried to achieve a better representation of people on the magistrates bench. Does he appreciate that employers make it increasingly difficult for working people to take time off to be a lay magistrate? Can we do more to ensure that employers recognise that we need ordinary working people to serve on the magistrates bench and that that is an important element of justice in this country?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Department is supporting the Magistrates Association project, which tries to draw employers' attention to the transferable skills that magistrates acquire through their work and training, apart from the civic appropriateness of people serving as magistrates.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the number of magistrates will increase and people will be encouraged to join the magistracy by a confirmation that Government policy under the Auld proposals and the subsequent legislation supports an increase, not a reduction? Will he confirm that it is Government policy to increase the number of lay magistrates in England and Wales, not reduce them? Does he have figures to show the number of new appointments of people aged between 18 and 38, not between 38 and 58, since the Labour party came to office in 1997? Without significant new recruitment of younger people, we shall have an imbalanced bench, which is unrepresentative of the community with which it deals.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need to ensure that magistrates benches are properly diverse and represent the communities that they serve, and that is clearly something that we strive to achieve. I do not have the figures for precisely those age breakdowns to hand, but I shall be happy to write to him with the details. He will be aware that we are still consulting on the proposals made by Lord Justice Auld, so I am not in a position to announce policy on the matter today, but I can assure him that the House will have plenty of opportunity at the appropriate time to debate our responses to Auld.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for enforcement of payment of fines by magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement. [25044]

Responsibility for warrant execution for non-payment of fines was transferred from the police to magistrates courts committees on 1 April 2001. The Lord Chancellor's Department conducted a review of the new enforcement regime and concluded that, although there is significant room for improvement, the foundation has now been laid for the more effective enforcement of fines in future.

I am encouraged by that reply, as it suggests that the anecdotal evidence collected by me and other hon. Members that there is quite a serious problem with the enforcement of fines in magistrates courts is correct. Will the Minister do all in his power to make it easier for people to pay their fines—for example, whenever possible by retaining the facility to pay fines at the point of delivery, the magistrates court?

Of course we acknowledge that the situation is not all that it should be and that is why we are taking a range of actions to ensure that performance is better in future. We have been encouraged by the performance so far, but it could be still better. Of course the Government believe that defendants should be given the opportunity to pay their fines promptly and conveniently. A range of methods is now available for paying fines—for example, cash, cheque, credit and debit cards, bank giro, Transcash and Paypoint—so it is not absolutely necessary for there to be a cash office in every courthouse in the country. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware from his own experience that the closure of cash offices is a matter for individual magistrates courts committees.

Would the Minister be surprised if I pointed out to him that I am anything but encouraged by the way in which this system is operating? To give just one example, in London the latest figures show that the fines imposed in magistrates courts amount to £92 million but, astonishingly, the fines collected are no more than £41 million, which I think the Minister knew when he got up to speak. Does he also accept that the Lord Chancellor has effectively declined to provide additional resources to make up the difference—so much so that a number of judges have been writing to one another complaining bitterly on behalf of prosecutors, the police, the Prison Service, probation officers and others? Will the Minister do something about that?

The answers to those questions are no, no and yes. No, I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes the point that he does. No, I do not accept that we have not made extra resources available. In 2001–02, £14 million has been allocated for the enforcement of fines and, as a result of the netting-off scheme, of which the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, magistrates courts committees will have nearly £10 million extra to spend on enforcement during the next two financial years. Finally, of course we will do all that we can to improve the record. It is not as good as it should be, and we are taking a wide range of actions to ensure that it gets better in future.

If he will take steps to promote the establishment of a patient advocacy liaison service and community legal service information point in every NHS hospital. [25045]

The Lord Chancellor's Department supports the development of community legal service information points in places that can be easily accessed by members of the public. This includes primary health care outlets such as general practitioners' surgeries and NHS hospitals, where we are considering ways in which links might be established with the new patient advocacy liaison service.

My hon. Friend will know that, at my local hospital, the Luton and Dunstable, we have the first such facility in the eastern region, and that, so far, it has been a great success. It has been welcomed unanimously by staff and patients. I made inquiries today and found out that, in its first quarter of operations, patient complaints went down by 21 per cent. and, year on year in December, they were down by 59 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes a powerful case for every hospital having such a facility?

I am well aware of the project in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I also know that the support that he has given to it personally has been extremely welcome. Luton and Dunstable hospital was the first hospital to be quality marked as a community legal service information point. We shall certainly consider whether the project could be an example of good practice that we could encourage other hospitals across England and Wales to follow.

Has the hon. Lady been in touch with the Department in Northern Ireland to make sure that such a system is working there? Is she aware that, at times, the patient advocacy liaison service apparently advocates more for hospitals than for patients?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the particular aspect for which I have responsibility is the community legal service, but I am sure that his comments will be noted by other Ministers. I can assure him that we are trying to ensure that there are community legal service information points in as many places as possible, including GP surgeries and NHS hospitals.

How many appeals against refusal of asylum have been lodged and are awaiting a hearing. [25046]

Of the 32,874 cases received by the Immigration Appellate Authority between 1 April and 30 November 2001, 11,554 asylum cases were awaiting a first substantive hearing as at 30 November. The remaining 21,300 were either completed, under consideration or awaiting a further hearing at either adjudicator, application for leave to appeal or tribunal stage.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. We have had exchanges about delays in those appeals for some time and I know that she is putting a lot of effort into trying to improve the situation, but I am concerned about that group of appeals for which notification of the result comes from the Home Office, not her Department, following the changes to the regulations. What steps has she taken to ensure that the Home Office gives that notification swiftly to an appellant whose appeal has been refused? If it does not provide notification in a reasonable time, will she take action to ensure that appellants know the results of their appeals? We all know that the Home Office is not exactly a speedy animal when dealing with immigration and asylum matters.

I understand my hon. Friend's point and I know that she takes a close interest in the issue. Perhaps it will help if I explain the process. The Home Office will sift appeal determinations to identify those suitable for delivery in person. Resources will initially be focused on delivering decisions in person to failed asylum seekers who are at risk of absconding and whom it is possible to remove. Increasing the number of decisions delivered personally and speedily will depend on evaluating the success of the new measures and the gradual introduction of the new reporting centres, accommodation centres and removal centres. I hope that that reassures her.

The Minister is aware that, following a day of pressure from Conservative Members yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, the Home Secretary finally agreed late in the afternoon that special arrangements would be made for asylum claimants from Zimbabwe. They will not be returned, rightly in my view, but what will be the effect on her Department, now that the Home Secretary has wisely changed policy?

Home Office policy has obviously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Changed."] The change that the Home Secretary announced is that removals to Zimbabwe are temporarily suspended until after the March elections. The Home Office will continue to monitor the situation with a view to making a reassessment after the elections. In terms of the effect on the asylum system, outstanding cases will be considered in the light of those new decisions.

If he will make a statement on progress in the case of Sonia Deary. [25047]

The question concerns the progress of a long-standing High Court claim by Sonia Deary for an increased share in the estate of her late husband. The resolution of this claim is dependent on her and her solicitor either agreeing a settlement with other family members or bringing the claim to trial. I understand that the legal proceedings have recently been revived and I would not wish to comment further on a pending case.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply and for her energy in pursuing this case since she assumed her office. Does she agree that whoever is to blame for the delay—I noted carefully what she said on that score—it is unacceptable for any citizen to have to wait for more than 16 years for an estate to be settled? Does she agree that it is at least part of the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department to seek to clarify, simplify and streamline the systems in such cases to avoid circumstances in which British citizens find themselves akin to characters in "Bleak House"?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I know that he has done everything that he can to assist his constituent. I am sure that he is also aware that this is an extremely complicated case. The intimate family and financial details of the estate should not be discussed in the House, but the role of the Official Solicitor and the matters that he has to deal with in such cases can be extremely complex. The time taken to resolve an estate might depend on many issues. For example, the deceased might have assumed several identities or outstanding business problems might need to be resolved. In that situation, the Official Solicitor should of course act expeditiously, but we must recognise that the cases can be complicated.

What proposals he has to reform of the Oath of Allegiance for hon. Members taking their seats in the House. [25058]

The form of the Oath is prescribed by statute. The Government have no plans to amend it.

The Leader of the House will appreciate the reason for my question and, I am sure, my total commitment to this place. Does he believe that anyone who becomes a Member of Parliament should have a true allegiance to the country in whose Parliament he or she seeks to serve? Is not there a danger in what the Government have done recently that we will establish two classes of Member of Parliament, which is a dangerous precedent indeed?

I fully recognise the commitment of the hon. Gentleman to this place and the service that he has given to it. I assure him that I fully endorse his view that people should not take their seat here unless they are committed to making a success not only of this place but of the nation that this place represents. That is why we have made no change that would enable any of the Sinn Fein Members—or anybody else who does not take the Oath or affirm—to take their seats, to take part in votes or to speak. On the issue of two classes of Member of Parliament, I take the view that what we did in December erodes the distinction between those who have not taken the Oath and those who have in relation to allowances and access to this place, but in no way does it erode the difference between those of us who take our seats and those who do not.

If he will invite the House of Lords Appointments Commission to discuss with people's peers their experience of their membership of the Lords with a view to informing its future recommendations. [25059]

The first round of appointments made by the Appointments Commission included the chief executive of Centrepoint, the chief executive of Childline, and a trustee of Oxfam. The appointments also brought a welcome balance to the membership of the Lords. [Interruption.] I shall get to the question, if Members will be patient. Almost a third of the new members belong to ethnic communities and a similar proportion are women. They have brought their experience and authority to proceedings in the Lords on immigration, child poverty, equal opportunity and public services. I cannot speak for the Appointments Commission but I am sure that both my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I would listen with respect if its members wished to comment on their experience.

if appointed peers are expected to make a contribution in the House of Lords, is the chair of the Appointments Commission setting a good example by having spoken twice in the two and a half years since he was ennobled in 1999?

I do not think that it is any part of my remit or that of the Government to encourage even more people to speak in debates in the House of Lords.

In addition to taking advice from the Appointments Commission and the people's peers, will the Leader of the House say what his proposals are for a further consultation period beyond the end of this month? He will be aware of the gathering consensus that the White Paper represents nobody except the Lord Chancellor, and that he is in a minority of one. What steps will the Leader of the House take to ensure that the House and the other place have a proper opportunity—without the Whips and on a free vote—to discuss the issues, and when does he expect us to be given that opportunity? Does he accept that there is one thing on which there is a unanimous view—that doing nothing is unacceptable?

I wholly endorse the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's question, and since it is the only part of his question that I can wholly endorse, I shall seize upon it. It is important that we continue the process of reform of the House of Lords to create a modern second Chamber. As I warned last week, we must not let divisions among those who want reform to prevent there from being any reform. We had a full opportunity for the House to express itself last week and, as someone who sat through the entire debate, I can say that the House expressed itself robustly. The views expressed last week are being reflected upon. The consultation process goes on until 31 January. It is perhaps premature now to announce any further consultation. It is important that we reflect on the views expressed in the House and in the country and, as I said last week, seek to find the centre of gravity that will enable reform to proceed with support.

If only the Government had kept to the 1976 policy and abolished the House of Lords, they would not be suffering all this heartache at the present time. It is sad that nobody knows what the new proposal will be at the end, despite all the consultation that is taking place. In the knowledge that there are not enough Members like myself who want to abolish the House of Lords completely, irrespective of the percentage who are elected, my right hon. Friend must remember one thing—do not give it very much power.

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I am in no danger of forgetting that very important maxim. It is precisely because of that that I sought to warn the House last week of the danger of a wholly elected second Chamber. I find it hard to see how we could preserve the present supremacy of the House of Commons and the present balance of power between us against a second Chamber that would claim an equally valid democratic mandate.

With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I do not wish to rehearse the debates of 1966.

1976.

1976. I have enough difficulty rehearsing the debates of last week. However, it has been the case in the past, particularly in the 1966 Parliament, that what stopped reform was division among the reformers. We must not let that be the case now.

Before the Leader of the House has any discussions with the Appointments Commission, will he confirm that his own proposals for reform of the Lords, which were criticised in every quarter of this House last week, are in effect now a dead duck? Will he seek to use his influence with the Prime Minister—however great or small that might be—to ensure that the correct way forward is to propose a House of Lords where the majority of the membership is elected, not where the majority in the House are Tony's cronies?

Without getting engaged in a discussion about the extent of my influence with the Prime Minister, I suspect that, such as it is, it would be sharply diminished if I announced to the House in advance what my advice would be.

The right hon. Gentleman has to take on board the fact that Conservative Members must also face up to problems with their proposals, as some Labour Members have pointed out. The Conservative party has supported the hereditary principle for a century, so it is entirely welcome that it has finally recognised that that principle is indefensible, and has been so throughout the century that the Conservative party has defended it.

I welcome the Conservative party's move towards democracy, but its proposals show that it believes that democracy means providing in the second Chamber the same representation for Surrey as for London. That shows that Conservatives have some way to go before they understand democracy as it is understood in Britain, and certainly as it is understood in London.

If he will ask the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consider in what further ways the use of Information Technology can assist the work of hon. Members. [25061]

The memorandum from my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to the Modernisation Committee raised a number of ways in which information technology might be used to assist hon. Members, ranging from electronic voting in the Lobbies to ways of giving opportunities for communication between members of the public and Members of the House.

I believe that the Select Committee on Information may soon look at the issue of information technology in the House, and I very much hope that the Modernisation Committee will draw on its work.

I thank the Minister for again giving an enthusiastic and encouraging reply. As part of his agenda of action, will he look at the possibility that Departments might send answers to parliamentary questions by e-mail? Will he also investigate the feasibility of a case-tracking system, so that hon. Members might know where letters go to when they disappear into the black hole that is a Department, and of supplying information electronically to hon. Members about what has happened to them? Finally, has any progress been made on the question of using laptop computers in Committees of the House?

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the persistence with which he has pursued that final point. I believe that the matter will be addressed by the Information Committee and the Chairmen's Panel. The right hon. Gentleman also raised some broader issues, some of which fall within the Modernisation Committee's remit, but others of which fall within the remit of the newly established Cabinet Committee on e-democracy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will chair that Committee, which will have its first meeting next week. I shall ensure that the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman are drawn to the Committee's attention.

When my hon. Friend the Minister looks at the rules governing the modernisation and constitution of the House of Commons, will he bear in mind that, as a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, I find it very difficult to get oral questions accepted by the Table Office? The office will not allow my research assistant to hand in a question from me, so he has to run about to find a Member who is willing to hand in the question for him. Some Members are too busy and do not want to hand in a question.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which clearly falls within the remit of the Modernisation Committee's discussions. We want to ensure greater flexibility, so that hon. Members from all parties can balance their commitments outside the House with their commitments here. I shall ensure that the point is considered in the Modernisation Committee's inquiry.

To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, which recent letters to the Commission from the Commissioner for Standards have not been published to hon. Members. [25062]

I understand that the letter of 28 November from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to Mr. Speaker was released to the media on the evening of 4 December 2001. The Committee on Standards and Privileges requested on 9 January that the commissioner's letter of 14 December be published. The Commission will consider that request, and the commissioner's letter of 8 January, at its next meeting.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the Commission. It would be a happy thing if it agreed to publish the letters. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the report from the predecessor Commission that was published on 9 November 1998, and the words in the initial speeches in the debate of 17 November 1998? Tributes were paid to the then incoming Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I commend the words in that report that referred to her personal qualities, and the House will expect those sentiments to be reflected in the letters, when they are published.

Obviously, I cannot commit the Commission to anything, but I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that the matter will be given serious consideration. Important issues of precedent are involved, and we must be jealous of them. The correspondence between the Commission and senior officers of the House is not something that should easily be made transparently public on every occasion. We must therefore be careful that we do not establish precedents that could be dangerous in the future. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that the matter that he raises, and the request from the Standards and Privileges Committee, will be given urgent consideration when the Commission meets early next week.

On the subject of the correspondence, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the House and certainly outside it consider that the way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has been treated is very shabby given the view, which I share, that she has carried out her duties very conscientiously? This matter is unfortunate and brings into question the self-regulation that exists for Members of Parliament.

I hope that when the hon. Gentleman sees the provisions that are made after the open process for the nomination and appointment of a successor to the current commissioner is completed, he will believe those fears to have been misplaced. An open competition is now in its final stages. The current commissioner has been invited to submit her name for the final interviews. If she does so, she will automatically go on the shortlist, and if she is found to be the best candidate, she will be nominated by the Commission to this House.

What assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for changes to the sitting hours of the House on hon. Members with school age children living outside the London area. [25063]

The main purpose of the proposed changes in sitting hours is to increase the effectiveness of the House of Commons both in legislation and in scrutiny of the Executive. We anticipate that the changes to sitting hours proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will benefit all Members with children.

I t is most laudable that Members of the House who live in London—and indeed civil servants—and have expressed the view that they should be able to spend more time having breakfast with their children will be given the opportunity to do so. I hope that the Leader of the House will give equal consideration to all Members, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they live with their children, and that this does not apply just to those Members who happen to live with their children in London.

My hon. Friend raises an important issue which has been raised by Members on both sides of the House. A number of the other changes proposed by my right hon. Friend would benefit Members with families, such as making permanent the Thursday experiment on hours, having fewer sitting Fridays and having a more predictable annual pattern of sittings.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—

'(c) a Strategic Health Authority shall only be established under paragraph (a) above provided that there has been consultation with health professionals, local authorities and the general public in that area.'.

No. 7, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) Health Authority shall only be established under paragraph (b) above provided that there has been consultation with health professionals, local authorities and the general public in that area'.

Government amendments Nos. 23 and amendment (a) thereto, 24 to 26, 74, 27 and 28.

No. 8, in clause 8, page 9, line 21, at end insert—

'(2A) In determining the amount to be allotted to a Primary Care Trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any liabilities which have been conferred upon it'.

No. 9, line 21, at end insert—

'(2B) In determining the amount to be allotted to a Primary Care Trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the health needs of the population served by that Trust.'.

Government amendments Nos. 35, 36, 54, 55 and 61.

We tabled new clause 1 because, as we said on Second Reading and in Committee, we believe that there has been an inordinate rush to establish strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. It would be a grave mistake, and the height of folly, to rush through reforms in such as way as to leave them half cocked and half baked, so that the Bill does not achieve the Government's aims.

The changes proposed in clauses 1 and 2 are extremely far reaching. Clause 1 proposes to abolish health authorities in England, of which there are approximately 95, and to replace them with strategic health authorities. There will be far fewer strategic health authorities than there are health authorities, and they will perform the key performance management role across the national health service in England. They will be responsible also for providing a lead in the strategic development of services, and for ensuring that all parts of the NHS work together effectively.

The new primary care trusts will have the critical responsibility of providing and funding health care. About 75 per cent. of NHS funding will be handed to the PCTs to provide health care for our constituents around the country. The concern is that there has been far too much of a rush over starting up a new system that is very complex and wide ranging.

I cannot understand why the Government are in such a rush to engineer the reforms. I question whether the structures to be put in place are ready to work without the whole edifice collapsing in confusion and disaster. The Government's rush to implement the changes reminds me of the adage, "Reform in haste, repent at leisure." The British Medical Association has warned that PCTs, where they exist, are relatively new organisations and that, as a result, the demands placed on them may be beyond their capabilities.

The BMA has highlighted the fact that existing PCTs already experience difficulties in recruiting clinical staff, and warns that those problems will be exacerbated. It is also concerned that the timetable within which PCTs are intended to be and up and running is far too ambitions.

As we heard on Second Reading and again in Committee, the Standing Committee considering the Health Bill in 1999—which became the Act that made possible the establishment of PCTs—was told by the former Minister of State at the Department of Health, who is now Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), that it was important to emphasise that the Government did not

"intend a headlong rush to be made into PCTs".

He added that it was

"not part of the Government's agenda to impose PCTs on the national health service."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1999; c. 252-53.]

In another place, the former Health Minister Baroness Hayman made exactly the same point and gave the same assurances that there would be no rush to create PCTs, but the Government have performed a complete U-turn and are now doing precisely what they said they would not do when the 1999 Act went through this House a mere two and a half years ago.

Not only Conservative Members are worried. Severe concerns have been expressed by members of the health professions that the proposals are being rushed through. A recent survey in the Health Service Journal showed that 46 per cent. of chief executives in NHS organisations believed that PCTs would be unable to cope with enlarged responsibilities, and that 33 per cent. of them thought that the time scale and scale of the changes were unrealistic and dangerous. One chief executive has called the reforms a recipe for disaster, and another has described them as the most ill conceived and poorly thought out set of changes in decades.

The King's Fund, in collaboration with the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, has carried out a tracking survey on primary care groups and trusts. It suggests that there are many doubts about the ability of PCTs to absorb the pace of reform. Professor David Wilkin, the project director, said that the pace of change was being dictated by Government timetables rather than by a process of learning and of building on experience. He also pointed out:

"It is not merely a question of resources to sort out this issue … What is needed are managers with the right skills and experience coming through the system. Managers from trusts and health authorities can be taken on, but we are dealing with primary care and they don't necessarily have the skills needed".

The survey pointed out that the average number of managerial, financial and administrative staff employed by primary care groups was 6.8, compared with an average number for primary care trusts of 15.8—a serious discrepancy.

Equally worrying is the fact that one in seven PCGs or PCTs still has—or had at the end of last year—no financial director.

I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's measured flow, but he is aware, because he raised the same point in Committee, that primary care groups are sub-committees of health authorities and are under no obligation to employ their own finance director. They use the finance directors employed by health authorities, which is a perfectly sensible arrangement.

I appreciate what the Minister says, but PCTs will have to employ finance directors when health authorities are scrapped. It is by no means certain that the finance director of a health authority will become the finance director of a PCT. [Interruption.] The Minister says "obviously". I accept his observation, but I argue that it adds to the force of my case. I suspect that many PCTs around the country will have finance directors without direct experience of working in the health service, with all the nuances and differences that those responsibilities cover.

4.45 pm

According to the report, the situation with regard to information management and technology was perhaps of more concern. It states:

"Information to support core functions of PCG/Ts is inadequate and shows little sign of improving. PCG/Ts have made some progress in formulating development plans".

It goes on to say:

"Increasing shortages of skilled staff and resources make it doubtful whether they will achieve key national targets."

Of greater worry to the authors of the report, to the BMA and to many others is whether the changes in the Bill will divert activity and resources from front-line patient care. Three quarters of chief executives questioned believed that the reorganisation would delay delivery of the national plan, and a quarter thought that the delay would be severe. That would obviously have a critical impact on the delivery of patient care and the ability to provide the seamless flow of patient care when the changeover occurs.

Our new clause seeks to save the Government from themselves by laying down procedures to ensure that changes to the delivery of health care under clause, 1 and especially clause 2, are introduced smoothly, successfully and without undue haste. We propose that the health service commissioners should investigate the preparedness of PCGs to become PCTs and the preparedness of existing PCTs to fulfil the functions that the Bill places on them.

Under our new clause, where it is found that a PCG is not ready to become a PCT or—possibly more important because of the unseemly rush of PCGs to become PCTs—t is found that a primary care trust is not ready to carry out its functions, a special report would be laid before both Houses of Parliament. There would then be a period of 12 months when no action was taken, so as to establish a breathing space to allow PCGs and PCTs to prepare themselves adequately to perform their duties and functions. I hope that the House agrees that our suggestion is eminently sensible and that it will avoid the confusion and chaos that will result from fragile new bodies carrying out immense new duties with too little or no experience.

If our Committee debates are anything to go by, Ministers will respond in an ostrich-like way. They will refuse to remove their heads from the sand and will try to reassure us that everything is proceeding satisfactorily, that there is nothing to worry about and that there are no problems. I am sure that they will trot out the same statistics as we heard in Committee at the back end of last year.

Ministers will tell us that by October 2002 PCT coverage in England will be 100 per cent. I was interested to note, when I re-read the Minister's comments, that during the early sittings of the Committee he told us that there would be 100 per cent. coverage by April 2002. During a few sittings of the Committee, that date seemed to slip back to October 2002.

Today, the Minister may be able to update us on the statistics that he gave us in Committee on the current progress of PCGs and PCTs. I suspect that, given the relatively short period that has elapsed since the end of the Committee proceedings, the figures will differ little from those that he gave us on 27 November last year.

The Minister seems rather cheerful, as though there had been a dramatic change in the statistics. I shall read the statistics that he gave us last November, and no doubt he will be able to update us during the debate. While he is doing so he may prove one of the points that I am making about the moral pressure that is being put on PCGs to seek PCT status. They feel under pressure to achieve that status as quickly as possible so as not to miss out, or to cause problems, before October of this year.

Unless the Minister has startling new figures, however, I suspect that we shall hear that 164 PCTs were established by April 2001; that a further 23 were—at the end of last November—likely to be approved shortly; that 23 of the remaining PCGs were approved for establishment from April 2002; and that 20 had been approved but had not yet received their notification of approval. I suspect that notwithstanding the Christmas post they will almost certainly have received that notification by now.

The Minister will tell us that 98 PCGs have submitted proposals for approval and were likely to be approved during December 2001 and January 2002. Of course, it is highly unlikely, given the Government's policy, that a PCG will not receive approval for trust status. He will tell us that a mere 11 PCGs are still consulting.

In the not too distant future the Minister will, no doubt, update the figures. From the look on his face, he may even be able to tell us that he anticipates 100 per cent. approval by April 2002. That remains to be seen. However, behind all those statistics and behind whatever new statistics the Minister may shortly give us, a simple fact remains: there has been undue haste because the Government have changed their policy on PCTs. In effect, they have moved from a policy that was wholly voluntary.

The Minister will say that there is currently no legal power to make any group become a PCT. That is true, but the pressure on PCGs to fall in line with the Government's policy and become PCTs is overwhelming, because they know that once the Bill is on the statute book the voluntary nature of becoming a PCT will be removed. We questioned the Minister on several occasions in Committee. He replied that he would ensure 100 per cent. coverage of PCTs in England by October 2002—if necessary, by using the legislation.

PCGs are now becoming PCTs voluntarily, but that masks the pressure they have been under—that of knowing what the future holds for them. Like all hon. Members in the Chamber, they have seen the Bill and know the Government's intentions. As a result of that pressure, many PCGs that were not in the first wave rushed into securing trust status, which they otherwise probably would not have sought within such a relatively short time scale. A great deal of pressure has been put on PCGs to achieve PCT status, and many of them might not be properly prepared to handle their new, highly complex and difficult responsibilities. For those reasons, tremendous problems could arise in the health care provided to our constituents.

My message to the Government is simple, and it is intended to be helpful: they are under no pressure—or only that caused by their own enthusiasm to put their Bill on the statute book to ensure that their proposals are up and running as soon as possible—and they should hold back for a short period. I suggest not that the proposals on trust status should be kicked into the long grass for a decade and a day never to happen, but that the Government should allow a little more time for the experience and expertise to be built up to ensure that, from day one, PCTs operate in a seamless and workable way and that our constituents encounter no hiatus, no teething problems and no other problem with their health care.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said in Committee, we do not disapprove of the PCT concept, but we want the Government to ensure that PCTs work properly and that they seamlessly fulfil their functions as soon as possible. If something is rushed, there can be no guarantee that that will be the end result. I warn Ministers now that if the transition is not seamless and it is bungled by the rush, terrible problems will arise. People's health will be directly affected by any hiatus in the supply of care. Ministers do not want that to happen, which is why I cannot fully understand why they seem to be reluctant to take well-meaning advice simply to delay things a little to give the system time.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the rush to create PCTs. I attended a meeting of the PCG in my area last summer and can confirm that pressure has been put on those organisations. Indeed, a PCT has been created in my area despite the fact that the majority of GPs voted against it. However, I am not so sure about the new clause. There should be a delay but, when the health authorities are abolished, who will carry out the responsibilities currently delegated to PCTs?

The hon. Lady, who represents a Birmingham constituency, alludes to a considerable problem with primary care trust status in her area. There was a great deal of opposition to the proposal. As she knows, there could be serious problems if—God forbid it does not happen—there were to be a hiatus as a result of the change. As she rightly said, the health authorities that handle the funding for the provision of services will be abolished and replaced by smaller strategic health authorities that have a completely different function and role.

Most of the functions that health authorities perform will be transferred to primary care trusts. If they are in turmoil as a result of their lack of experience of running the new system, they will face a serious problem and there will be no way out of it. That is why I am desperately trying to impress on the Minister how sensible it would be to provide a little more time. We should not push the policy into the long grass never to be seen again; we should provide more time to allow expertise to be built up.

I want to support my hon. Friend's argument with a practical example from my constituency. Rochford primary care group, which includes several GP practices from Castle Point, considered whether to apply for PCT status but declined to do so in the first instance for a number of reasons. It had general concerns about the Government's proposals, faced some organisational issues and also faced problems with timing. Some of the GPs who were consulted thought that they were being rushed into the change.

My hon. Friend's point is a real one, as evidenced by experience in my constituency. Leaving aside GPs' anxieties about the overall desirability of the proposals, many are anxious about the pace at which the change is being attempted.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour for a powerful point that backs up the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I have been given from around the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is absolutely right. He has first-hand experience in his constituency of a problem that is not unique to his area. I am glad that the Minister is here to listen to the very problems that my hon. Friend highlighted.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would also affect PCTs, as strategic health authorities in England and health authorities in Wales would be created only once there had been proper consultations

"with health professionals, local authorities and the general public"

in the relevant areas in which the authorities are to be established.

I hope that Ministers in a Government who pay lip service to openness will find the amendments appealing. Before establishing a body that is responsible for strategic planning, it would be sensible that those who have to help to implement decisions and those who will be affected by those decisions should be consulted about the setting up of the authorities and about the crucial strategic role that they will play.

I am heartened and pleased that we tabled such timely amendments. I received on my desk at lunchtime the Secretary of State's speech to the New Health Network, which he gave this morning. I am not sure when you entered the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was interesting to see the Secretary of State for Health dragged here at half-past 3 to respond to a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The right hon. Gentleman's interesting and important speech raised a number of issues on which we, through the good offices of Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to question him, instead of leaving it to journalists.

It was fascinating to see the right hon. Gentleman's reaction. The Benches were much fuller, and we had to look far and wide to find a Labour Back Bencher who was prepared to offer a crumb of support for the contents of his speech. It struck me that if the speech sets out his new philosophy and ethos—the word that he now uses—perhaps his Minister of State will be more amenable to accepting amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which encourage openness and consultation.

In the speech to the New Health Network, the Secretary of State said:

"All of these reforms"

although relevant to the health service more generally, they tie in with the amendments—

"involve government acting on behalf of patients in order to influence how the NHS relates to patients",

as, indeed, the strategic health authorities should relate to patients. He went on:

"They are all about getting the NHS to put the needs of its patients first. But a service designed around the needs of patients has to hand over more power directly to them. So there are reforms to give patients a greater role and a stronger say in the NHS—patients forums in every trust"—

we will get on to those later because my hon. Friends and one or two Labour Members are not fooled by that

"patients electing patients onto trust boards, the results of patient surveys helping to determine the ratings and the resources that trusts receive. And there are reforms too to introduce new procedures for informed consent because while patients have a responsibility to keep healthy, treat professionals respectfully and use services wisely, they have a right to be involved in decisions about their own care."

I welcome the Secretary of State's philosophy on that, but what gives patients a greater opportunity to be involved in decisions about their care than consulting them, with health professionals and local authorities, as part of the local community, before the important strategic health authorities are set up? I should have thought that he would be delighted that I am embracing that aspect of his philosophy.

Although the Secretary of State had to concentrate on surviving the questions put by Labour Members this afternoon and possibly has to brace himself for the publicity that he will receive from the national press tomorrow morning and on the airwaves tonight, I hope that he will find a little time to win back some of his lost ground by contacting his Minister of State, whose presence in the Chamber means that he is isolated from him, to explain that the amendments provide a way to involve patients in the process and enable us to do something constructive, which I have been outlining in a high-falutin' way in my important contribution.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my mystification about where in the Bill there is any reference to the plan that the Secretary of State outlined only a short while ago.

My hon. Friend raises a rather confusing point. No doubt he was present for the private notice question, so he distinctly heard the Secretary of State say that he had not been dragged to the House today and that we would have the opportunity, during this evening's debate, to discuss the proposals outlined in his remarks. I am not convinced that the Secretary of State is as well acquainted as you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the procedures of the House.

The Secretary of State has not read the Bill.

Certainly not. That is left to the Minister of State.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will tell me, rightly, that I cannot discuss the matters on which the Secretary of State was being questioned because they are not in the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is right to be mystified. The only part of the Secretary of State's remarks today that is relevant and, more importantly, in order—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he should be addressing his remarks to new clause 1.

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, because before you correctly reminded me of that, I was about to say that the only remarks by the Secretary of State that are relevant to the Bill relate to the narrow amendments, Nos. 6 and 7, on the need to consult before setting up strategic health authorities.

I am optimistic that a crumb will fall from the table, as it did in Committee, and the Minister of State will ask, "Why didn't we think of this first?" If the Secretary of State had made his remarks earlier, we could have amended the Bill in Committee. The Minister of State would not have been so hard-nosed in Committee as to oppose our amendments on strategic health authorities. I hope that he will be more relaxed and more amenable to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which would play an important role in empowering local communities before the establishment of strategic health authorities. They would make communities feel that they were part of the system, and people would be reassured that their opinions, ideas and recommendations were being taken into account.

Amendment No. 8 is straightforward. It looks modest but it is important, concerning as it does any funding and financial liabilities conferred on a new primary care trust under the new system. It may represent a belt-and-braces approach because I believe that the Minister of State said in Committee that, with one exception, health authorities do not have deficits. He may therefore argue, and I will listen carefully, that the amendment is not needed because when the new system is established, no deficits or liabilities will be conferred on the PCTs. However, this is an important issue that needs to be considered because nobody wants to strangle the new system at birth with debts that the PCTs did not incur.

5.15 pm

Finally, amendment No. 9—again, a straightforward amendment—states:

"In determining the amount to be allotted to a Primary Care Trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the health needs of the population served by that Trust."

A modest proposal: I assume that few people in the Chamber would disagree with its sentiments. It is important that the funding of health care is based on the needs of the local population and, of course, there are different needs in different parts of the country and among different populations. Off the top of my head, in my own area of mid-Essex there is a pressing need for even more money than the increase because, as the Minister is all too aware, our hospital waiting lists have not fallen for a single day below the level at which they were when the Government came to power on 1 May 1997. I have said before, and have told the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have an answer, that there is a pressing need to take into account local considerations; for some reason, the Government cannot honour their promise to bring down waiting lists in mid-Essex.

There are other interesting criteria. I am sure that you are an avid reader of Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker. One should look at the figures; I am choosing my words carefully because, I confess, I made a mistake 10 days ago in a written question. I asked the Government for health spending per head of population in Sedgefield, West Chelmsford, South-West Surrey and North-West Hampshire. Their response surprised me although, in another way, it did not. Funnily enough, Sedgefield receives noticeably more funding per head of population than West Chelmsford, South-West Surrey and North-West Hampshire—but not according to the answer, because, to be fair to the Minister of State, I was not specific and asked only for the amount. He gave me the weighted amount; his answer showed that the four areas, give or take £10 or so, each received about the same.

If one asks the question that I should have asked—"What is the actual spend?"—the amounts are significantly different. Sedgefield gets significantly more per head of population than the other constituencies. I do not imagine that that was the case 10 years ago and I imagine that, in a few years' time, it will not be so.

My understanding is that the weighted capitation allocation formula was introduced by the Conservatives as a change from the one used by the old resource allocation working party. It was amended on the advice of the University of York by this Government or the previous Government. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will find that it has always been the case that deprivation, because of greater health needs, rightly leads to greater funding.

I accept that. I thought that that was what I was saying about the amendment: different circumstances—including social deprivation, but others as well—determine the amount of health spending. We are trying to include that in the Bill; we must have regard to the population's health needs. To be fair, RAWP, for reasons that I shall not go into, was a flawed system, certainly for people in the home counties. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) changed the system to one that depended more on allocation per head of population. Indeed, when the Secretary of State first came to the Department as a Minister in 1997—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will now get back to the main point in his amendment.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

When funding allocations are made to PCTs, it is important that the needs of the population served by that trust are taken into account, for health rather than political reasons. On those grounds, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. One lives in hope. It is a new year, and the Minister is a reasonable man.

Finally, I urge the Minister to consider carefully the time scale for the changeover to PCTs. It would be a crying shame if their introduction was marred by the fact that the system did not run smoothly. With the money that will be available, there is potential for PCTs to make a real difference to local people.

I shall comment briefly on the amendments in the group and speak to my amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 23, before the Minister moves the amendment. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) knows that I share his concerns about the speed of the change being imposed on the health service and the fact that there is to be yet more structural change. There seems to be no coherent strategy emanating from the Government under the Health Act 1999. As the hon. Gentleman said in Committee and repeated today, the national plan did not envisage that all primary care groups would have to become primary care trusts, no matter what.

As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, part of the motivation for the changes seems to be that the Government want to be seen to be doing something and are therefore substituting activity for action. I expect that the Government will resist the new clause for the same reasons as they have done before.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 may well be covered by provisions in the Bill. Government amendment No. 23 deals with consultation issues. There is little enthusiasm for yet more amendments on that subject, such as amendments Nos. 6 and 7, because of the consultation arrangements already included.

I recognise that Government amendment No. 23 is a response to concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and others.

The hon. Gentleman should give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who spoke to the amendment. The hon. Member for Leigh then agreed.

I am more than willing to do so. I apologise if the hon. Member for West Chelmsford is deeply offended by not having had due recognition of the fact that he raised concerns about the degree of consultation. We all agree that there should be adequate consultation about strategic health authorities when boundaries and names are changed. I feel so strongly about the matter that I tabled an amendment to Government amendment No. 23, which would specify that the Secretary of State "shall", not simply "may", make regulations. I hope that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will support that.

Under previous arrangements, when there were community health councils, there was a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on such changes. That duty had existed for 23 years, since the National Health Service Act 1977. It seems that the obligation to consult—that is, the Secretary of State's duty to make regulations—has not exactly fettered Governments in reforming names, structures or boundaries since then. We have been inundated with reforms over those 23 years. If the Government choose to resist amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 23, they must explain why they place a lower priority on consultation than in the past, making it a mere optional extra if the whim takes the Secretary of State.

The question is whether the Government will empower local communities by asking them what they think. I had a useful meeting with the Under-Secretary of State which touched on the matter. She kindly responded by letter, and I hope she will not mind if I quote it. She stated:

"The Government amendment specifies that the Secretary of State may make regulations, rather than shall."

She said that the reason for that was:

"ensuring that there is scope for flexibility in the future."

The only remaining flexibility relates to the ability not to make regulations on consulting local communities. If the Government want such flexibility, it can only be to water down obligations for which they should be providing. I hope that they will reconsider the wording of Government amendment No. 23. If they resist amendment (a) thereto, we will have to raise the matter in the House of Lords.

As I said in an intervention, I am not entirely sure of the purpose of amendment No. 9, or of what it would produce. I understand that allocations that are part of weighted capitation are sensitive to the health needs of the local community. My concern is that the Government often go too far in seeking to take parts of that cake for central allocation, which inevitably does not ensure that allocation is transparent. The formula is complex, but at least we know what we are dealing with and allocations move slowly towards that formula when there is growth in the system.

I look forward to hearing the Government's response to my concern about Government amendment No. 23.

I should like in particular to address amendment No. 6, which relates to the setting up of strategic health authorities. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about primary care trusts, as I believe that they have been established too quickly. We often attack the Government for dragging their feet and not producing the documents that we want. For example, in the north-east, we are waiting for a White Paper on regional government—indeed, we are waiting, waiting and waiting. However, in this case, the speed of the changes has been far too great.

An interesting example is the speed with which local health authorities in the north-east had to operate in order to set up a strategic health authority and carry out the consultation that was involved. The Department of Health launched the initiative on 7 September and it had to be finished by 30 November. That was a very considerable job for four health authorities covering a population of almost 2 million. Indeed, it was an enormous job. The chief executives of the health authorities that cover Northumberland, Newcastle and north Tyneside, Gateshead and south Tyneside and Sunderland joined together and set up a small project team in order to carry out the consultation, and it is worth considering what they achieved in that period. They held 38 meetings with the public, and dished out 6,000 copies of the consultation document and 33,000 copies of the summary leaflet. That was all done within the very tight space of time that I have mentioned. Moreover, 12 public meetings were held—one in each authority area. A proper presentation was given at each meeting, but sadly they were not well attended, as so often happens, especially when so little warning is given.

One of the results of such a rushed operation was that members of the general public did not have an opportunity to register what was going on and attend the meetings. We cannot blame the project board for trying, but given the Government's rushed timetable, it was impossible to interest very many local people. The board helpfully published a summary of the consultation process. As well as mailing all the usual suspects, including local authorities, parish councils and so on, it tried to seek publicity in the media and picked 4,000 people at random from electoral registers in order to write to them. The net result, however, was that the biggest attendance at any of the public meetings was in Gateshead, where 20 people attended. The worst attendance was in Ashington, where only one member of the public turned up.

I regret to say that in my constituency, where many people are extremely interested in what goes on, only six people turned up. I know my constituency well, so I am aware that there is very strong community spirit in Hexham. It seems inconceivable that only six people in Hexham were interested in attending a public meeting relating to a matter as important as the establishment of a new strategic health authority and all the primary care trusts that flow from it. Responsibility for what happened can be laid directly at the door of the rushed consultation process.

5.30 pm

It is worth dwelling on the results of the meetings, which comprised professionals as well as members of the public. The summary states:

"At most meetings comments were made about the pace of change and the enormity of the proposed changes. This was particularly in terms of the responsibilities for primary care trusts as new or developing organisations."

That was much on people's minds. The major anxiety of those involved in providing health care in the north-east was that great change was being made extremely quickly. My hon. Friends have identified that, and I do not understand why Ministers have to rush all the changes.

The summary also concluded:

"At most of the meetings there were comments about the potential for public confusion with so many organisational changes taking place within the NHS."

Again, members of the public, those involved in local authorities, health professionals and members of community health councils were worried that the process was being rushed and that more time was needed.

Another lesson is that most people wanted information about the operation of the new systems. They wanted reassurance that the process of change would not create instability in the health service and the health economy. Our amendments are important because it is not necessary to rush matters. I do not understand why the Government should launch a consultation process to set up a strategic health authority that will serve nearly 2 million people on 7 September and expect it to be in place by April 2002, when we are still discussing the measure that relates to it in January.

I want to deal with two specific matters: primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. In an earlier intervention, I gave the example of the Rochford primary care trust, which covers part of my constituency and several GP practices in Castle Point. I said that when it was a primary health group, it hesitated before applying for trust status, partly because some GPs were anxious about the pace at which the Government were attempting to push the process forward. I understand that the PCG has now applied for trust status, and that it has recently received formal approval from the Department of Health, or is close to doing so.

In the past few years, GPs have had to cope with a tremendous amount of organisational change, such as the abolition of GP fundholding and its replacement by PCGs. Just as GPs were adjusting to the changes, the Government decided that they wanted them to be organised in PCTs rather than PCGs. More responsibility is associated with the former. Today, the Secretary of State made a speech which, it is worth reiterating, was not delivered in the House. He said that there may be further changes to the organisation and responsibilities of PCTs. I cannot pursue that further now if I am to remain in order. However, it is fair to point out that there will have been three, potentially four, major changes in almost as many years to the organisation by means of which GPs deliver primary care to the public.

As we all know, GPs are busy. They can be expected to accommodate only so much change without its adversely affecting their ability to provide an adequate service to the patients whom they serve.

I shall give a practical example from my constituency. In the town of South Woodham Ferrers, a number of GPs have lists in excess of 2,000 patients long; one has a list in excess of 3,000. It defeats me how people who have to cope with that many patients can also realistically be expected to find the time to cope with yet more organisational change of the type alluded to earlier today.

All the strategic health authorities were originally meant to be going live by 1 April this year. The Government have said repeatedly that they intend to adhere to that deadline, despite being told by many people who work in these areas that it would be practically impossible to do so. We are now some two and a half months away from that deadline, yet the senior appointments have not yet been confirmed in many strategic health authorities. Even in those SHAs whose chairmen and chief executives have been confirmed, the principal directors who will report to them have, in most cases, not been. The senior management teams in a large number of the SHAs are not yet in place, even though they are supposed to go live some two and a half months from today.

There are other major issues to consider as well as the management of the SHAs. The place in which a number of them will be located has not yet been determined. Furthermore, the information technology systems that the SHAs will use has in many cases not been determined, particularly in cases in which perhaps two or three health authorities are being merged into one SHA. Funnily enough, in a number of cases, we find that they are all using slightly different IT systems, which will now require a great deal of work to make them all talk to one another. Alternatively, some of the SHAs might have to go back to square one, abandon the legacy systems that have been inherited and come up with an entirely new IT system.

These are all significant issues that will require a great deal of time and careful thinking. Yet, in theory, all these problems up and down the country will be solved in a matter of a few months. The people working in these areas are putting in tremendous hours to try to make all this happen in the allocated time, but realistically it is not enough. There is only so much that human effort can achieve.

It is worth stressing these points for one fundamental reason. Even leaving aside what has been said this morning and this afternoon, the creation of primary care trusts—and the movement of responsibility and, particularly, funding to those trusts—is a fundamental part of the Government's 10-year plan for the national health service. The creation of strategic health authorities is also an important part of that plan. If these elements are so important to the Government's overall conception, it seems ridiculous to rush them through in such an ill thought out way. If these key building blocks for the scheme are not launched successfully, the whole plan will be in danger of unravelling.

It is not unreasonable to point that out to Ministers, or to ask them, at the eleventh hour, to pause and allocate more time, to give these already overworked people a fighting chance of trying to bring this off.

I am happy to say—and the Minister will be pleased to hear—that in Wiltshire, we are well ahead of the power curve in relation to turning PCGs into PCTs. I am conscious, however, of areas of the country in which that is simply not the case. I support PCTs; the Government have built a cogent way ahead for primary care and I welcome that. My concern is that this fundamentally good plan is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said, destined to fail in many areas of the country if it is not given sufficient time.

This week, the Health Service Journal has told us that delays in publishing guidance on the roles and responsibilities of management boards running strategic health authorities are causing grief for 27 chief executives appointed so far. We naturally assume that those people would feel buoyed up by their appointment to new roles, or indeed relieved to have jobs at all at a time of uncertainty in the health service, yet they appear to be fairly critical and worried about the fact that there are aspects of the job about which they are not certain.

That suggests to me that Ministers have handed down an unrealistic timetable for implementing the changes. Indeed, the second national tracker survey of 71 primary care trusts and primary care groups, which was supported by the Government, says:

"Progress in commissioning, health improvement and partnership working is slower. Lack of reliability and timely information and insufficient managerial capacity remain".

In other words, the system is creaking under the pressure of changes in the NHS, which is not in a state to accommodate these changes in this time scale.

May I deal with strategic health authorities, because they have caused considerable grief across the country? A principal reason for that is that they have been insufficiently explained to people. Although it is not for me to be an apologist for the Government, I have spent considerable time reassuring those who have written to me that the SHAs and the boundaries that they impose should not impact on clinical networks and people getting health care as they do at the moment. The fact that they are worried and have had to contact me suggests that the changes are being pursued in such a way and according to such a brief time scale that the message is simply not getting across.

We have heard from the British Medical Association how many loose ends remain, particularly in relation to SHAs. It is concerned about academic medicine, which is in a parlous state. We have yet to hear how SHAs will further the agenda for it. Insufficient thought has been given to that, which shows that insufficient time was available for Richmond house to get its head round the complexity of the NHS and how the proposals will melt into it and improve the situation.

We have yet to hear whether tertiary health services will be the responsibility of SHAs, how PCTs will fit in or whether the regions will have a part to play. In other words, there is confusion—we have not been told. Again, that is not so much the fault of Richmond house or of Ministers; it is just that these things take time to work through, but the time scale is far too tight for that. I fully support the creation of PCTs, which is a positive move for primary care that is to be warmly welcomed, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friends that, in their haste, the Government risk the whole thing tumbling down like a pack of cards.

It is ironic that we are discussing the pace of change and, indeed, change of this nature as a Gallup poll published today shows that 40 per cent. of people think that the NHS is getting worse. Admittedly, a cheery and fairly optimistic minority of 13 per cent. reckon that it is getting better, but the balance think that it has remained static. It is difficult to see how the Bill will improve health outcomes—health care to patients—and I have yet to work out how that will happen.

The Government are intent on driving the Bill through, but I urge them to revisit the timetable to which they have committed themselves. In that helpful spirit, I draw their attention to the new clause.

As the Minister is well aware from our deliberations in Committee, I, too, have reservations about the speed at which the reforms are being introduced. I am especially concerned because—if we are to believe the figures—by September 2004 75 per cent. of all spending will be dictated to a large extent by the PCTs. I am also in favour of the concept of localising health care as much as possible to ensure that patient care is given appropriate attention and meets required standards. My concern is that the speed of the reforms will put in jeopardy the foundation stones of the Bill, which in essence I support.

The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, in collaboration with the King's Fund, has carried out a second national tracker survey of 71 primary care groups and trusts. Professor David Wilkin, the project director of the survey, has commented that

"there is a real danger the management of the organisational changes is going to divert attention from the core functions of improving care."

He said that the pace of change was being dictated by Government timetables rather than a

"process of learning and building on experience."

He believes that improvements can be made but that

"it's important to make sure we are not trying to do everything at once."

The PCTs, where they exist, are relatively new organisations and the demands outlined may be beyond their existing capabilities. The PCTs need time to bed in and to get used to the important roles that they will perform in the new structure of the NHS. PCTs are already experiencing difficulties in recruiting clinical staff and those staff able, willing and competent to participate in the new functions. I have visited PCTs—as, I am sure, have other hon. Members—while they are taking on those new responsibilities, and have heard their concern that they cannot find the required calibre of management to fulfil the functions envisaged in the Bill in such a short time. Whether the deadline is spring 2003 or October 2003—as mentioned in Committee—it is an ambitious timetable given the tasks involved. There are some 120 PCGs, many of which are in the early stages of converting to PCT status.

I have two specific concerns about funding, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would address them. First, will PCTs be saddled with the outstanding deficits of health authorities as part of the devolution process? That would leave the PCTs without the resources to implement their devolved responsibilities, let alone achieve the Government's targets. Arguably, with ever increasing central directives and no additional resources, there will be little opportunity to improve the provision of health care over and above that achieved by the authorities the PCTs are to supplant.

My second concern is that it is unclear whether PCT funds will be protected from the revenue consequences of any major building projects. If PCTs are not protected from those consequences, concerns will arise in areas where boundary changes following the establishment of strategic health authorities mean that PCTs may retrospectively become liable for the revenue consequences of a major building project.

I am sure that the House would appreciate clarification from the Minister on those two issues. We all know that the devil is in the detail with a Bill of this sort, but those two examples give rise to the legitimate concern that the reforms—especially the establishment of PCTs—are being rushed through without due consideration for the consequences. I for one would much appreciate the Minister's clarification on those issues.