Improving Lives: Green Paper

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that these transitions need to be managed carefully. It is clearly not a health issue for the majority, but it is for some. Just getting into the habit of living independently is tough for youngsters. We are looking at how we can help them. However, it will be separate from this Green Paper exercise.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, thinking of young people with learning disabilities, how easy will it be under the new arrangements for them to move from one council or area of the country to another? Does the Minister agree that this has been considerably restricted over recent years, and something that they perhaps deserve under the new arrangements?

[Lord Freud]

Youngsters are able to go to other areas to work. I think that the noble Lord must be referring to the restriction on 18 to 21 year-olds getting housing benefit. One of the exclusions that we have been debating with people—we announced that we would look at that strategy—was to make sure that those youngsters who move between areas for work could be exempt from that particular restriction.

Employment: Job Creation

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, is not the deeper point that the EU is in long-term economic decline? According to the IMF, the EU produced 30% of the world’s GDP in 1985, which will have fallen to 15% by 2020. So would not our employment prospects be much better if we got off the Titanic and traded freely with the markets of the future?

[Lord Freud]

I am not sure that the noble Lord has caught up with what has been happening in the world in the last year or so, when the developing world has fallen apart.

BBC: EU Coverage

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the course of their renewal of the BBC’s Charter and Guidelines in 2016, they will take into account the BBC’s coverage of European Union matters, in the light of its recognition of the need for greater breadth in such coverage following publication of the report of the Independent Panel led by Lord Wilson of Dinton in 2005.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the BBC’s charter obliges it to be impartial, wide-ranging and fair in its political output, and that,

“no significant strand of British public thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented”.

I should declare an interest in that, since 1999, I and others have been sponsoring an analysis of the BBC’s EU output to see if it is meeting those obligations in that area. This research can be found on the news-watch.co.uk website, and is the longest-running and most detailed analysis ever undertaken of the BBC’s output. As I said in my last debate on this, on 11 March 2002,

“bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder”.—[Official Report, 11/3/02; col. 653.]

The News-watch research now includes over 6,000 hours of the BBC’s EU coverage across numerous news and current affairs programmes. More than 8,200 individual EU reports have been fully transcribed, and transcripts from some 5,000 guest contributions have been collected and analysed. The director of the programme, Mr David Keighley, has had a long and successful career at the BBC and in commercial broadcasting, and his CV can be found on the News-watch website. He sits as a justice of the peace.

By 2004, Mr Keighley and his team had produced such damning evidence of the BBC’s Europhile bias, including a complete failure to air the case for the UK to leave the EU, which was already a significant strand of British public opinion, that the BBC set up its first and only truly independent inquiry chaired by the former Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. That inquiry broadly supported Mr Keighley’s conclusions, and so in reply the BBC made the commitments to which this Question for Short Debate refers. However, I have time to deal with only two of them. The BBC said:

“With specific reference to Europe our aims are … to offer our audiences across all platforms clear, accurate and accessible information about the way EU institutions work and their impact on UK laws and life”,

and, secondly,

“to ensure impartiality by reflecting the widest possible range of voices and viewpoints about EU issues; to test those viewpoints using evidence-based argument or informed opinion”.

I am sorry to say that the BBC has not yet fulfilled those promises. Let us look at the first aim, which is that the BBC would make sure that the British people could understand how the EU works and how it makes so much of our law. With our elections to the European Parliament only 15 days away, I would have thought it helpful if our people knew what they were actually voting for and how it fits into the EU’s law-making process. I would have thought it helpful if they knew that the power to propose EU legislation lies with the unelected Commission, and that the power is exercised in secret; that its proposals are then negotiated, still in secret, in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or bureaucrats, who are appointed by the member states—and that they then go to the Council of Ministers for further clandestine discussion and decision, with the European Parliament enjoying powers of co-decision at this late stage in the proceedings; and that the Commission and the Luxembourg court then become the Executive and sole arbiter of all EU law. I would have thought that it would also be helpful if the British people understood how wholly irrelevant their Parliament here in Westminster has become in that process and how even our Government have only some 8% of the votes in the Council of Ministers, where it has been outvoted on every one of the 55 objections that it has made against new EU legislation since 1996.

I would have thought that it was the BBC’s duty under its charter at least to try to explain the above process to its licence fee payers, but it has not done so and is clearly determined not to do so. When I have raised this failure with all the chairmen and director-generals over the past 14 years, the answer has been always the same: “Oh, but the EU is so boring”. Well, it need not be. What about a new series of “Yes, Commissioner”? You would not even have to make the jokes up—the script would write itself from pure fact. Indeed, in UK Gold’s second series of “Yes, Prime Minister” last year, we saw Sir Humphrey explaining to a bewildered PM how the EU works, and very funny it was, too. I have sent the Minister a three-minute clip of that and would be happy to send it on to other noble Lords who want it. There is only one catch: Sir Humphrey says that the President of the Commission is elected—perish the thought. So even Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn made a rare error on that one.

The other area where the BBC is in breach of its charter is in not allowing those who want to leave the EU the airtime to make their case. For instance, since 2005 the “Today” programme has allowed only some 0.04% of its airtime for withdrawalists to say why they want to leave, yet this is a view shared by upwards of 50% of the British people. The BBC almost entirely excludes Labour Eurosceptics from any debate on EU matters. Since 2005, only 0.09% of the “Today” programme’s guests on EU affairs have come from the Labour Party or the British left. The BBC prefers to view Euroscepticism through the prism of splits in the Conservative Party, with UKIP as the BNP in blazers— much more fun. It is not good enough for the BBC to reply that Nigel Farage has been on air a lot, if he and others are not given the space to explain how the EU works and, thus, the case for British withdrawal. There is one recent exception to that, as the BBC held a debate between Mr Farage and Nick Clegg recently. I suppose that it felt obliged to do so because LBC Radio and Sky had already done the same and it had proved rather popular. I bet that the BBC will not do anything like that again, if it can help it.

Finally, when the BBC deigns to commission what it pretends is an independent report into its output, the result is incestuous and incompetent to the point of dishonesty. I refer to the supposedly independent report last July by Mr Stuart Prebble, which has been taken to pieces by News-watch and exposed last month in a publication from the respected think tank Civitas, on whose website the whole depressing saga can be viewed. In a nutshell, Mr Prebble was not independent at all. He had been a colleague for many years at Granada TV of the BBC trustee—David Liddiment—who commissioned him and he had part-owned and run a company that made programmes for the BBC. He and the trustees commissioned the research directly from the former head of BBC news, Richard Sambrook, who is now at Cardiff University, where Richard Tait, a former editor of “Newsnight” and former BBC governor and trustee, also works in the same department.

Just for good measure, the Cardiff academic who led the research, Professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, had recently been employed by Brussels to analyse European media coverage about further EU integration and to discover why the UK is so sceptical about that prospect.

Unsurprisingly, Cardiff’s methodology was seriously flawed and unprofessional. It looked at only two one-month periods of the BBC’s output, in 2007 and 2012, which compares ill with the massive work done by News-watch over 15 years. Cardiff staff and friends in the leftwing media even managed to claim that their research showed that the BBC was biased in favour of Euroscepticism. They did this by simply ignoring 20 of the 21 pro-EU speakers on the “Today” programme in their 2012 survey period. Thus the Prebble report gave the BBC’s EU coverage a clean bill of health, which was, of course, gratefully accepted by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the other BBC trustees. So far, the BBC has not replied to the Civitas-News-watch report, and Mr Prebble has merely accused them of running a smear campaign. I trust that the Government will join me in looking forward to a detailed response very soon.

So I ask the Government not to renew the BBC’s charter until they are satisfied that it is capable of fulfilling it. This afternoon, I have dealt only with the BBC’s coverage of the EU. Similar criticisms could be made of its coverage of immigration and manmade climate change, at least. In conclusion, I trust that the Government will ensure that the BBC’s editorial freedom is preserved, but with that freedom must come the fulfilment of the great ideals of its charter. I beg to move.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alli]

I thought I was giving three reasons. My first was about trying to get the churches to take a step and view civil partnerships as part of that transition, where they can recognise the stunning relationships between a man and a man and a woman and a woman without having to cross the line into marriage. The second, which I believe the noble Lord seeks, already exists for unpaid carers. They can enter a civil partnership in which they are the same sex. They can enter civil marriage and get those benefits. The third is that—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Is my noble friend saying that two sisters could do that? Could he make himself clearer? I did not understand that.

[Lord Alli]

The third component is the one I was coming to, about the nature of the relationships in civil partnerships. I do not view civil partnerships as a financial transaction between two people. As I said, they are based, initially but not exclusively, on a sexual relationship between two same-sex people. That sexual relationship, which often mirrors marriage, forms the basis of it. I know—actually I do not know—that your Lordships do not like talking about sex but sex is part of the foundation of marriage as it is the foundation of civil partnerships. For that reason, for me, civil partnerships are akin to marriage. The thought that a father could marry a son, a mother marry a daughter or two sisters or two brothers marry—substitute the phrase “civil partner”—is what makes it feel wrong. Civil partnerships make it feel like a relationship that should not be allowed. I do not question the sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I believe she sees this as a piece of paper that brings a financial benefit.

This amendment is one part of a process. It should be up to the Government of the day to decide on their inheritance tax policy. The Chancellor and the Treasury set out and have a well documented process for consultation. I said in Committee—and in 2004 to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain—that I, like many, think the current inheritance tax is unfair, particularly when it comes to family homes. I would be in favour of inheritance tax being paid on the death of the second or third survivor so the Treasury would suffer only a deferral of inheritance tax. But that is not a discussion for this Bill. It is a conversation to be had with government. I assure the noble Baroness that I will write to the leader of my party and advocate a change in policy to reflect that. I hope the noble Baroness understands why I do not support the amendment. We debated it in 2004 and the arguments have not much changed. However, the experience of civil partnerships might have helped the noble Baroness understand why this amendment could be seen as hurtful to those people who value their civil partnerships in a different way.

Finally, I risk the groans of the House by saying that in the intervening years since 2004 I have not noticed a single amendment tabled to another Bill to push this very point. Plenty of other Bills going through the House could have addressed it, including the Care Bill going through the House as I speak. I hope the noble Baroness and those who support this amendment will forgive me if I see it and the intervening nine years and ask: why now and not at any time over the past nine years? Whatever the reason, this is neither the time nor the place for civil partnerships to be used as a means of dealing with inheritance tax. I hope that the noble Baroness can recognise that and will withdraw her amendment.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I think that I should indicate that some aspects of this discussion will arise under my Amendment 55. It is important to remember that this Bill is not about gay marriage but same-sex marriage. As I pointed out, and I invited correction—so far I have not been corrected—it includes platonic relations between people of the same sex. Therefore, the idea that sexual relationships are fundamental to it is a mistake. That may or may not matter to this issue, but it matters considerably to the issue that I shall raise under Amendment 55.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I found the introduction given by the noble Baroness so powerful that I hope—depending on whether the Minister can answer three questions that I want to ask—that I will not have to move my Amendment 46D, which will save the Committee quite a lot of time. It has the same essential aim as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

I would have been handicapped in moving my amendment in any case, because I do not have Answers to three Written Questions, which I tabled on 5 June and which should have been answered by last Wednesday, 19 June, at the latest. I hope that the Minister can answer them now. Those Written Questions seek to update the information on the scale and cost of the injustice being done to blood-relative, sibling or family partnerships, sometimes known as “the sisters”. I think that, after this debate, we all know who we are talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

I suspect that might answer the second question, which concerned the difference between same-sex marriage and civil partnerships. The noble Lord’s third question concerned how many blood relative, sibling or family partnerships exist, and what the cost would be. I think that is probably an impossible question to answer, not least because that knowledge is not collected by any government department in that way. It is also because, for reasons which have been well rehearsed during this debate, where these kinds of relationships exist one does not know in how many cases the couple concerned would want to make the relationship into a civil partnership. I understand why the noble Lord asked the question, but I think it is almost impossible to answer in any meaningful way. I am happy to give way.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, that was not quite the question. The question was how much these family partnerships save the taxpayer in care costs and how much it would cost to give them the same advantages as civil partnerships, not necessarily using the same legal framework. I suggest that if the Government do not want to face this, it is purely because there are too many of these partnerships. There are very many more: a multiple of 53,000. That is why the Government will not face up to this duty, which has been owing to these people for a very long time.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood the question asked by the noble Lord. If information assessing the benefit to the state is available, that question may be capable of an answer. I will certainly ensure that that information is made available. I imagine there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss these kinds of issues when the Care Bill, which is already before your Lordships’ House, is debated at greater length. I will certainly ensure that the noble Lord gets the estimates that have been made, and I apologise if I misunderstood his question.

The review will look at whether civil partnerships are still needed, or whether there is a case for extending them to opposite-sex couples. Much of this debate proceeded on the basis that they would continue, whereas in fact that is only one of the options. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, about how he saw civil partnerships perhaps developing, and how there might be a liturgy associated with them in times to come. No doubt that is a point he and others will make to the body conducting the review. Questions do arise from the change to marriage law which we are making in this Bill. It will result in the apparent anomaly of same-sex couples having the choice between marriage and civil partnership, while opposite-sex couples will only be able to marry. It was for that reason that we sought this review.

Regarding parents, children and siblings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the positions of siblings are indistinguishable. However, it is the case that parents, children and siblings already have a legally recognised relationship, one to the other. These relationships already afford certain rights. For example, children and siblings are recognised in intestacy rules. The extent of those rights is clearly a separate issue from the question of future civil partnerships. That is why we believe that it would be inappropriate for them to be considered as part of this review. It could lead to legitimating relationships within the prohibited degrees of relationship.

We will come later to the amendment of my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. However, even if the reasons for the prohibited degrees of affinity perhaps stem back to what one might call a biological concern, there are still issues of power relationships within very close families. These may not necessarily be obvious, but there is also protection there against any undue pressure. As was also said in one of the contributions, what if life circumstances change? Suppose that two sisters enter into a civil partnership, and one later wants to marry someone else or to enter into a civil partnership with someone else.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made the point that there is a legal entry but there is also a legal exit. In these circumstances, the idea of a judicially determined divorce—let us not beat about the bush, it would be a divorce—could very well be much more damaging to a previously existing relationship than would otherwise be the case. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who reminded us of Irving Berlin—yes, there was a reason why I hesitated over his name—and his theory of “Lord help the sister who comes between me and my man”. That is probably a very pertinent point. I know the point, but the reason I hesitated was because I was told that the late Isaiah Berlin once sat next to a very prominent politician who could not understand the question about “White Christmas”, so I wanted to make sure that I had actually got the name right.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has just amused your Lordships about Irving Berlin, but what he said shortly before that is not right either, is it? One cannot generalise too widely on these things, but surely the bitterness that comes with the breakdown of a sexual relationship is likely to be greater than a breakdown in a sibling or family relationship.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Having sisters of my own, I intervene to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has not seen sisters at war with each other.

Gender Balance among Non-Executive Directors (EUC Report)

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, in moving this Motion I invite the House to agree with the proposal of the European Union Committee that a reasoned opinion should be issued. Our report concerns a proposal for an EU directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures. This proposal was examined in great detail by our sub-committee on the internal market, infrastructure and employment, which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. I should make it clear, first, that we are very grateful to her. Secondly, while I am moving these Motions that relate to subsidiarity, I will be looking to her to answer any detailed points about the underlying policy issues, for her committee has heard the evidence. I have merely had the opportunity of studying it.

Before I explain our thinking on this proposal I want to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we fully support the aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. There is no backtracking on that. Having studied the report of the debate on a related Motion in the House of Commons earlier this week I was delighted to see that Her Majesty’s Government were of the same mind. In this debate it would be helpful if the Minister could respond by giving us an update on the current position in relation to women’s participation on boards and also, in particular, on Her Majesty’s Government’s initiatives in taking this further forward. I sense that the House is absolutely at one on the strategic objective.

Equally we applaud the achievement of the European Commission Vice-President, Viviane Reding, in bringing this issue to the forefront of political debate in Europe. However, our report is about whether the Commission’s proposal is the right way to respond to this important issue and we have come to the conclusion that it is not. Our view is that the Commission’s proposal is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

We are frankly not persuaded by the Commission’s suggestion that a figure of 40% should be imposed in order to ensure a so-called critical mass of women on boards in member states where boards are traditionally smaller. The proposal fails to take into account the rate of change and the board structures within each member state, and does not adequately make the case that measures taken at national level are not working. In the UK in just over a year and a half, from February 2011 to November 2012, the proportion of FTSE 100 board members who are female went up by 4.8% and by 4.2% in the case of FTSE 250 board members. There have been concomitant improvements in a significant number of other European member states, though not in all.

A key test under the subsidiarity principle within the Lisbon treaty is whether the European Union can add value. The Commission suggests that its proposal is necessary for the practical and competitive functioning of the internal market. We feel that this justification is weak when balanced against the administrative burdens of the proposal and the varying cultural contexts and practices within differing member states.

As I mentioned earlier the European Union Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair, fully supports the aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. I have a personal interest in this subject and can echo my own support of it. We believe that the European Commission can still usefully complement this by monitoring individual member states’ action and in cases where individual member states fail to comply with their general, pre-existing obligations to combat discrimination the Commission should then consider further action. However, it remains our view that the European Union-wide legislative action at the present time would be unnecessary and could be counterproductive to the Commission’s aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. Action at the member-state level to address these issues would be more effective. We therefore believe that the proposal is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity. Under the treaty, we as Members of Parliament have an obligation to consider that and to issue an opinion accordingly if that is our view. In that spirit and context, I beg to move.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am a strong supporter of women on boards but I offer only qualified congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and to his committee on opposing their imposition on our boards by Brussels. Of course, it is all that we as a national Parliament can do—but we must not make the mistake of thinking that somehow we are taking part in anything resembling a worthwhile democratic process.

The report put its finger on what has always been the fundamental flaw in the whole fraud of subsidiarity. It has always applied only to those areas of our national life that are not already controlled by Brussels. It has never been applicable to the single market and so to commerce and industry, agriculture, fishing, foreign trade and much else. Under the Lisbon treaty, a democratic fig-leaf was delicately placed on this unseemly state of affairs by introducing the procedure that we are using tonight. The transparently unsatisfactory nature of that fig-leaf can be found in Protocol 2 of the treaty, on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It is worth quoting from that protocol to show just how pointless this whole exercise is.

Article 7 of the protocol states:

“Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act’s non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the draft must be reviewed … After such review, the Commission”—

or, where appropriate, other proposers of legislation—

“may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision … Furthermore, under the ordinary legislative procedure”—

that is, qualified majority voting—

“where reasoned opinions on the non-compliance of a proposal for a legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least a simple majority of the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the proposal must be reviewed. After such review, the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal”.

I will not bore noble Lords further. The treaty goes on to say that in the final crunch, you need 55% of the members of the Council or a majority of the votes cast in the European Parliament before you can stop the Commission doing what it wants.

That is how democratically weak this whole procedure is. If the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, does not agree, will he tell me how many Commission proposals have been withdrawn under the procedure that we are now using? What hope does he hold out for this one? In other words, have we got on our side at least one-third of all the votes allocated to national Parliaments? Will the Commission even have to review this proposal, never mind whether there is any chance of seeing it fall?

I hope that we succeed, because I strongly support the presence of women in the boardroom. However, their presence should be a matter for shareholders, perhaps with a little gentle persuasion from national Governments. It should not be just one more morsel of national sovereignty devoured by the corrupt octopus. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s Motion and look forward to his answers.

BBC: Resignation of Director-General

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank my noble friend for her supportive comments about the BBC. Putting aside the awful events that have happened, I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC acts as a role model throughout the world for high-quality journalism and, indeed, high-quality investigative journalism. Your Lordships will know that two inquiries are going on. One is looking into the culture and practices of the BBC, which is more of a long-term investigation. Mr Pollard is looking at editorial matters to find out why the “Newsnight” programme was in the position that it was in. The report will be out at the end of November.

Mr Entwistle’s compensation, to which I alluded earlier and which was mentioned by my noble friend, is a matter for the BBC. I do not wish to go into its precise details.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the Government rightly say that the only organisation which can restore the public’s trust in the BBC is itself, but can the BBC do so under its present chairman and trustees? I ask that because in at least two of the most important areas facing this nation, they are marching determinedly in the opposite direction to the views of a growing majority of the British people. First, an analysis of the trustees reveals that a large majority of them are climate change enthusiasts.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Yes, indeed, my Lords, so it is not surprising that the BBC has decided not to allow informed debate on this subject. Secondly, the BBC remains blindly Europhile—I can prove that too—as exemplified by its chairman, who has a large EU pension which he could lose if he went against what the European Commission regards as the interests of the European communities. I need scarcely add that those interests are no longer the interests of this country.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I do not wish to comment on the European matters mentioned by the noble Lord. As I said, although the trust could have acted more quickly with its initial inquiries, I feel that it is now acting decisively to address this crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, has a key role in ensuring that this crisis is handled well. Again, I support him in everything that he is doing to sort out the mess.

Disabled People

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that there is a requirement for residential care homes, children’s homes and educational establishments such as special schools to meet children’s relevant needs, including their mobility needs.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, are the Government aware that there is still great unmet demand from people with learning disabilities and their families for intentional and village communities, which are also cost effective and care effective? Will the Government ensure that such demand is no longer frustrated at local level, as it has been for many years?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly that issue hits on a key point relating to how we organise our services. This Government are putting an enormous amount of effort into localising services and then personalising them. To the extent that those processes come through by 2015, more localisation will be visible.