With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the backlog of unrecorded overseas crimes committed by British citizens abroad. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for the late arrival of the statement. As he probably saw from the papers being passed along the Front Bench, the inconvenience was mutual.

I intend to outline the situation up to May 2006—when the Association of Chief Police Officers became the lead organisation—the current situation, and the further actions for which I have asked today. No hon. Member should be under the illusion that I do not regard the subject as serious.

First, let me outline the situation to May 2006. Since 1959, there has been a Council of Europe convention on mutual legal assistance, which established the expectation that the more than 40 member countries would inform each other of the criminal convictions of their citizens while in another member country. That was the position from 1959 until last year. The system had several grave weaknesses.

First, implementation of the system for exchanging the information was patchy across Europe. Secondly, much of the information was of poor quality—for example, on some occasions, it constituted just a name. Thirdly, the process for handling the incoming notifications when they arrive in the United Kingdom was fragmented and piecemeal. There were therefore fundamental flaws in both the sending and the receipt of information.

It was agreed that this situation should be improved at European level, and in 2005 a European Union Council decision made it mandatory for all member states to have a central authority in each country for receiving and sending such information, to counter the fundamental flaws of the prevailing system. In March 2006, it was decided by my predecessor—in my view completely correctly—that the central authority for this country would be the Association of Chief Police Officers. I think that I am correct in saying that we were among the first in the European Union to appoint such an authority to improve the exchange of such information. A backlog of 27,500 notifications was passed to ACPO, and its team was operational by May last year.

Since then, ACPO has sifted through all the approximately 27,500 notifications and carried out a priority risk assessment on them. This identified 540 most serious offenders on the police’s own definition. All the notifications relating to the most serious offenders that had enough information to be entered on the police national computer and which were not already on the computer as a result of Interpol work have now been put on it. Together, that means that 260 of the 540 serious notifications are on the police national computer. The remaining 280 cannot be entered on the PNC and are the subject of further inquiries to the notifying country to get more details to try to establish the identity of the offender. I should make it clear that the 280 cases are not necessarily notifications received since May last year or, indeed, since this Government came to office. However, we are having their origin checked.

I shall now outline the actions that I have asked to be taken. As the House will know, I regard protecting the public as my highest priority, and I know that that view is shared by the whole House. I therefore consider the past failings in the system to be a very serious matter, and I regard the response of my predecessor to have been a correct response to those failings. However, I also believe that the system now operating puts responsibility in the right place.

I want to express my gratitude to the Association of Chief Police Officers for the action that it has taken and for the assistance that it has given me this morning. I have today met Ministers and my officials, the president of ACPO and the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau. I have asked ACPO for an assurance that every one of the more serious offenders that it has identified and on whom there is sufficient information has now been entered on the police national computer. I have been given that assurance.

Let me now set out the actions that I have taken as a result of the past 24 hours. I have asked the permanent secretary at the Home Office to set up an inquiry into the Home Office’s handling of these notifications. This will include determining a chronology of events, the practices and procedures in place at different times, whether appropriate action was taken, and the lessons to be learned. I have asked that every effort be made to complete this inquiry within six weeks.

In addition, I have asked my officials, ACPO, the CRB and the probation service, in liaison with any other Department should that be necessary, to ensure that all appropriate public protection steps are taken. In particular, I have asked the CRB to check whether there are any disclosures to employers in respect of the most serious offenders who have been identified that ought to be looked at again in the light of that new information. I expect to have that information in a matter of days.

I have also asked the police and the probation service to ensure that all sex offenders who have been identified through that process are subject to appropriate monitoring in line with the public protection arrangements that would be expected if there had been a conviction in this country.

Finally, I have asked ACPO and the CRB to accelerate the timetable to process the remainder of the backlog—that is, those cases that have not been identified as serious, which involve less serious offenders. As of this morning, that timetable, due to less serious offenders being involved, was envisaged to be 12 months. I have also asked them, with extra resources, to provide that within three months. They hope to complete it within that time scale.

As I hope is now clear to the House, this is a problem that was some years in the making. By May 2006, a better system had been established and was operational. I take full responsibility now for ensuring that that new system operates effectively to protect the public and that the lessons of past failings are properly learned.

I thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice of his statement, although I understand entirely why it came not quite as early as normal.

The British public today will be wondering when on earth this catalogue of blunders at the Home Office will come to an end. None of the Government’s excuses, I am afraid, explains why the last three years have been the worst in the 200-year history of the Home Office. That is because the Department has been overwhelmed by an avalanche of legislation, regulation, targets and headline-grabbing initiatives, and by strategic failure on immigration, criminal justice, prisons and a variety of other areas. So Ministers have the major responsibility for this, but the responsibility is even more specific and it means that the Home Secretary can no longer go on blaming civil servants or police officers. Nor does the latest excuse that he has no idea what is happening in his Department auger well for the security of the nation.

This is a database failure. It is the latest in a series of database failures. Five years ago, we had the Soham tragedy, in part because of police and Home Office database failures. There have been failures on the sex offenders register, the police fingerprint database and the CRB—notably, two weeks after the right hon. Gentleman took over as Home Secretary. Did no Minister in the last eight months, as a result of those failures, ask, “Are there any weaknesses or omissions on the police national computer?” That is a straightforward, basic question. If no Minister asked it, why not? I would expect such basic scrutiny from a junior manager working in any business, let alone a Minister working in one of the most important Departments of State.

The right hon. Gentleman became Home Secretary on 5 May 2006. On 21 May, the UK central authority for the exchange of criminal records was set up, as we have been told today, transferring responsibility for those records from the Home Office to ACPO. Ministers will have received a submission on that transfer. Did he not ask the simple question whether there were any problems with it? After he took office, he told us that he had conducted a fundamental review across his Department. Did he ask whether all the databases had complete integrity? How fundamental is an inquiry that misses 27,000 files sitting on a desk for up to six years?

In practical public safety terms, will the Home Secretary tell the House, first, when the transfer will be complete? In particular, when will the 280 serious criminals be tracked down? I could not quite get that from what he said in his statement. Secondly, when will the sex offenders register, the Criminal Records Bureau and other relevant databases have been updated and checked back to see that no one has been missed in the gap since 1999? Thirdly, has he now checked for any other weaknesses in those databases? For example, if people from abroad who are given the right to work in the UK have criminal records, is he certain that those records are on the police national computer? If not known about, that is a serious issue.

I am afraid that the public will have little faith in yet another review led by a civil servant. The Home Secretary can no longer blame his officials, the police or his predecessors. He has been in the job long enough to have had every chance to put the right questions. He has failed to do so. He assures us that he is in charge of his Department. Is he? If he is, when will he start shouldering the responsibility for it?

It is normal to start my response by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for those elements of his contribution that were in some way laudatory; I could not find one today, so he will not mind if I go straight to the heart of the issue.

My statement today was not an attempt to lay blame, but to explain. That is what the House and the public want. It was also an attempt to outline the actions, now that I have been informed of the situation, that ought to be taken.

First, the right hon. Gentleman said that there are failings in the Home Office. That is the least newsworthy item that could be declared today. I do not think that any Secretary of State has been more open about some of those failings. Had I been told about the backlog, I assure him that I would have added it to the other failings about which I told the Home Affairs Committee in order better to tackle them.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman queried whether I had asked about the integrity of systems in the Home Office. Yes, I explicitly asked all the leading officials, in the first week, to tell me everything that needed to be known about systems failures, precisely so that we could address and share that with the public. Why was I not told? That is precisely why the permanent secretary is undertaking an inquiry. Let us now get away from the process points and move on to the substance of public protection.

I would not for one minute like the right hon. Gentleman to give the inadvertent impression that nothing has been done to improve the surveillance, monitoring and registering of people who have committed offences abroad. First, it is a major step forward that a lead organisation—ACPO—was appointed to ensure that the information that we sent to and received from other member states was dealt with in a systemic fashion that had integrity. That decision was taken six months before I became Home Secretary, and I applaud it.

Secondly, ACPO has now worked through and identified all serious cases in the backlog, and every one of those that it is possible to put on the police national computer, without the entry being useless at best or disturbing the system at worst, has been put on that computer.

Thirdly, in relation to the Soham question, the protection arrangements for children and vulnerable people have been improved significantly following Sir Michael Bichard’s report. The Home Office and ACPO are now working on a new IT initiative, IMPACT, which will improve significantly the recording and sharing of information. Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, we have established a vetting and barring scheme. That is scheduled for implementation in late 2008 and will strengthen significantly the protection of children and vulnerable adults. One of its key features is the continuous monitoring that will be introduced, by contrast with the present arrangements whereby the Criminal Records Bureau is only able to provide what information is currently held in police systems.

Therefore, without in any way attempting to paint a rosy picture, the position is much better than it was from 1959 to 2005, during which period Governments of all persuasions have held office.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the date of transfer. I do not know whether he meant the date of transfer of the files. It was when ACPO’s role was set up—in the first half of last year, between January and June—that the files would have been established, electronically and physically. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will no longer allude to his colourful but rather misleading proposition that I have been sitting in the midst of all the files since May last year. I have not.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the date of reform. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot respond to remarks made from a sedentary position. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise other issues I will deal with them, but let me make this absolutely clear: I have now asked not only for an assurance that all the serious cases on which we have sufficient information have been entered on the computer, but for a retrospective check to be carried out with the Criminal Records Bureau to ensure that no questions have been asked about anyone who ought to have been registered on the computer.

I am asking the police to accelerate the process of dealing with the other 27,500 cases, and I am asking the Probation Service to give me an assurance that anyone who has now been discovered to have committed an offence as a result of having been entered on the computer will be given the same level of supervision as anyone who has committed an offence in this country. I hope that all that will be done as rapidly as humanly possible.

The Home Secretary and his Ministers seem to have developed a novel doctrine of ministerial responsibility over the past 24 hours. If a Minister is not aware of something, we are now told, he or she can somehow not be held responsible for it. Let us be clear that ignorance is no excuse for incompetence. The British public have a simple question to ask of the Home Secretary: if he is not to be held to account for the work of his Department, who is?

Can the Home Secretary confirm that 27,500 files relate to information collected from Council of Europe countries? Can he tell us what would happen to files on offences committed by British citizens in non-Council of Europe countries, especially countries in, say, Asia or North America where there are large numbers of British residents or visitors? Can he assure us that there are no files from those countries sitting in Home Office filing cabinets?

I do not think the Home Secretary gave us a precise date for the completion of the CRB checks on the most serious offenders. Will he do so now, so that parents and members of the public can have a cast-iron guarantee that none of the offenders are working with children or vulnerable people?

The Home Secretary may be aware that since April 2005 a pilot project has been running, organised by Germany, France, Belgium and Spain—joined recently, I believe, by the Czech Republic—to establish a fully operational criminal records network. We are told that the United Kingdom has been very reluctant to join the project. Can the Home Secretary explain how he will deal with this crisis on a sustainable basis without committing Britain more fully to this type of international arrangement?

I will deal with the last question first. Of course we consider all ways of improving co-operation, but no one should believe that because systems have been established they will work perfectly, even now.

To the best of my knowledge, under the new system, all Council of Europe countries have notified us of all offences, and all those offences are being entered on the computer immediately by ACPO.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that since I became Secretary of State, none of the cases that have come in have added to the backlog. I accept responsibility for sorting the problem out, but unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, what I cannot tell him is that I was presiding over it from 1959 until last May. I was not. I will accept responsibility for sorting out the problem, but it has developed over many years. Even now, with the new system, when I ask how many notifications we have received from Spain, for instance, the answer is none. I find it very difficult to believe that we have had no one convicted of offences in Spain. That illustrates some of the problems that we are experiencing, even with a strengthened system.

We will continue to do what we can, and I accept full responsibility. It is a question of establishing the facts, and I have asked the permanent secretary to do that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. I hope and expect that we shall have gone through the backlog of 27,500 less serious cases within a few months—three months, I hope, although I cannot absolutely pledge that. He also asked an important question about the retrospective checking of people who are now on the computer but may not have been for a long time. I am also concerned about that, and I have asked the CRB to check and run it through the systems. I trust that the process will not take months or even weeks; I hope to have received the information by the end of this week. I will in any case present a written statement to the House when appropriate, to update Members on what is happening.

The backlog of 27,500 files that built up at some stage between 1959 and 2006—probably from the mid-1990s onwards, but that is part of what I am trying to establish—relates mainly to the 45 or so Council of Europe member states to which the convention on mutual legal assistance relates. That arrangement was even less systematic that the present one. As I have said, there were two flaws. First, the information that came to the United Kingdom was fragmentary, piecemeal and ad hoc, and secondly the system at this end, in the Home Office, was inadequate to deal with that. Had I known about those failings I would have incorporated them in the report that I gave the Home Affairs Committee, along with the other failings in the system.

We are remedying those failings now. A huge amount of work is being done by Home Office officials to reform the Home Office, and I praise them for that work. My only regret is that because they did not, apparently, tell me about it at the time, something that happened a considerable time ago is being blamed on officials as if it were happening now. Actually, it is on its way to being remedied now. What has happened is that we have only just found out about a problem that all of us should perhaps have known about some time ago.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Is he aware that when the incoming Labour Government began to set up the Criminal Records Bureau, it became apparent that we could not even be sure that convictions in this country were being entered on the police national computer? Laxity in these affairs long predates my right hon. Friend’s time as Home Secretary, and stretches back over other Governments.

May I point out to my right hon. Friend the real purpose of the Hampshire chief constable’s contribution to our Committee session yesterday? It was not to draw attention to past problems, which he regards as being on the way to solution, but to report that we are continuing to receive notification from other European states that contains too little information to allow individuals to be positively identified and registered on the national computer. Will my right hon. Friend add to his list of priorities a real drive in Europe to sort out the problem of the quality of data, so that we can establish the information on the computer and so that we are not still debating this issue in two or three years’ time?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the information that he elicited yesterday, which is very helpful to all of us. [Laughter.] This is a serious problem, and the information was helpful in spurring further action with the aim of establishing a process of constant improvement.

As my right hon. Friend says, over the past few decades public expectations of this as of other public services have become much higher. The public are entitled to demand more, as is the House, and I will try to respond. It is also the case, however, that we are monitoring, categorising, listing and registering, and through those actions protecting the public better than we were several decades ago.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the evidence given by the police yesterday. I am very grateful to the police for what they are doing. We have a problem that is currently being solved; but in the midst of that solution, there have been revelations about the problem as it existed before and as people had to grapple with it then. That is why I say that whatever happened previously, my predecessors were absolutely correct in taking the steps that were necessary for a speedy response to the European Union directive. We were among the first European member states to tender, and then to set up, a central authority—the Association of Chief Police Officers—to deal with the problem.

Although we are now working on system improvement, it is by no means perfect. My right hon. Friend said that the evidence yesterday was that some European Union member states were still not giving us information in a manner that can be registered on a computer; giving us the name “John Smith” with no address, no background and no identification, along with some general crime is not very helpful in terms of the police computer. Even worse, some states appear to have given us no notification of anybody at all, so I will certainly make that one of my priorities as well.

The Home Secretary, in the usual discreditable way that he and his colleagues adopt, has sought to spread some of the blame for this lamentable state of affairs to the previous Administration, but less than an hour ago the Prime Minister told the House that the voluntary transfer of information commenced in 1999, and I am sure that the Prime Minister was carefully briefed on that matter. Is not the simple truth that, since 1999, thousands of records of this kind have been received at the Home Office, have been put into boxes at the Home Office and have been left to gather dust at the Home Office? Is that not a disgraceful state of affairs, for which this Government are entirely responsible?

I think that the date that the Prime Minister might have mentioned was 1959, as regards the voluntary scheme.

No, 1999.

The year is 1959 for the European Council convention on the exchange of information—the mutual legal aid. Information was exchanged from 1959. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is challenging me on the basis that all the files in the backlog are from 1999 onwards. I think that he will find that that is incorrect, and I hope that if he does find that it is incorrect he will be apologetic about what he said about me attempting, in discreditable fashion, to blame somebody. I am not attempting to blame anybody; I am attempting to explain how a problem arose and to address the problem.

I also say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the public are less interested in the blame game and party politics than they are in the protection of themselves, their families and their children, which is what I am interested in.

I seek clarification on a small point. Yesterday’s Home Affairs Committee sitting was entirely about home affairs issues relating to Europe. My right hon. Friend mentioned Interpol in his statement; yesterday, we talked about Europol. Can I understand from what my right hon. Friend says that ACPO is now receiving information from Interpol, and therefore from around the world, rather than just from Europe?

Interpol has played an active part. Let me give an example—it is a rather complex one, but Members demand and expect detailed answers to such points. When ACPO received the files—some electronically, others physically—it sifted through them; it conducted what we would call a triage, sorting them into more serious and less serious offences. Of the 540 more serious offences, it transpired that 149 were already on the police national computer because they had been put on it by Interpol. That means that Interpol had already been playing an active role.

We will certainly encourage it and other institutions, including the European Union and its member states, to make information available. That is not, however, quite as simple as we would all want it to be. For example, only three countries in Europe have a sex offenders register: the United Kingdom, Ireland and France. Other countries do not protect the public in the way that we do; we have a standard of protection that has been built up over the years. I do not make any exclusive claim for that for the Labour Government. Over a period of years, we have built up a system of protection that is in advance of that of any other country in Europe, but it still has major deficiencies, and we are trying to address them.

The Home Secretary referred to the tragedy in Soham in my constituency, and to the fact that if there had been better communication between police forces that tragedy might not have happened. However, although that happened five years ago, the Home Secretary said that the IMPACT—information management, prioritisation, analysis, co-ordination and tasking—system is still being implemented. How much longer will my constituents and other people in this country have to wait before there is a system in place that ensures that everybody who has committed crimes that could mean that they are a threat to children in the future are recorded in a manner that is accessible by those who might be considering employing them?

We should bear in mind that at the beginning of this process there was already a system in place in Scotland; the Scottish forces had a system that allowed the kind of communication that has been mentioned. Yet the Home Office ignored that and went ahead; it started to implement an IMPACT system which, as the Home Secretary has told us, is still not fully operational five years later.

We are attempting to introduce such measures as quickly as possible, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and he is correct to be so.

On more general matters, I was invited to say whether I think that what happened is serious and detrimental. I have made it publicly clear that I do think so, and we are attempting to remedy that. However, as I also pointed out, it is not as though nothing has happened since then. What has come out of that tragedy? Apart from IMPACT, we have established the vetting and barring scheme, which is scheduled for implementation in less than two years; it will significantly strengthen the protection of children and vulnerable adults. We are trying to improve the national offenders management system and the oversight of serious offenders. We have the POCA—Protection of Children Act 1999—register for those who might be a threat to children. We have the POVA—protection of vulnerable adults—register for those who might be a threat to vulnerable adults. We also have what is called the sexual offenders register, although it is actually the violent and sexual offenders register. Therefore, a lot is going on in this area.

None of that, however, excuses our inability to handle such matters in a better fashion. The task now is to make sure that we improve that much more quickly, and that we do so much more fully—and that has been under way since last May when ACPO took the lead.

Given that many of the problems that have affected our Government since we came to power have emanated from the Home Department, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is right to give serious consideration to splitting the duties and responsibilities of the Home Department, for example by creating a new department for immigration and migration separate from the rest of Home Department responsibilities?

My arrival at the Home Office was not without a degree of controversy. I identified what I thought were failings that had to be remedied. I said that within three months—100 days—I would bring forward plans for reform. I am sorry to disappoint the House and some commentators, but I did not in fact say that I would solve the problems of the Home Office within 100 days; I said that I would bring forward plans to tackle the fundamental problems.

Those plans were produced. One of them is a reform plan for Home Office systems—the systems and functions, and the integrity of them. Another is a plan to reform radically—and, hopefully, make far more efficient—the immigration and nationality department. We are proceeding with those reforms, but we keep the whole situation under review. The agency status we have proposed for the immigration and nationality department might be a big contributory factor to creating a more efficient organisation, but I have also carried out a study and review of the counter-terrorist side of the Department’s responsibilities. We keep that under review. I never rule anything out, but at the moment we have a plan for the reform of the central systems and the IND, and it is better to try to implement those plans before we devise others.

The Home Secretary has said that he will accept responsibility for sorting this mess out, but he has been Home Secretary since last May. Does he accept any personal responsibility for how this mess has arisen in the first place—any responsibility at all?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on and take responsibility for things that happened prior to my becoming Home Secretary. [Interruption.] No, I did not say that it was the previous Home Secretary; indeed, I said that I welcomed the previous Home Secretary’s decision to sort these things out by putting the matter to ACPO and being among the first in Europe to take action. All I am pointing out is that I accept the responsibility for dealing with this, but as I said in my statement it is a problem that has been mounting over the decades.

The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out the reference to 1999. That was made because accurate records began only in 1999. I am reliably informed by my officials that we have no accurate records for the period during which the right hon. and learned Gentleman presided over the Home Office. However, I accept full responsibility. That is why I am in front of the House, volunteering a statement, within 24 hours of the discovering that there was a problem, albeit some time ago.

Will the Home Secretary separate out some of the questions about whether Ministers knew about this or would have had cause to ask about it in the past, because MPs clearly did not know about it or have cause for concern? Would the offenders concerned have had any reason to know that they were not on the national computer, or can we hope that they were living and behaving under the assumption that they were? Does the Home Secretary feel any unease about the fact that the new information becoming available, including that about countries that have not passed on information, might come as some comfort to those offenders? We all need to address that issue, not the political spat about who knew what, when.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who addresses the practical problems and the protection of the public. That is what the public are interested in, and it is what I am interested in. I cannot guess, and it would be a guess, at the attitude of some of these offenders or whether that attitude was shaped by a realisation that their names had not been placed where they thought they might be.

The hon. Gentleman has hit on a serious point. Even if these names are now being put on the computer and we are tackling the problem as a result of the decision of the previous Home Secretary to pass the matter to ACPO, there was a gap. Can we be sure that during that time people did not get positions that they ought to have been prevented from getting because their name should have been on the computer? I spoke this morning to the Criminal Records Bureau, and said that I wanted it to check with utmost speed that there is no one in a job or position of trust who would have been prevented from getting it had their name been on the police computer and various registers more speedily. I have asked the CRB to give me the answer to that question by the end of this week, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will keep the House informed of these matters.

I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. There is still deep concern about this matter and a fear that proper checks and disclosures may not have been carried out correctly on a number of these people, who may now be employed back in the UK. I welcome some of what he said, particularly about the fact that the records have now all been sifted and a priority assessment carried out to identify the 540 most serious cases. I welcome the fact that there is now notification of whether data exist concerning those on the PNC.

I remain very anxious, however, that 280 of the most serious cases—more than half—cannot yet be notified and are subject to further inquiry. To allay public fears, particularly in Scotland, can the Home Secretary assure us that as notifications to the police national computer are carried out, comparable and parallel updates are made to data held by the Scottish Criminal Records Bureau, where appropriate? That would at least put some minds to rest in Scotland that as data are found and notification is completed, comparable Scottish records are updated in parallel.

That is a very important point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what has been achieved so far. He is quite right to ask about the gaps. I asked the CRB this morning to give me advice and to try to ensure that this information goes on all the various registers that should have it. I will make sure that that includes the Scottish CRB, too. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a list of, for instance, football hooligans, those who might be a threat to children, those who might be a threat to vulnerable adults and those who might be violent and sexual offenders—ViSOR—as well as the police national computer. He correctly points out that there are parallel or separate organisations in Scotland, and I will ensure that what he requests is done.

Given that part of the problem is the poor quality of information, is the Home Secretary seeking meetings with his fellow Interior Ministers in the European Union to address the problem? Does he feel that if we improved our system of identification and registration of residency, he would be greatly helped?

I entirely agree on both points. If European Union members act co-operatively on certain major subjects, for the practical benefit of their populations, we will greatly enhance the status of the European Union in the eyes of our public. If they spent more time doing that than they do attempting to harmonise where harmonisation is not necessary, we would all benefit in practical terms in this country and in the EU more widely.

I turn to my hon. Friend’s second, and most important, point. In a spirit of constructive engagement I ask Members in all parts of the House to consider that one of the most fundamental flaws of the last few decades in the exchange of all this information is the inability to identify the offenders from country to country, and nothing would be a bigger boost to our ability to protect the public than some form of identity management. ID cards are an important consideration in the future of the protection of the public, and quite frankly it ill behoves people to stand up and demand the ends that they say the public want and then on every occasion oppose the means of achieving those ends.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the responsibilities that have been given to ACPO are very demanding and go a long way beyond anything that it has previously been responsible for? What resources has he made available to ACPO? How much has it cost? Are ACPO staff now satisfied that they have adequate resources to fulfil the task that he has given them?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important point. I should point out that ACPO—which has been helpful this morning as ever, and I pay tribute to it—is not a conscript. It has not had this task imposed on it. As a result of the European directive at the end of 2005, which said that every country should have a lead body for sending out and receiving the information, we put the job out to tender, and ACPO put in a bid and won. That is why I say that even though we are discussing a historical problem with current ramifications, a solution is already under way because ACPO has taken on the role of lead body and is working through the problem. As for doing things a little quicker as a result of my perusal of the situation, if more resources are necessary, we will discuss that with ACPO. We started those discussions this morning.

The House is grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement. He has explained that there are 280 serious cases that cannot be entered on the police national computer and are the subject of further inquiries. Is there any sort of deadline for entering those 280 cases and, if so, will he inform the House what it is?

There is not a deadline because it would be artificial. The cases cannot be entered not only because it would not add anything to put in a name and very little else, but because it would damage the existing system if there were hundreds of cases that were nothing but a name. The problem is that we are moving from a system that was completely piecemeal and fragmentary—quite frankly, it fell into disuse—to one that is meant to involve the systematic and organised transfer of information, although it is obvious that people are not keeping to the basic format for the necessary information that should be exchanged. We have to try to ensure that we go back through the cases with the countries. Some of the files are indecipherable—they just cannot be read—not because they are in a different language, but because of their scribbled manner. The records are not all typed case files; some are written notifications. There is thus a real problem. We will do that work as soon as possible. As soon as the information is in a fit state to go on the computer, it now goes on it. There is no backlog for perusal, other than the remainder of the 27,500 cases, which are the less serious files. I have asked that there should be an attempt to deal with them in the next few months, rather than in a year, as was originally planned.

Does the Home Secretary agree that there is an urgent need to reassure the public that convicted child sex offenders are not working with children at present? Is he in a position to make a statement in the very near future on the child sex offenders who have been identified already—I believe that there are 29 of them—and what process he will follow regarding others who may be revealed?

The hon. Lady has a long-standing interest in this and served on a Committee that considered a Bill concerned with these matters. She is absolutely right. That was why I met this morning not only the police and officials, but the Criminal Records Bureau. I have asked the bureau to run through all the information that has now been passed to it. I have asked for the 280 names to be given to the bureau and for it to go through its computer files in the next three days. By the end of the week, I hope that I will be in a position to give such confirmation, or to be able to identify anyone about whom an inquiry was made before information was received from the national computer. If there is someone in such a position who has been appointed, I will tackle that problem when we discover it.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to initiate an inquiry to determine what has happened and how that should be dealt with, rather than making assumptions about who was at fault. Will he not just take the weasel words of the Opposition on this issue, which are never substantiated by any action to deal with—

Order. It is totally inappropriate to use such language, especially when we are considering a subject such as this. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about the words that he uses.

If the permanent secretary, on the conclusion of his inquiry into the matter, identifies the official who did not give the correct information in reply to the specific question posed by the Home Secretary, will that official be sacked?

The hon. Lady makes several assumptions, one of which is that the relevant people might still be working in the Home Office. All I can say without prejudging the inquiry is that one of the reasons—not the only one—why I asked for it was that I found it inexplicable that such a backlog had not been brought to my attention when it was pretty obvious to everyone else, including hon. Members, that I wanted to identify the problems in the Home Office that we needed to address quite openly and then deal with them. Although I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry, we will deal with that when it comes out.

I thank the Home Secretary for his full statement and for initiating the investigation. Will he assure the House that he will ensure that this item will be on the agenda at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the EU so that our partners are aware of the deficiencies in the provision of information? In respect of countries outside the EU, will he meet the Foreign Secretary to determine whether there is any way in which, through the posts abroad, she can help to lobby other Governments to ensure that they provide adequate information?

I can say yes to both my right hon. Friend’s points. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), who has been dealing with the matter with me over the past 24 hours or so, will be attending the next meeting in the near future and will raise both those points with colleagues formally and informally.

The Home Secretary outlined the situation up until the time of the agreement in 2005 in the European Union and tried to reassure the House that the stricter regime put in place after that, with a single national authority in each member state, would lead to the problem being much easier to control. The original situation occurred under a Council of Europe convention involving 46 member countries. The European Union has only 27 member states, which means that 19 countries, including large ones, such as Russia and Ukraine, and others with a large British expatriate population, such as Norway and Switzerland, are not covered by the arrangements. How many cases in the backlog involve us seeking answers from countries that are not required to have a single national authority and from which we are thus unlikely to get answers?

We can approach several institutions and we can carry out work through Interpol. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in advance how many of the 27,000 cases that have not yet been examined in detail are of a particular nature. I would hazard a guess that around half of them might not be sufficiently detailed for us to enter them on the police national computer because about half of the 540 more serious ones were not. If that pattern is repeated, it might well be that many of the cases involve pieces of paper with notifications that are in no condition to go on the computer. However, we will pursue every avenue.

The hon. Gentleman makes the simple point that while things might have got better under the new system, they are not perfect. I have not claimed that we have perfection. We have the European Union, beyond which there is the Council of Europe. Beyond that we have the world, so a couple of hundred countries will be sending us information that is not as perfect as it ought to be. I merely say that the system is a lot better than it was before and that it is among the best in Europe, along with the systems in France and Ireland.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a scheme to promote the maintenance and preservation of certain vehicles of cultural value; and for connected purposes.

The Bill has its roots in the well-supported campaign to ensure the preservation and, I hope, maintenance of a Concorde in a suitably airworthy condition to enable it to be flown on what might loosely be called ceremonial occasions. As I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Heathrow airport is extremely close to my constituency. I frequently raise issues such as the noise and pollution that are an inevitable result of such a large airport and, indeed, my determined opposition to the construction of a third runway there. However, that does not mean that I was not a fan of Concorde. I never failed to be proud of it and concede that watching Concorde fly was a truly spectacular sight, despite its ear-splitting noise.

Of course, Concorde has now gone from our skies. The airframes were sold off to museums and collections around the world following its retirement in 2003. None are airworthy, and the ex-British Airways aircraft are in a worse state than the French ones, especially because of the decision by British Airways to order that all hydraulic pipes be drained and the electrical systems disabled on its seven Concordes. Jock Lowe, the airline’s former chief Concorde pilot and fleet manager, described that decision as an act of vandalism. I am not suggesting that Concorde should be returned to regular commercial service because that is no longer a viable option. However, many would like at least one Concorde to be restored to an airworthy condition, in a similar manner to the battle of Britain memorial flight, and would hope for it to be ready to fly in time for the 2012 Olympics. Currently, there is little hope of that happening. British Airways stated in a letter to my colleague the shadow transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), that

“the technical and financial challenges and difficulties of keeping an aircraft airworthy for ‘heritage’ purposes are hugely prohibitive.”

However, former technicians who worked on the aircraft, and independent observers, have stated that there is no reason why Concorde cannot fly again. If it were protected by vehicular listing, it should be possible to make BA think again about its policy towards what is a British icon.

Although I was thinking initially about Concorde, it occurred to me that very little status is given to the protection of certain vehicles of historical and cultural value. Over the years, there have been some notable success stories, such as the preservation of HMS Belfast and HMS Victory, and of the battle of Britain memorial flight that I mentioned earlier. More often than not, however, aircraft, steam engines and ships have struggled to achieve the necessary protection.

Ships of historical importance, such as the RMS Queen Elizabeth—which played a vital role as a troop carrier during the second world war and which was instantly recognisable as Cunard’s premier liner—have been lost to the nation in the past. We are in danger of losing vehicles and vessels of similar historical and cultural importance if no action is taken.

A prime example of that is the SV City of Adelaide. Built in 1864, she is the last remaining example of a composite-built passenger sailing ship. Although she is located at the Scottish maritime museum, the BBC has reported that her restoration will be abandoned and that she will be broken up and scrapped. Similarly, I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), who I am delighted to see in his place today, that steamrollers are gradually disappearing. He tells me that owners find that, if they convert them to showmen’s road locomotives by replacing the rollers with wheels, they can double their value. I am never adverse to a bit commerce, but it would be a great shame if there were no way for us to ensure that some examples are preserved for posterity in their original state.

I am sure that hon. Members could think of many other examples, but I am anxious not to delay the House further as there is some very important business that Opposition Members want to discuss. In a nutshell, the aim of the Bill is to try to prevent any further loss of historic and culturally significant vehicles. Too many have been lost for good. It is time for us to take good care of our vehicular culture, just as we do of our architectural heritage. We owe that to future generations.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Randall, Kelvin Hopkins, Mrs. Janet Dean, John Thurso, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Robert Goodwill, Michael Fabricant, Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. Greg Hands.

Protection of Listed Vehicles

Mr. John Randall accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a scheme to promote the maintenance and preservation of certain vehicles of cultural value; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 44].

We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and that he has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

I beg to move,

That this House supports the provision of high quality maternity services designed around the needs and wishes of expectant mothers and reconciling choice, access and safety; values the hard work of health professionals working in maternity care; endorses the need for every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy; is deeply concerned at the closure or prospective closure of birth centres and maternity units and the consequent impact upon choice and access to services; regrets that the impacts of financial deficits and the Working Time Directive are forcing closures; welcomes and congratulates the cross-party opposition to such closures; and calls on the Government to respond positively to the demands for a national debate about the future configuration of maternity services.

Thirteen years ago, in a report entitled “Changing Childbirth”, the previous Conservative Government set out principles for the improvement of maternity care. They stated that the woman must be the focus of maternity care, that she should be able to exercise control over her care, that maternity services should be readily accessible, that they should be planned with the involvement of women, and that resources must be used efficiently.

Since then, Ministers have added to those principles. At the time of the last general election, the Labour manifesto stated:

“We want every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy”.

Subsequently, a date of 2009 was set for the achievement of that commitment.

The Opposition motion effectively reiterates the commitments that I have set out, which I think are shared by hon. Members of all parties. They are based on the following principles: that, wherever possible, childbirth should be normal and governed by the exercise of choice by the mother and her partner; that the services that provide maternity care must be accessible, with continuity of care wherever that is possible; and that that maternity care must be safe and effective.

However, good intentions are not enough. We have to deliver. The motion recognises the NHS staff involved in that delivery—the midwives, maternity assistants, obstetricians, neonatologists and others—and thanks them for their hard work, the support that they give to mothers and the quality of service that they provide. But they know—as do we—that there is a long way to go. This week, the Royal College of Midwives expressed its concern about maternity services when it said:

“Maternity services are being pared back…unless midwifery services are expanded there is no hope of these manifesto commitments being achieved”.

The RCM this week published a survey of heads of midwifery that paints a very worrying picture. It found that two thirds of midwifery units are understaffed, that qualified midwifery posts are being left unfilled or replaced by maternity care assistants, and that training budgets are being cut.

The Government have responded to that with complacency. They say that maternal and infant mortality rates are continuing to fall, and that is true—to the continuing credit of those who work in our maternity services. The Government say that that demonstrates the underlying safety of care, but mortality rates are not a sufficient measure of outcomes for the vast majority of mothers. Achieving a reduction in mortality rates is not the same as achieving quality.

The hon. Gentleman said that outcomes had improved in terms of mortality rates, and of course that is due in part to the dedication displayed by staff. However, does he agree that that is also due to increased funding? Why did his party oppose that increase?

The long-term reductions in maternal and infant mortality rates are due to more than increased funding. There is a long-term trend across the range of mortality rates, and the Prime Minister said as much earlier today when he talked about cancer mortality rates. The matter is much more complex: it involves funding, the organisation and quality of the care that is provided, the technology that is applied and the skills of the staff. I do not accept that the problem is simply one of resources.

However, resources—that is, inputs—matter, as do outputs. The availability of midwives is an important factor. The Government amendment says that there are 2,400 more midwives than there were in 1997. That is on a head-count basis, but a calculation based on full-time equivalent staff shows that there are only 896 more midwives than there were in 1997. Full-time midwives now work 37.5 hours as opposed to 40 hours, which means that there are fewer midwife hours available now than was the case in 1997.

Moreover, the number of midwives is significantly smaller in relation to the number of live births. To begin with, the increase in the number of midwives under this Government was in the context of a falling birth rate nationally, but what has happened in the past five years? In that time, the number of live births in England has risen from 563,644 in 2001 to 613,028 in 2005. That is a 9 per cent. increase, so it is little wonder that midwives are hard pressed.

Has the number of midwives risen or fallen in the past year? The answer is that 36 fewer midwives are employed in the NHS, according to the most recent work force census.

rose—

rose—

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and then to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound).

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but is he not distorting the statistics to a certain extent? It is true that the live birth figures have risen since 2001, but they are subject to cyclical trends and remain roughly what they were in 1996. The hon. Gentleman is right that the number of live births oscillates around a slightly rising trend, but he exaggerates the position.

I am sorry but I do not accept that at all. If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will find that I said that there was a falling birth rate when the Government took office, but that it has risen substantially since—a 9 per cent. increase.

Did we not see in the past couple of weeks just how good—or I should say how bad—Government work force planning is? The departmental internal documents showed how poor it had been. The equivalent documents produced in 2004 were junked within two years, before most of their predictions ever came to pass. The Government are not enabling the service to match the number of midwives to the task in hand. Increasing the supply of midwives is absolutely central to delivering the objectives on which we all agree—for example, one-to-one care and continuity of care from midwives to mothers and the availability of midwives to enable women to exercise choice and have either home births or named midwife-led care. The supply of midwives is instrumental if those options are to be available.

No one would disagree with the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. No one would disagree with him in respect of valuing the work of midwives and paying tribute to them. No one would disagree with the words in the motion to the effect that the House

“values the hard work of health professionals”.

However, it is one thing to value that work, but quite another to show admiration and respect for it by providing the highest ever rate of increase in resources in the history of the NHS. The one thing that has increased massively since 1997 is the rate of salary paid to midwives and other health professionals. Surely, the hon. Gentleman cannot argue with that.

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his point would have been a lot stronger before the publication of the internal Department of Health document two weeks ago, which made it clear that the Department was planning how to reduce the real-terms wages of NHS professionals on account of the embarrassment of financial deficits into which it has plunged the NHS. So I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Today’s debate provides an opportunity not only to reiterate our commitment to the quality of care that we want to achieve, but to call on the Government to stop and think about what is happening to maternity services across the country at the moment. Let me take the House back to 8 December, shortly before the recess. On that day, two regional announcements were made— affecting the Greater Manchester area and the east of England—that highlighted the serious consequences of the closure of maternity units across the country. On that one day, nine maternity units were identified for possible closure as a consequence of reconfigurations.

We undertook our own consultation to find out what people on the front line of the NHS feel about the future configuration of maternity services—something that the Government need to do and that the motion calls on them to do. The national picture shows that while we talk about and value birth centres and midwife-led units, 19 of them are at risk of closure. While we talk about accessible services, a number of smaller consultant-led maternity units—by our reckoning, 24 of them across the country—are at risk of closure. As I said, nine were identified in one day.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Greater Manchester reconfiguration, but is he seriously saying that, setting aside which hospitals are identified in it, there is no need for a change to services there? That is absolutely crazy.

I shall come on to say what I think about the Greater Manchester consultation in a few moments.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. May I tell him that it is not just Greater Manchester or the east of England trusts that face drastic cuts and closures, because the East Sussex trust is faced with the closure of the maternity unit in either Eastbourne or Hastings. My constituents may face a journey of up to 50 minutes to get to a maternity unit. In that case, a poorly resourced midwife service or home births may become not just an option, but a necessity.

My hon. Friend anticipates a general point that I wanted to make, so I shall make it now in response to him. Changes in the configuration of maternity services are occurring across the country, and they are driven by financial deficits, as in the case of East Sussex, or by the working time directive and staff shortages, as is predominantly the case in Greater Manchester. Those changes are not justified by evidence about clinical safety, yet we should be concerned primarily about quality and safety.

rose—

I will give way again in a few moments.

As for Eastbourne and Hastings—Labour Members may recall the same thing in respect of Calderdale and Huddersfield—we are presented with the question whether maternity units with fewer than 3,000 live births can be maintained in this country any more. My contention is that we should retain such units, because we need to maintain access and extend to women the sort of choices that we want them to have, but NHS organisations across the country are planning to shut them down. They are doing so because of deficits and the working time directive and not because of issues of clinical safety.

rose—

I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).

Has my hon. Friend taken into consideration one widespread issue? At my local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth II in Welwyn Garden City, the maternity unit is under threat, yet the review into the closure that is about to take place does not take into account the fact that over the next 15 years its catchment area is due for a population increase of 70,000.

Yes, I understand that and I will move on to deal with the East of England trust later.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), as I have referred to her area.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS trust. He made a point about the number of births required in order to maintain standards of safety, but may I tell him that it is obstetricians who say that at least 5,000 births are necessary for viable units and it is politicians like him and me who want to maintain services as close to home as possible. Midwife-led units may be the right answer when assessments of patients’ needs have been made. It would then be possible to say that fewer births were necessary to maintain services in a particular area. That could be a way of maintaining services closer to home. We need to find a compromise so that—

Order. The hon. Lady has made her point.

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not know what world she lives in when she says that maternity units need 5,000 live births in order to be viable. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Lady ever talked to people working in France or Germany? If we go to Germany—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would listen, they might learn something. In Germany, the largest maternity unit is the Humboldt in Berlin with just more than 3,000 live births and the largest maternity unit at Lille in France has 4,000 live births. Let me tell the hon. Lady why that is the case. It is because those countries have put far more effort into the identification and management of low-risk births in the community and in smaller units so that the number of births concentrated in specialist centres can be kept down. That is not what is happening in this country at the moment.

rose—

I want to make some progress, as many Members want to speak and I have a lot to say about Manchester before giving way again.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley made a point about midwife-led units and I agree that it is perfectly possible for them to be one of the best ways of providing services and that it may be appropriate for them to replace existing consultant-led units in some cases. However, midwife-led units are being shut down across the country, not opened on the required scale. Midwives are not taking responsibility for those services.

As far as Calderdale and Huddersfield was concerned, the independent reconfiguration panel reached the conclusion that, because of the working time directive, it was unable to staff paediatric services, so it accepted the loss of maternity services at the Huddersfield royal infirmary. Let us consider the position in Manchester. The consultation document, “Making It Better, Making It Real” was presumably supplied by the department for ironic titles within the Department of Health—[Interruption.] I hear the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), saying, from a sedentary position, that it is all local. I suspect we will hear a lot from him about how this is not his responsibility. Here he is, the Minister with responsibility for maternity services, who says that everything that has happened in Manchester over the past two years is absolutely nothing to do with the Government.

The local primary care trust says in the consultation document:

“There is evidence that sick children, young people and babies do better in larger units than in smaller units.”

Reference is made to a study undertaken in southern California in 1991, which demonstrated that low-weight babies born where there was no regional neonatal intensive care unit did not do well. We all know that, but that does not support the general proposition that babies do better in larger units. There is no evidence for that. The Government have told us that there is no evidence for that: last year, they published a call for evidence and research, which we now know is to be undertaken by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, which will not report until 2009. The Government’s call for tenders states that

“there are concerns about the lack of evidence of this shift in service provision on the outcomes for both mother and child”

and that what is required is that

“empirical research is urgently undertaken to evaluate the outcomes and costs of home births and all types of midwife-led birth centres.”

Ministers do not know what the outcomes are and they do not believe that there is any evidence for the proposition that births in larger units are safer than births in smaller ones.

In those circumstances, how can it be that on 8 December, the primary care trust in Manchester published a press release that stated that it had decided—not that it was thinking or consulting further, but that the trust had decided—that five units in Manchester were to close? At the time, I was astonished that the Labour party chairman—I told the right hon. Lady that I might refer to her, but she has chosen not to be here—and the Under-Secretary said, “Ah, well, this is a consultation—nothing has been decided,” when the PCT had issued a press release saying that it had decided that the units were to close. The Under-Secretary’s local maternity unit, at Fairfield hospital, is to close, as are maternity units in Pendlebury, Trafford, Macclesfield and Rochdale. The Under-Secretary argues about the geography, but says that he accepts the case for change. How can he accept the case for change when there is no evidence to support the proposition? The “Making It Better, Making It Real” document even states, on page 18,

“The birth rate nationally is falling so there will be fewer children and young people in the future.”

That is the basis on which the decisions were made, but that statement is not true.

What actually underlies the Greater Manchester strategic health authority’s decisions? To quote page 18 of the document again,

“Staffing pressures on the 13 units providing in-patient care are getting worse. Already children’s wards and maternity units have to close on occasions because there are not enough staff to cover them safely. We will not be able to staff all these units by 2009 when the European Working Time Directive becomes law and doctors are not allowed to work the hours they currently work.”

That is what is behind the events in Manchester—the working time directive, not quality and safety. In April 2004, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who was a Health Minister at that time, said that the UK would have to comply with the working time directive but that the Government would not allow it to impact on local services. But it is having an impact on local services. The Under-Secretary cannot get away with saying that the changes are the result of local decisions; they are driven by national policies and the failure to reform the working time directive.

Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that the existing number of maternity units and neonatal units in Greater Manchester should continue indefinitely?

No, because I do not contend that what ought to happen in Greater Manchester is my decision to make. However, I do contend that the Members of Parliament who represent Greater Manchester and the population of that area are ill served by a Government who imposed the working time directive that has forced the changes and by a local NHS bureaucracy that is so transparently unaccountable and unprofessional in carrying out its job.

rose—

I will not give way, because I wish to make progress.

The Labour party chairman can do one of two things: either she can represent her constituents and say that the consultation is neither evidence based nor justified, or she can leave the Government and argue that the Government’s implementation of the working time directive and imposition of certain policies is having a detrimental impact on her constituents and is clearly unjustified at national level—but she cannot do both. She cannot represent her constituents in one way and then, at national level, support a Government who are working in precisely the opposite direction.

rose—

I will not give way now. I want to turn my attention to the east of England.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is not prepared to give way at this point.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will thank me later for not giving way now, because they will have a chance to make their own speeches.

I have one more point to make before I leave the subject of the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears)—I wonder where she is. Today, she has received a letter from a former chief executive of the Salford and Trafford health authority, in which he says:

“We in Salford are now in a position where, instead of having a local hospital with a full range of secondary hospital services for our people, we face under your government the loss of a significant element of local health care, with probable further consequences for hospital services here in Salford. Your unprincipled intervention in 1998 helped to bring about the unfortunate situation in which we now find ourselves.”

He is referring to the loss of paediatric services from the Hope hospital in 1998. There is a lesson there for Labour Members: the loss of paediatric services leads to the loss of maternity services. Hon. Members representing Huddersfield—none is present—know that. That is what is happening in Manchester and elsewhere.

The position in the east of England is astonishing. A document has been released stating that units dealing with fewer than 3,000 live births a year are not supportable. As a consequence Hinchingbrooke hospital, which covers part of my constituency, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, the James Paget hospital and West Suffolk hospital may all lose services. In essence, the document states that a maternity unit cannot be maintained with less than 40 hours a week consultant cover on the labour wards, which now requires no fewer than six consultants. It is the working time directive problem all over again. It is astonishing that six obstetric consultants are required to maintain 40 hours a week consultant cover on labour wards. That is not true and it should not be the basis on which the strategic health authority makes its judgments.

The East of England strategic health authority has the effrontery to say that the lack of consultant cover on the labour wards caused the problems at Northwick Park hospital and that that is the reason why small maternity units have to be closed. When the chief executive of the East of England strategic health authority came here in December, I asked him how many live births there were at Northwick Park hospital in the period after 2002 when 10 tragic maternal deaths occurred. He did not know. The answer is 5,000. What is important is that the unit is well run, that the consultants are on the labour ward and work as a team with the midwives, and that the unit does not have to deal with an unsustainable number of births. Northwick Park hospital was affected by, among other things, the fact that the Central Middlesex hospital had shut and births were transferred to Northwick Park. What will happen in the east of England if the Hinchingbrooke unit or the West Suffolk hospital unit is shut and all the births are sent to Peterborough and Cambridge, or if the facilities at the Queen Elizabeth hospital are closed and patients are sent to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital? The consultant-led maternity units will be subjected to unsustainable pressures, resulting in all the problems that were seen at Northwick Park, yet the East of England strategic health authority is trying to use lack of consultant cover as the reason for shutting maternity units down. I know why the strategic health authority is doing what it is doing: there is a £240 million deficit and budgets must be cut. The authority believes that economies of scale are automatic, but in practice they are not.

There is not any evidence. That is the point that I am trying to make to the Government. That is the point in the motion. The motion is not an aggressive attempt to expose the Government’s failures; it is an attempt to get the Government to ensure that the NHS across the country takes time to think. The Government have started a research programme, to be completed in 2009, to discover the evidence on the scale of maternity units that are safe and on outcomes in different types of maternity setting. How can we secure the number of midwives that we need to meet the Government’s commitment to achieving one-to-one care by 2009? All those things are necessary and there should be a timetable through to 2009, but there is none. What is happening in Manchester, the east of England, Redditch and other places is that financial deficits and the pressures of the European working time directive are causing maternity units to be shut down.

Restrictions are being put on the choice, access and opportunities that mothers should have to receive the maternity service that is in their best interests. Today, in our motion, we call on the Government to stop and think—not to stop change everywhere but to stop and think—and then to proceed on the basis of the evidence, not of the financial pressures. I urge the House to support our motion.

I beg to move, To leave out from “House” to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

“welcomes the extra investment in NHS maternity services under this Government; further welcomes the endorsement by the Royal College of Midwives of the ambitious vision for maternity services; notes that this investment has funded 2,400 more midwives than in 1997 and supported a 44 per cent. increase in students entering the midwifery profession, and that the latest surveys show that 8 out of 10 women say they are satisfied with their maternity care; recognises the preparatory work underway to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment that by 2009 all women will have the choice over where and how they have their baby and what pain relief to use, and that every woman will be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy, with this support linked to other services provided in children’s centres; supports the focus of services to tackle inequalities; and recognises that maternity services will need to continue to change in order to deliver this commitment and to ensure that the NHS provides the safest and most effective maternity care for babies, parents and families and the best possible value for money for taxpayers.”.

I recently had the opportunity to attend the annual awards ceremony of the Royal College of Midwives, where I was able to meet many of the midwives who provide such outstanding care to women, their partners and babies all around the country: professionals such as Jackie Christer and George Brook at Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, who have led the creation of midwife and nurse-led neonatal care. Their team is providing round-the-clock cover to the special care baby unit, the delivery suite and post-natal wards.

As I like, when possible, to find a point of agreement with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I note that at the Alnwick midwife-led centre in the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, a small midwife and nurse-led unit is providing superb quality care to mothers and their babies, with fewer than 200 births a year. I want to return to that point a little later, but it serves to illustrate the fact that depending on the way in which the local NHS chooses to organise care, and the investment it makes in the training and support of its staff, it is quite possible for a small midwife-led unit to provide high quality, safe care to mothers—in that case, in an isolated, rural area.

Research from southern California, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred in his speech, has been cited by the PCT and the hospital trust as a reason for closing one of the maternity units at Eastbourne or Hastings. Does the Secretary of State accept that that research from the early 1990s is valid for regular, UK maternity closures of, for example, of units handling 2,000 deliveries?

I prefer to take my advice about consultant cover for hospital births from the—British—Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment when I turn in more detail to the issue of clinical standards.

Like most Members on both sides of the House, I still remember the midwives and the consultant obstetrician who helped my husband and me with our two children. That was about 20 years ago, but millions of families around the country have every reason to be grateful to NHS staff for the superb quality of care they give at a critical point in people’s lives.

All of us should be proud of NHS maternity services. Women are generally happy with them; according to my Department’s latest maternity survey, eight in 10 women tell us that they are happy with the care they received during birth. That is down to the superb hard work and dedication of thousands of NHS midwives and other clinicians and professionals. It is down to the increased investment—more than £1.5 billion a year—that we are making in NHS maternity services. It is down to the fact that the number of midwives has increased by about 2,500 over the past 10 years, which is of course reflected in the fact that childbirth is probably safer now, for both mothers and their babies, than at any time in the past.

As many of us know, in some parts of the country services are not only good, not only safe, but outstanding: they match the best in the world.

Unlike Opposition Members, I have a long memory. I was a member of a health authority for many years. During that time, an independent report about my constituency of Carlisle stated that babies were dying because there was a split site; the consultants were on one site and the maternity unit was 2 miles away across a crowded city. In 18 years, the Conservative Government did nothing to assist us, yet within three years of a Labour Government it was put right. We have a brand new hospital. The maternity unit was moved to the same site as the consultants and we now have an excellent service. Those people across the road should remember what it was like when they were in charge of the NHS.

My hon. Friend speaks with great experience in the matter. He is absolutely right and has given us a vivid illustration of how in many parts of the country maternity services need to change to provide even better and even safer care for mothers and their babies.

The Secretary of State says that maternity services need to change, and that in many places there is satisfaction with the quality of maternity services. What would she say to expectant mothers in my constituency whose antenatal classes, provided by West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, have been withdrawn with little notice? First-time mothers in particular feel nervous about giving birth, for understandable reasons, and they were relying on those classes to provide them with the education and preparation that is so useful, yet it has been withdrawn. The reason? Financial deficits.

I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the details of that point but, as he knows, there are real financial difficulties in some parts of the country, including his. In a minority of places, there has been overspending at the expense of NHS patients and staff in other parts of the country. That is simply not fair. It is particularly unacceptable at a time when more money is going into the NHS than ever before and, in case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, his party voted against that extra investment. The local NHS in his area needs to make sure that it gets the best value for the increased money we are putting in, and that it delivers, within that budget, the best possible services.

rose—

I want to make some more progress.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and I agree that we need to do more. In parts of the country, there are more births, more births to older women, more complex births, more assisted conceptions and more babies born prematurely—thanks to the advances in medical technology more premature babies and babies with profound disabilities survive. That is a great advance for human progress, but all those changes in society and in medicine mean that maternity services need to change, too.

As we stressed in our national service framework, we know well that giving birth does not need medical intervention for a high proportion of women. Many of those women would much rather give birth at home or in a community setting, supported by a midwife.

The shadow Health Secretary tried to depict the Manchester reconfiguration as the basis for cuts in provision. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Manchester reconfigures its services significantly more money will be spent on maternity and children’s services and there will be a significant emphasis on services to mothers and babies and young children in their homes rather than in a hospital setting?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall talk about Manchester in a little more detail in a moment.

First, I want to make the point that only about 3 per cent. of women have their babies at home and only about 4 per cent. in community facilities such as a midwife-led birthing centre, although in some parts of the country, such as Torbay, where I had the opportunity to meet the midwifery team last year, maternity services have been organised differently. More women are being supported so that they have a real choice about where to have their babies, and more than 10 per cent. already give birth at home.

On the Secretary of State’s response to her hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), if everything is so fine why is the Minister without Portfolio, her right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), campaigning and demonstrating against the plans?

Let me turn to the issue of—

Answer the question.

Let me turn to the reorganisation of services in Greater Manchester, which has been under consideration for many, many years and has been subject to more than two and a half years of formal consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) indicated, it will involve increased investment in maternity services in Greater Manchester.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No, I will not give way at the moment. The reorganisation has nothing whatever to do with the financial difficulties that recently emerged, or with the overspending in a minority of NHS organisations over the past year. The reorganisation of services has been proposed and led by clinicians. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire spent so much of his speech attacking and denigrating outstanding NHS clinicians in Greater Manchester—clinicians such as Dr. Anthony Emmerson, consultant neonatologist, who says that across the review area, which is Greater Manchester,

“There are too many hospitals each seeing too few patients”—

so the issue is not the working time directive—

“to maintain the skills and expertise of those who provide obstetric or paediatric care.”

rose—

I will make progress before I give way again. Let me continue to quote a professional on the issue of the Manchester reconfiguration:

“Doctors treating babies so small that they fit into the palm of the hand can do so with far more confidence and skill if they see those cases every week”

than if they see such babies on only a handful of occasions a year. Changes to intensive care will save the lives of approximately 20 babies every year. It is the assessment of the clinicians and the NHS professionals who are leading that reconfiguration that if services are changed in the way that they propose, between 20 and 30 babies a year will live, who previously would have died.

I was a premature baby—I was born at St. Mary’s hospital in Manchester some 32 years ago—so I support what the Secretary of State says. Is not the good news story of the reconfiguration the fact that central Manchester will have a state-of-the-art facility for the whole county of Greater Manchester, which we do not have at present?