Although the attendance in the Chamber this morning may suggest that this is not an important subject, I would argue that this is a crucial debate about the direction that Russia is taking, and about the fitness of Russia to be part of the democratic community. Consequently, it has serious implications for developing relations between our country and Russia. I should perhaps make it clear that I am a member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, and a member of its Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. I am the rapporteur on political prisoners, specifically in Azerbaijan, which is obviously out side the scope of the debate, but also in Europe.

For the past two years, members of the Parliamentary Assembly have been extremely concerned about what has been happening in President Putin's Russia. The core of attention until recently was events in Chechnya. The Assembly of the Council of Europe suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation because it was so appalled at the lack of action by the Russian authorities to deal with blatant and widespread human rights abuses in Chechnya. We are talking about clearly reported events, such as cases where Russian soldiers, or other Russian agents, burst into she cellars of houses where women and children—innocent people—were sheltering from civil war, and tossed in hand grenades and killed them. No action has been taken against those authorities.

I regret to say that the British Prime Minister entertained President Putin on an official visit to this country a week after the Parliamentary Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation. It is true that the Prime Minister remonstrated with President Putin on a somewhat famous occasion, only to be lectured by Mr. Putin on the situation in Chechnya. Our Prime Minister could have been more robust in retorting that it was the duty of Governments who signed up to the European convention on human rights, and had valid laws of their own, to uphold and enforce those obligations. That is what we were asking the Russian authorities to do.

Concerned as I remain about the situation in Chechnya and the lack of redress, the debate has moved into what I would call mainstream Russian life. I have received many reports of abuses of human rights by the authorities relating to a number of prisoners. I have also heard reports of conditions affecting Russian prisoners, and heard evidence of self-inflicted wounds, hunger strikes, prisoners setting fire to prisons, suicides and people dying in suspicious circumstances in Russian prisons. The state of the prisons and the way that prisoners are treated in Russia is open to serious question.

I want to spend most of my speech on the situation that affects the three Yukos executives arrested last year. It is my belief that, whatever they may be accused of, the way that they are being treated is symptomatic of a change of attitude in the legal process in Russia that is simply unacceptable. If left unchallenged, it will basically allow the Russian authorities to believe that, signatories as they may be to the European convention on human rights, no action will be taken against them, or even public criticism aimed at them, for breaches.

The first thing to record is that in July last year two Yukos executives, Platon Lebedev and Alexei Pichugin, were arrested and have been in custody since then. At the time of their arrest it was widely reported that that was a shot across the bows of the president of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was well known for his activities in support of human rights organisations, opposition political parties, promoting a pluralist Russia, and trying to encourage more liberal academic institutions through his considerable personal fortune. He has given more than $100 million to various philanthropic funds in Europe.

Regardless of whether one thinks that Mr. Khodorkovsky is a good guy or a bad guy, what I have to say is still legitimate. I am happy to put on the record that having looked in some depth at Mr. Khodorkovsky's record, most people in the west would regard him as an example of how Russia could usefully develop, rather than the reverse. It is true that according to popular opinion in Russia there is either hostility or indifference to the fate of the so-called oligarchs. However, we should not regard that as a justification for not protesting. The sad fact is that Russia has no tradition of democracy, no established tradition of human rights or due process and, perhaps, a cynical population that does not expect it. Indeed, the population may believe that the authorities are entitled to use whatever means they think are necessary to pursue people who they believe are acting against their perception of the national interest.

In the long term, the implications of allowing Russia to proceed in this manner are profound—especially for the people of Russia. If the situation goes unchallenged, Russia could slide back into the bad old mechanisms of the Soviet Union and not move forward into pluralist democracy. Ultimately, that may damage confidence in economic developments in Russia and the willingness to invest. Companies that are looking for Russian partners will inevitably be concerned that if their Russian partner falls foul of the President or central authorities, a case could be fabricated against the western partner and the Russian company in a way that would deeply damage the economic and commercial interests of both. We know that BP has significant investments and partnership arrangements in Russia. Although it is on public record as saying that it is comfortable with that, it is generally known privately that it is much less sanguine about the prospects for future success in that area.

After Mr. Lebedev and Mr. Pichugin were arrested, Mr. Khodorkovsky made it clear that he did not intend to change his behaviour and wished to continue supporting what he would call democratic pluralism, and in particular would give support to three political parties: Yabloko, the Union of Rightist Forces and the Communist party. There is a certain irony in the fact that the Communist party is the only effective opposition to President Putin's parties in the Administration in the Russian Duma. When one considers that it is only 14 years since the collapse of communism, that is a rather ironic turn of events, because sadly, the more liberal democratic parties were effectively extinguished at the last election.

In passing it must be recorded that President Putin has systematically closed down critical or opposition media, including television stations and newspapers. The recent elections were severely criticised by many observers not only on evidence that there was perhaps corruption in the conduct of the vote, but much more importantly because there was a total lack of balance in the coverage before the election between the Government and opposition parties. I, for one, admit to feeling a shiver down my spine when, immediately after the election, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—which may be an eponymous party in relation to our own, but which shares absolutely no values with us; it is an extreme, flamboyant, nationalist party—announced that his party was 110 per cent. supportive of the President and would use its votes to give him the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution in any way he thought fit. That gives a clear indication that democracy and pluralism in Russia are facing the end of their days only a short period after they were born. That is a tragedy for what many of us hoped would be a much brighter future for Russia.

The argument has been advanced that the so-called oligarchs exploited the post-communist situation and made huge amounts of money in corrupt ways. It is true that they made money; they were able to acquire a stake in significant, previously state-owned businesses, which subsequently increased in value, sometimes owing to the activities of the new management and sometimes because they were cheaply held. My contention is that that issue could be addressed without persecuting individuals, imprisoning them and abusing human rights.

In the context of Yukos, Mr. Khodorkovsky has made it clear that he is more than willing to have a dialogue and be constructive. Over the past few years, it has been generally acknowledged by objective observers outside Russia that Yukos was developing a model operation, which was transparent, open and the biggest taxpayer in Russia. Unlike in the United Kingdom, paying taxes in Russia is a club that many people have no intention of joining, but Yukos paid substantial taxes. Its accounts have been transparent, and it has been determined to demonstrate, in ways that would inspire confidence outside Russia, that it is operating according to high standards and is free from corruption.

Let us focus on what has happened to the individuals whom I have mentioned. The reality is that almost all the basic rights to which these people are entitled have been abused. Mr. Lebedev, who was one of Mr. Khodorkovsky's business partners, is in a poor condition in prison. He is losing his eyesight, and is having considerable difficulty in reading the papers associated with his case. At his last hearing when he asked the judge whether he could have a magnifying glass, the judge refused to provide him with one and accused him of delaying tactics for not processing what are extremely complicated papers.

It is important to consider the conditions in which these people find themselves. Mr. Lebedev is in poor health, is not coping with his imprisonment and has not been given rights—I shall come to the specific abuse of rights in a moment. Mr. Pichugin has lost a third of his body weight in prison. He is believed to have contracted and developed TB, but it has been difficult to get any sort of medical test. He has also been injected with psychotropic drugs against his will.

I stress that we are talking about Russia in 2004, not Soviet Russia under the communists. This is supposed to be a democratic Russia that is fully signed up to the European convention on human rights. It is not a coincidence, however, that the President's training before he reached that post was as a KGB agent. Over the past year or two, ex-KGB people have been put into key positions throughout Russia and they are known to be using their old mechanisms for enforcing their will.

The men are being held in an ex-KGB prison that has a fairly well established reputation for its previous role during the Soviet era. The essential view is that they have faced a catalogue of abuses. I have met Mr. Khodorkovsky's lawyers, and his lead lawyer is a Canadian citizen, Mr. Robert Amsterdam. He says that he is shocked and appalled by the way that his client is being treated and wit h the process that is being denied. He assures me that it bears close resemblance to what happened during the earlier days of the Soviet Union—not even to its latter, more relaxed, period.

The lead defence attorney acting for Mr. Lebedev and Mr. Khodorkovsky, Anton Drel, has been summoned for questioning by the procurator-general. That is a direct violation of article 8 of the law on rights and duties of lawyers. That is not international law, but Russian law that is being breached. It basically states that an attorney for the defence cannot be either subjected to questioning or summoned to give evidence related to an ongoing case.

On Friday 9 October, law enforcement officials searched offices connected with Yukos and affiliated companies, including the offices of the attorney, Anton Drel. Documents associated with Lebedev and Khodorkovsky's defence were confiscated in a clear violation of attorney -client privilege. It is believed that lawyer-client communications—between lawyers and Mr. Lebedev—are being intercepted at Lefortovo prison.

The men have been denied open court hearings, despite the criminal code giving them that right. They have also been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. At first hand, I have heard how Mr. Amsterdam has found it difficult to brief, obtain information from or inform his client because hearings are often held in rooms where not even the defence attorneys, never mind anybody else, are allowed in. The defence lawyers say that they have been hampered in many other ways and that they have been unable to fulfil their functions.

Their clients have also been denied bail, despite the fact that the Russian criminal code is quite clear. The argument that has been used in Mr. Khodorkovsky's case, for example, is that in some way he or the others would leave the country or interfere with the judicial process—well, they might enable themselves to make an effective defence.

The argument in the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky is questionable. He has had many opportunities to leave Russia, and he has made it clear on every occasion that he has no intention of doing so. He has been out of the country and has returned on many occasions. He has one child at a boarding school in Switzerland, but otherwise all of his family live in Russia and his only home is there. He has made it clear that he has no intention of skipping bail and that he wishes to confront the charges against him and to have a chance to prove his innocence.

As I said earlier, Mr. Pichugin has been injected with psychotropic drugs. His wife has seen the needle marks. He has complained of that treatment, but no action has been taken. There have been numerous raids on the company and the attorney's offices, carried out without proper authority by armed gunmen fishing for anything that might help the court to progress the case.

By any standards, it is clear that the Russian authorities are determined to prosecute the case in any way that they think fit, without any regard for their own legal processes or for their obligations under the European convention on human rights, content in the knowledge that the vast majority of Russian people are not interested or concerned or are even supportive of the actions against these people. Having no real experience of a fair and democratic justice system, people are not particularly surprised that they do not have one now.

That is one of the reasons why this is an important debate. Citizens in free countries such as ours have to protest about the issue and to make it clear that this is not an acceptable way for any country to behave, certainly not one that wants to be, and regards itself as being, accepted into the democratic family of nations.

I do not wish to be too partisan. However, supporters of Mr. Khodorkovsky and of other political prisoners in Russia, and human rights organisations, are disappointed in the extreme that the United Kingdom Government have not taken a public stand to criticise such behaviour, and have not called on the Russian authorities to observe their own rules and those of the European convention on human rights. So I am not the only one to take that view.

The French Government have said that they regard the matter as entirely internal. I do not believe that we can accept that. Whether the charges against these people are legitimate is not the issue, although I have said that I am not convinced that the charges are genuine. The substantive point is that whatever these people are accused of, they should not be treated in this way; they should be entitled to a fair trial and a fair process. What we are getting is the old-style show trial, conducted without proper reference to the proper democratic processes. There have been clear attempts to intimidate others and to break the accused.

I have seen a copy of an open letter to Mr. Khodorkovsky from a former political prisoner of Soviet Russia, who believes that the current pattern of activities is effectively no different from that which existed in Soviet Russia, and that the people carrying out the abuses are the very same as those who did so under the previous regime. The letter tells Mr. Khodorkovsky that what he is doing is very brave but very foolish, because he will not succeed. If we do not support the rights of these people, their position will be extremely bleak.

I respectfully suggest that it is the duty of this Parliament and this Government to highlight our concerns and to make it clear to the Russian authorities that this sort of process is unacceptable. We should not interfere with the legal process in relation to the charges, but we should demand that the way in which any prosecutions are carried out should be in accordance with the law of Russia and the international law to which Russia has signed up.

I have received an up-to-date report on how the situation is progressing. The Basmanny court in Moscow decided four days ago to limit the time available to Platon Lebedev to read his case file. The same court refused him a magnifying glass to read his papers. He has to complete his review by the end of March, which gives him little time to prepare a defence. The other two men have been told that their cases have been fully investigated, but new episodes or charges continue to be added to the files. They have all been remanded without bail and no trial dates have been set.

The case has attracted the attention of many former dissidents under the old regime in Russia, including Yelena Bonner, the wife of Mr. Sakharov. She has sent letters to the human rights commissioner in Moscow and has published open letters expressing deep concern about the abuses and calling on the international community to fight for the rights of political prisoners in Russia. I have no doubt that the people to whom I am referring are political prisoners, but that does not ultimately affect the main thrust of my argument. Whatever kind of prisoners they are. they should not be treated in such a way.

I have witnessed the situation in Russia over the past few years with increasing concern, as have many of us. I appreciate the difficulty of turning a former communist totalitarian regime with no history of democracy into a modern pluralist democracy. I never expected Russia suddenly to transform into a relaxed and open democracy, but I hoped and believed that it would move progressively in that direction. The past 12 months have suggested that the opposite is happening; Russia is moving away from democracy towards a form of what one might call democratic totalitarianism.

I do not deny that President Putin was legitimately elected and will probably be re-elected by a substantial margin. Regardless of criticism from observers, the Duma elections probably reflect Russian popular opinion. I could argue that if the more democratic parties had a fairer platform on which to operate and access to freer press and broadcasting services, the balance in the Parliament would be different and there would not have been the effective extinction of liberal and rightist forces in the Duma. However, I do not believe that a full, fair and open platform would have enabled those parties to sweep to power.

I am not naive or out of touch with Russian public opinion, but we must realise that the vast majority of Russians have had no experience of a democratic society and have no recognition of what it is about. A regime, which they may not have loved, collapsed, leading to a period of chaos, which hurt many people. Many people suffered, lost work, lost income, were not paid, went hungry, or left the country. Of course, people might say that communism was not great but anarchy is worse.

Nevertheless, if Russia is to have a future and if its signing of the European convention on human rights, of which we are co-guarantors, is to mean anything, it must conduct itself in accordance with the principles of the convention. Through our dealings with Russia, whether they are business or political—Parliament to Parliament or Government to Government—we must make it clear that Russia must unconditionally conform with those basic standards if it is to be accepted into the democratic family of nations.

We need constructive relations with Russia. I understand that Russia is an important political player, and therefore I understand the sense of delicacy and trepidation with which Governments act to maintain relations with Russia. However, the events of the past year have created a slight counter-current because Russia's position on the actions in Iraq was significant. At the least, our Government, and especially the American Government, were anxious to avoid the application of a Russian veto—they wanted neutrality. I shall not press the point more than to say that there has been a slight compromise. Although I can understand that, I appeal to our Government to recognise that they have an obligation in their public and private negotiations with the Russian authorities to say, "We want to work with you, to see your economy thrive, and to develop alongside you, but if you are not prepared to operate within the proper standards of democratic pluralism, to uphold your own laws, and to observe the international treaties that you have signed, you will call into question our ability to continue relations at the sort of level that both of us would wish."

If we say nothing, we endorse Russia's behaviour. We did not do that when the Soviet Union was in existence. We did business with the Soviet Union and had to engage with it during the cold war, but we continually opposed human rights abuses and tried to stand up for certain people. and probably secured the freedom of some dissidents as a result. It would be a sorry state of affairs if we were not prepared to be equally robust in the new situation, in which there is a real aspiration towards building democratic institutions in countries such as Russia.

We have enlarged the European Union, and have accepted eight members from the former communist regime, although admittedly none of them freely associated with the Soviet Union. We have extended the Council of Europe to 45 members and engaged in a dialogue to try to raise standards.

I made a reference at the beginning of my remarks to my role in securing the release of political prisoners in Azerbaijan. We have confronted countries that are struggling towards democracy and we have pushed, cajoled and pressurised them to move in the right direction. It would be appalling if we took the view that we could push around Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Romania or Moldova but could not do so with Russia because it is too big and important, and that therefore we should allow Russia to get away with it. That would be a failure of our responsibilities towards the Russian people.

It would also make it difficult for us to stand our ground with integrity in those other countries, because they would say, "You are only bullying us because we are small; you are forcing us to adopt difficult changes, but you are allowing Russia to get away with it." That argument was deployed vehemently in our debates in Strasbourg in relation to Chechnya, but has not yet surfaced with the same degree of passion in the context of abuse of political prisoners in what one might call the mainstream of Russian society.

If we do not make a stand now, and make it clear that what is going on in Russia is unacceptable, I am confident that that argument will surface and that the time will come when this Room will be a lot fuller of Members of Parliament wishing to express their concerns about the deteriorating situation in Russia. I strongly believe that we can express those concerns in a constructive, civilised but forceful way, and that it is our duty to do so as a democratic country, as co-guarantors of the European convention on human rights and as a friend of the Russian people.

We must not stand by and allow Russia to slide back into totalitarianism. simply on the grounds that that will provide stability and order, and that popular opinion is reasonably content. That is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the British Government are willing to make it clear to the Russian authorities that they expect a much more robust and real application of both Russia's own legal processes and of those that are encapsulated in the international treaties that Russia has signed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) not only on securing the debate, but on setting out comprehensively the immediate concerns about a number of high-profile political prisoners and on painting a broader canvas of the human rights situation in Russia. It is at that particular aspect that I wish to direct most of my remarks.

As my hon. Friend said, Russia—as we now call it again—has been through huge changes in recent years. Our views of the country have changed rapidly throughout that period. We all shared in the jubilation and exhilaration at the ending of the old communist arrangements and the Soviet Republic and the associated democratisation in countries in eastern Europe, which, happily, as my hon. Friend highlighted, will be joining the European Union in a few weeks' time, something which has all-party support in and outside the House.

As for international relations, there has properly been a broad welcome for Russia's economic liberalisation and willingness to participate in international organisations such as the United Nations much more constructively. Sadly while significant and welcome progress has been made, our attention has been drawn increasingly to developments within the country, especially the growing evidence of abuses of human rights. That was reflected in my hon. Friend's contribution. Last summer, we had a short debate about Chechnya before the visit of President Putin. Again, this debate is timely as the presidential elections take place in a few days' time.

It is sad that in both instances our debates have focused on human rights, not on some of the other issues that I have already mentioned. We cannot escape the fact that there is a growing number of political prisoners in the country. A wide range of non-governmental organisations have documented more widespread human rights abuses such as detention, growing evidence of torture and ill treatment of prisoners, and significant restrictions on freedom of expression in the country. One of the growing, most alarming aspects concerns the thousands of children—one estimate puts the number as high as I7,000—who are held in prison in contravention of international conventions. Many thousands more are being held in pre-trial detention.

The situation in Chechnya was the subject of a debate a few months ago. It remains the largest scar on Russia's human rights record. The forced disappearances of thousands of people, extrajudicial and summary executions, arbitrary detention and torture, and ethnic discrimination have been happening on a grand scale. I accept that there are abuses on both sides, but the Russian Government cannot escape their responsibilities in such circumstances. It is more than an internal security problem. President Putin has said that it is part of the war on international terror. I fear that our Prime Minister has lent credence to that argument with his comments. Following our debate in Westminster Hall in July, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) put it to the Prime Minister that he should raise the issue of Chechnya during the state visit. All of us welcomed that he said that he would do so in robust terms. However, it appeared to me that he sought to justify some of the actions as part of the broader international war on terror.

Although I accept that there is an element of that, I hope that the Government have not bought that story wholesale, and will still put the case against Russian activity in Chechnya in the most robust way. The issue has not simply arisen in the past few years; it is almost 60 years since the problems in Chechnya began with mass deportations. We must not lose sight of that historical record, and must continue to draw attention to its unacceptability to this country and to the international community.

Russia must accept that it has huge international obligations to maintain and to develop human rights. It is a signatory not only to the European convention on human rights but to every significant United Nations human rights treaty, as well as the different conventions on economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political rights, the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against women, torture and children's rights. Sadly, there is significant and growing evidence that the Russian Government are in breach of each of those treaties.

It is symptomatic of a tendency, which was remarked upon by my hon. Friend, for the state to draw power into the centre and to restrict opposition. As has been mentioned, the parliamentary elections in December probably reflected the broad views of the Russian people. However, one set of observers described them as "free but not fair", and that should worry us all. A journalist into whom I humped the other day who is going to Moscow to cover the presidential elections was almost dismissive in describing them as "Putin's personal plebiscite". It certainly looks, in certain quarters, as if there is a complete lack of any serious opposition. The contenders at the last presidential elections have mostly left the field, and many of them have been silenced in the years since. Indeed, it has been suggested that the regions that they represent have been punished for their having the temerity to stand against Putin at the last elections.

We have seen the increasing use of presidential representatives in each of the regions and President Putin has been increasingly willing to exert his control. The most recent examples of that were the sacking of his entire Cabinet and the appointment of a new Prime Minister. Perhaps most alarmingly, we are seeing the reemergence of the security and intelligence services as real sources and forces of authority within the state. Furthermore, the recent clampdown on independent television and media gives us great cause for concern. I appreciate that President Putin has brought a degree of stability and significant economic progress, after the economic and political chaos of President Yeltsin's era. However, increasingly, we must ask: at what price has that been achieved?

If we welcome Russia more firmly into the international family of nations, we cannot do so without criticism. We have a strong relationship, but it cannot be less than a robust one. We must watch this week's presidential elections with some care. Assuming that we can predict the outcome with some certainty, we must make it clear to President Putin that his new term must also mean a new era. At the very least, we must see greater access for human rights and international monitoring organisations in Russia. We must not meekly tolerate the abuses of human rights that have been documented in the country. We must give every encouragement to reform and to democratisation in its broadest sense, rather than go along with backsliding into totalitarian rule. Our relationship with Russia means that we have an important role to play. We must not buckle. We must not avoid confronting Russia with the abuses that make it an increasingly worrying member of the international community.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing the debate. It is particularly timely as elections will take place in Russia on 14 March. Before I address some of the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised—human rights and political prisoners—I shall refer to the progress that Russia has undoubtedly made since the last presidential elections. I think that it was Karl Marx who said that political events arise out of economic circumstances. I am paraphrasing, but there is a certain amount of historical truth in that, and I want to deal with that aspect of what is going on in Russia, too.

Notable progress has been made in Russia, and there is no question that that can he attributed to the leadership of Vladimir Putin. He has had to take some tough decisions. Russia has progressed much further and in a shorter period than anybody could possibly have expected a few years ago. A decade ago, few could have foreseen Putin's groundbreaking state visit to Britain, the first by a Russian leader since the visit of Tsar Alexander II in 1874. Today, the Russian economy is doing substantially better than at any time since the mid-1980s. Following 11 September, international cooperation is at an unprecedented level; there are links with NATO and the EU. The exorbitant and destructive defence spending that was characteristic of Russia has been reined in. Educating Russia's young people is now a major domestic priority. President Putin has repeatedly spoken of his abhorrence of corruption and those who have benefited royally from it; I have heard him say so on a number of occasions.

There is great hope for Russia. It can be a success story, and that can be an example to other countries in the region that are wrestling with the difficult legacy of the old Soviet domination and the command economy and the culture of governance that flowed from that.

Russia has had five years of economic growth; there has been a 30 per cent. increase in GDP. For the first time since the mid-1920s, Russia is able to feed its people and livestock from its own supplies. It is a net exporter of grain, and it is the second biggest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia. It is not only the wealth of the state that has increased. Real household income increased by 13.5 per cent. in 2003, and real income is up by 50 per cent. in five years. Although there are huge disparities of wealth and income, those are remarkable achievements.

Overall, living standards have improved. The problem of the huge divide between rich and poor remains. There is a President who appears to be riding on a great wave of personal popularity, in part because of the economic background that I have just described. I believe that it is inevitable that a desire for greater civil and human rights, particularly in the younger generation, will arise out of that economic prosperity and growth.

Despite all the progress, there is considerable international concern about some of the activity within Russia's borders. That is what the hon. Members for Gordon and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) have addressed. As a friend of Russia, Britain has a duty to support the Russian Government in their attempts to address those concerns. Sometimes, that means understanding the unique and enormous challenges that the President faces in Russia. On occasion, it means taking a firm stance, and making clear the boundaries of international standards of behaviour.

In January, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, visited Moscow. His approach was to deliver a message to the Russian Government— it was widely reported—that the west is vitally interested in the progress of democratic transition in Russia and everything that flows from that. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what steps the Foreign Secretary is taking to complement that approach, which has wisely been adopted by Secretary of State Powell?

Many media discussions on Russia have focused on the case of Boris Berezovsky and that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which has been referred to in particular by the hon. Member for Gordon. To many people, including the much-needed external investors, the sheer unpredictability of doing business in Russia, with its so-called mafia links and the fear that an industry might be targeted, makes it a risky place in which to invest. For that reason alone, there are concerns. One way to reduce that perceived risk might be to allow international organisations, non-governmental organisations and a free and independent media more freedom to scrutinise legal practice and human rights and to report their findings more openly. It would be beneficial to both democracy and the Russian economy if that were openly encouraged.

Open scrutiny of human rights and the legal process goes to the heart of the issue of political prisoners. Will the Minister express to the Russian Government that it is in Russia's interest to have a fully open and transparent legal and criminal justice system? It is true that in comparison with other areas of the world human rights abuses, as perceived and reported in Russia, receive widespread media coverage in Britain. The more Russia is seen as a big player in the world—which it undoubtedly is—the greater the scrutiny will become.

Reports of torture and ill treatment in police stations, and appalling conditions in pre-trial detention centres in Russia, are not isolated but widespread. Too often, those who are responsible appear to get away with their crimes. Victims have been denied their right to justice by local authorities, which ignore or condone complaints. The structures to investigate allegations and bring the perpetrators to justice are, it is reported, often absent. Corruption in many legions is apparently endemic. As I have said before, President Putin has talked about that.

President Putin has also talked about the need to establish a civil society and a sustainable democracy in which human rights and civil and political rights will be fully ensured. He is well aware of the problem. Last year, he described it as follows:

"The institution of democracy has not developed properly in our country yet.… Our lows are correct but they either don't work or just disappear".

That is an interesting insight as it applies to Chechnya, which has been referred to this morning. Will the Minister respond to that, and tell the Chamber what recent discussions the British and Russian Governments have had on the subject of Chechnya? Such systematic failure cannot be cured overnight, as is openly admitted, but steps could and should be taken.

We believe that what is needed in all functioning democracies is proper accountability. That applies across the world in toto, both internally and internationally. There must be a recognition of the problem by the Russian Government. Only by encouraging transparency and openness can President Putin demonstrate to his critics that progress is being made and that Russia is committed to meeting the highest standards to which he has referred. That is a key test for Russia, as it looks to encourage further foreign investment and increased co-operation with the European Union. Perhaps the Minister could use today's debate to inform the Chamber what encouragement and assistance the British Government are giving to Russia in respect of both those issues.

In the past, as it has admitted, Russia has failed to seize fully its opportunities. One example of that was the Russian authorities' decision not to extend the mission of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Chechnya beyond December 2002. That did not exactly send the right signal to the international community. It cannot be in Russia's interests to refuse international scrutiny from an organisation that has an outstanding record in fighting for human rights and democracy in many parts of the world.

There is much to cause concern about Chechnya, including the horror of terrorism arising from the situation there, which has struck people in Moscow. Terrorism anywhere in the world is to be condemned, and the slaughter of innocent people in Moscow has been truly horrific. In debate on 18 June, the Minister for Europe acknowledged the growing and serious threat of Islamic extremists in Chechnya. It would be interesting to hear about that front the Under-Secretary of State. Will he update the Chamber on what the Government's perceptions are of the threat posed by Chechen extremists in Russia today, and their influence in global terrorist networks?

Russia continues to meet important challenges. It faces a number of constraints, which have been well aired, in terms of what can feasibly be achieved in the short term, but there is certainly light at the end of the tunnel. I mentioned earlier the extraordinary progress that has been made in Russia in the past few years. The country has a President who has taken important and often difficult steps towards getting his country in place for the 21st century. As Leon Aron, a native Russian who wrote the definitive biography of Boris Yeltsin, recently noted,

"Defense spending has plummeted from at least 30 percent of GDP to less than 5 per cent. Last September Putin proudly noted that for the first time in its history Russia was spending more on education than on defense".

With the likely result of the elections being the reelection of President Putin, I am sure that he will reflect on the need to show that the Russian Government, in view of the continuing interest of the international community, will consider the issue of promoting human rights, the rule of law and democracy, not only internally but throughout the region that is so heavily reliant on Russia for economic prosperity and development.

It seems extraordinary that in our lifetime we have seen the transformation of Russia. It has been an amazing success story, and Russia is now a significant player on the world stage. We have to build on that, in terms of our relationships. Our criticisms come from our desire for Russia to succeed. A great deal of progress has been made, but just as its economy is evolving and there is more prosperity, so emphasis on democracy, transparency and the criminal justice system will be brought further into the spotlight. It is for us all to encourage the Russian Government along that route in the best possible and most constructive way

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing this debate. It is right that we should discuss these issues, particularly in the run-up to the presidential election. Before the debate, we were discussing the number of times that Members raise such issues about Russia. There is not, perhaps, the parliamentary engagement on these issues that there might be, and Members of all parties should reflect on that.

I wish to place on record my clear view that Russia is important to the United Kingdom strategically, politically and economically, and that it is in our interests for Russia to be a stable, prosperous, democratic and influential member of the international community. It would be wrong to say that we want Russia to be isolated, and do not want to engage with it. In the 15 years since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has made enormous and welcome strides forward, and there have been vital democratic and economic reforms. Listening to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), I was struck by the fact that I am a child of the cold war and grew up with the old Soviet Union, but now, after a relatively short time, we face a very different Russia, albeit there are issues and concerns. I shall comment on some of those, but we should underline the degree of progress that has been made. We want that progress to continue.

Russia has, time and again, made public pledges to uphold and strengthen its commitments to human rights. It has done so through its membership of the Council of Europe and its commitments under a range of United Nations human rights conventions. Our important role as a friend and partner of Russia is to assist it in making good those commitments.

As the subject of this debate is political prisoners and human rights, I shall focus primarily on the Russian criminal justice and penal system. That was an issue on which the hon. Member for Gordon focused. However, I make it clear at the outset that we share the view of the US State Department, set out in its human rights report published last month, that there are no credible reports of political prisoners in Russia. That does not mean that there no concerns about prisoners, and I shall comment on that, but with regard to the accepted meaning of the term and the type of political prisoners who existed under Soviet rule, we see no evidence for or credible reports of such a situation in Russia today.

Nevertheless, a number of cases over the past few years have rightly attracted considerable attention in the media, in the House and from non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights. Most recently, we have heard about the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Mr. Khodorkovsky, the former head of the Yukos oil company, is in pre-trial detention, facing a range of tax evasion and fraud charges. His detention is one aspect of a wide-ranging criminal investigation by the authorities into the activities of Yukos and its major shareholders. Platon Lebedev, his colleague and a major shareholder in Menatep—the Yukos holding company—has been in pre-trial detention since July 2003, also charged with tax evasion and fraud. Alexander Pichugin, a former Yukos security official, has also been in pre-trial detention since July 2003, charged with conspiracy to murder. Another major shareholder in Menatep, Shatanovsky, was found guilty of tax evasion in February 2004 and given a suspended sentence. Although he denied his guilt, he repaid a substantial amount of the tax claimed by the authorities.

As we have heard today, the lawyers of the three men still in custody have made serious claims about abuse of due process and ill treatment. Appeals are being submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Needless to say, we are concerned about those claims and are monitoring them carefully. With our European Union partners, we continue to stress to the Russian Government that the rule of law must be applied in a non-discriminatory and proportional way. Justice cannot be seen to be selective. It is vital that all necessary conditions to guarantee a fair trial are observed scrupulously, and that the conditions in which the men are held meet international standards.

Those high-profile cases raise more general points about the ongoing reform of the Russian criminal justice system. It is clear to us that President Putin and his Government understand the scale and importance of that task. That is why he has made judicial reform a key plank of his current presidency. It is worth acknowledging that there have been a number of significant reforms, and I shall mention some of the key aspects.

Significant measures have been taken to increase the independence and accountability of the judiciary. In parallel, Russia introduced a new criminal procedure code in 2002. That introduces a range of measures to curtail possible abuse of process in the criminal justice system. For example, a court order is now required for search and arrest warrants, which is welcome. Similarly, detainees must be brought before a court within 48 hours. Courts are no longer allowed to send cases back for further investigation when the prosecution has plainly failed to provide sufficient evidence. Significantly, as from January 2004, jury trials are being introduced in all but one of the Russian regions for the most serious crimes. In the long run, that will be seen as a significant step forward.

I put it on the record that in my conversation with Mr. Robert Amsterdam, he said that, on paper, the Russian criminal code is perhaps the best in the world, but in the case of his clients, virtually all the requirements that have been mentioned are being breached almost daily. That is the real concern. It was reported in the days of the Soviet Union that Russia had a model constitution—it was just not applied.

With extraordinary foresight, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point.

The will to reform the legacy of the Soviet criminal justice system undoubtedly exists. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the key is implementation. There are some initial encouraging signs; in the areas I have already referred to, the number of people held in pre-trial detention has fallen; jury trials are producing acquittal rates in line with those in the United States and the United Kingdom, and there are significant signs that the judiciary is increasingly willing and able to assert its independence. It is particularly welcome that the moratorium on the death penalty remains in place, with a clear commitment by President Putin that it will not be reinstituted.

However, many implementation problems remain. In some regions, courts lack the necessary technical knowledge, training or resources to apply the legislation correctly. Corruption remains a serious problem, regional judiciaries remain dependent on local administration resources and of significant concern are the ongoing consistent reports, documented by human rights organisations, of torture and severe ill treatment that some detainees experience at the hands of Russian law-enforcement agencies.

We have therefore been working with the Russian Government and with non-governmental organisations to support the reforms that are already in place. For example, the Department for International Development funded a programme worth £800,000 to train judges and court staff and is funding a major programme on restorative justice. In addition, the Foreign Office is funding several programmes to combat torture and we are supporting the work of Nizhny Novgorod with regard to the Committee against Torture, an NGO that assists victims of torture and ill treatment to seek redress from the authorities. The project has led to the successful prosecution of a number of law-enforcement officials, which is a welcome and positive step.

Prison reform is another significant area of cooperation. Conditions in prison, especially in pre-trial detention centres, remain extremely poor by western standards. Overcrowding is a significant problem; cells are often badly ventilated and the prisoners may have a poor diet and get little exercise, which contribute to sanitation and health problems. According to Russia's Ministry of Justice, about 405,000 prisoners—almost half the prison population—have health problems, with desperately high rates of TB and HIV. However, the commitment and drive of the Ministry of Justice to improve prison conditions is clear. The prison population has fallen by a quarter in the past four years as amnesties take effeet, and prison sentencing is increasingly humanised.

We are funding further work to introduce non-custodial sentences on the lines of community service for minor offences and last week, Mr. Alexander Yelizarov, the acting Deputy Minister of Justice, accompanied by an eight-member team, visited the UK at our invitation. They came to learn more about the organisation and operation of the probation service, community service and the involvement of human rights NGOs. It was a welcome initiative, which shows how we are working effectively with Russia to tackle these issues.

Hon. Members have mentioned Chechnya, which presents particular concerns about human rights and the rule of law. We recognise the serious threat posed by terrorism in Chechnya, and in the past year there have been a series of devastating suicide attacks in the north Caucasus and in Moscow, the most recent being the attack on the Moscow metro on 6 February. These attacks have killed hundreds of innocent people. We should not have to say so, but we utterly condemn these monstrous acts of violence against innocent civilians.

We want Russia to succeed in restoring genuine stability. However, no attempt to bring peace to the Republic can succeed without greater efforts to address the continuing credible reports of human rights violations by federal and local security forces and the climate of impunity in which they operate. There continue to be credible reports of significant numbers of arbitrary arrests, detentions and disappearances in the Republic and there are consistent allegations of the torture of detainees.

As the Minister responsible for Russia, I have made my concerns about the situation in Chechnya clear to the Russian authorities, as have my colleagues. I made a statement last October in the wake of the Chechen presidential election in which I expressed concerns about the conduct of that election and called for human rights to be upheld, for the promotion of a genuinely open political process and for reconciliation.

We have long pressed the Russians to pursue a political rather than a military solution in Chechnya; we welcomed the political process that prompted the elections, but so far there has been a disappointing lack of progress. There were UK-supported statements by the European Union before and after those elections that expressed similar concerns about the election conditions and human rights, and I have raised the Chechen elections and human rights abuses directly with the Russian ambassador in the UK. When I visit Moscow later this month, I will express those concerns again.

I will now address some of the specific points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Gordon gave a broad overview while at the same time highlighting some of his particular concerns. His comments contained an implication that he.was critical of the fact that the state visit took place and that President Putin was received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With a country such as Russia, it is important that we engage and discuss things, and the state visit was an opportunity for us to do so.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the development of pluralist democracy in Russia. That is in a significantly better state now than it was under Soviet rule; there have been vital democratic reforms in Russia, and there are now more political parties. I understand the points that have been made about election results, but they broadly reflect the will of the people. However, we have concerns about some of the negative developments in the country's democratisation; observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe were critical of aspects of the conduct of the December Russian parliamentary elections. We hope and urge that they will be addressed in the forthcoming presidential elections. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important concerns, and we need to consider them seriously.

I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). First, I must say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not justify the repression of human rights by reference to the war on terror. We need to have a grown-up debate about that. Every country that is involved in that war must strike a balance between introducing proportionate security measures to protect citizens from terrorism and upholding civil liberties and human rights. That is a challenge. Everyone needs to be constantly vigilant about the proportionality of the actions that are taken, whether they are necessary and how they impact on civil liberties and human rights. It is not an easy situation to grapple with. There are not necessarily any automatic right and wrong answers.

I do not necessarily disagree with anything that the Minister has said. Does he think that, on balance, the Russian Government are getting it right in Chechnya?

I have said what I have said about Chechnya. Russia and the Chechen Republic face a serious threat from terrorism. We want Russia to be able to restore stability, but it must also respect human rights and search for a political rather than a military solution. That is what I have tried to argue.

I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. It shows how times, ideologies and politics have changed when a Conservative Member prays in aid Karl Marx in support of one of his arguments. However, I agree with a number of the hon. Gentleman's points. I agree with his remarks about the significant economic progress in Russia, and about the welcome fact that defence spending has significantly reduced. He also made important comments about President Putin's commitment against, and abhorrence of, corruption. I strongly agree that, as economic progress and prosperity develop in Russia, a thirst, commitment and desire will develop, particularly among the younger population, for civil liberties and human rights.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about comments made by Colin Powell during a recent visit to Russia. I endorse Colin Powell's approach of stressing the importance of partnership with Russia while expressing our concerns. That is the approach that we are trying to take and I shall adopt that when I visit Moscow later this month.

In conclusion, I shall summarise our developing view of the relationship with Russia. Russia is undoubtedly a key partner for the UK. We want and need it to be stable, prosperous and an important member of the international community. We welcome progress made on reform in recent years, and are prepared to continue our support for that process. However, we believe that democracy, human rights protection and open societies are prerequisites for long-term stability and prosperity. I genuinely believe that it is in both Russia's and our interests to promote those values.

Russia is incomparably freer than it was in Soviet days, and reform has acquired momentum. However, it is important that the momentum is not lost and certainly that it does not go into reverse. As supporters of Russia's transition to a new political and economic model, and as friends, we cannot hide our concerns, which we recently expressed in our annual human rights report. I have outlined some of our concerns about Chechnya. Like our partners and many human rights non-governmental organisations, we are concerned at reports of continued human rights violations by federal and local security forces. No political solution can be made to stick without greater efforts to address those problems.

Similarly, we believe that free media and a pluralistic political process are fundamental to a free society. Like others, we are concerned about recent negative trends in those areas. Internally, it is in Russia's interests for policy choices to reflect wide discussion of the options and input from many sources. Externally, Russia's partnership with the west needs a basis in shared values to be durable. Those points are important and fit with the approach to which I have referred.

I hope that the debate has provided an opportunity to air those issues and to give a clear picture of the range of actions that we are taking to support the promotion of human rights in Russia. Continuing problems must be addressed, and we intend to continue working with Russia on those matters, combining constructive engagement and, if necessary, criticism, with assistance. By doing that and by capitalising on the will of the Russian Government and the substantial steps that they have taken, we hope to push ahead with the process of reform.

In any situation of developing reform, one cannot stand still; one either goes forwards or backwards. We are determined to engage with Russia to take the process of reform forward and I will take up those discussions when I visit Moscow at the end of the month. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon on securing the debate, and I hope that on the next occasion a few more hon. Members will participate.

It is rare —and quite scary —to come into this place to find nobody here and no debate on. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this debate on Bridgwater college. I do not doubt that a centre of excellence such as Bridgwater college is vital to a rural community. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) here; he has the Somerset College of Arts and Technology in his constituency.

One can safely say that Somerset is one of the most rural counties in the country. There is only one industrial town: Bridgwater. If one casts one's mind back to those halcyon days, it was the most thriving port in the fifteenth century.

Even I am not that old.

I knew that, but one or two of our colleagues may be. It is interesting to note that an industrial town in an area such as ours has bred an enormous differential between the rural heartland and the industrial heartland. It is probably fairly unusual for a Conservative Member of Parliament to represent an industrial town. There is a large amount of heavy industry, such as British Cellophane, Ambersil, Royal Ordnance, Gerber's and others. In the middle is Bridgwater college.

Bridgwater college trained people to become industrial apprentices, whom I know all hon. Members miss. It trains all sectors of the community from the youngest to the eldest. It is a further education college that does much more than A-levels. It has taken on the training of all Bridgwater's forklift drivers for the industrial conurbation, as well as much more to bring itself to the forefront of the community. It is exciting that it is setting up many outstations. We all know that universities would normally do that. Plymouth university—possibly the most aggressive university in the south-west—seems to be spreading its tentacles. However, so has Bridgwater college, and one of the reasons that I wanted to hold the debate is that it has shown itself time and again to be a centre of excellence. I know that the Minister appreciates that. We have seen its rise over the past five years. It has had 10 years under the leadership of Fiona McMillan and her team, and became one of the foremost further education colleges in the United Kingdom.

I shall not detain hon. Members too long, but it is worth considering the achievements of recent years: the Queen's anniversary prize for further education, beacon college status, two Government-designated early excellence centre awards, five beacon awards, and two centres of vocational excellence awards in automobile engineering and early years from the learning and skills council in Somerset. There has been phenomenal growth. There are over 3,500 full-time and part-time students at the college and its outstations at Cripton, Minehead and elsewhere. There has been an enormous outreach in learning and skills.

It is rare for an Opposition Member to praise the Government, but I shall give credit where it is due. Beacon status has undoubtedly pumped up the college. It has just opened its learndirect facility—my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has been involved with that— and 190 people signed up within the first week. Learndirect has given people of all ages who do not naturally want to go into education a chance to do so. Two students who were a little older than the average student who I remember were delighted to be there, as they were achieving a life's ambition. Again, I give praise where it is due: the college has given people a real opportunity. Since 1994, the college has received £7.5 million of investment, and it has increased its outreach all over the place.

As the Minister is aware, Cannington college is an amalgamation of two colleges. Bridgwater's principal, Fiona McMillan, and her remarkable team have gone one step further. I would like to praise Fiona McMillan, who has just been awarded the OBE by Her Majesty for her work during 10 years of dedicated leadership. She has proved that the college is going places.

Ian Nash, the further education editor of The Times Educational Supplement, said:

"Of all the colleges who entered this category of Beacon Awards no other college came close to the marvellous achievements of Bridgwater College. The panel of judges who assessed Bridgwater's entry came away from the College with an impression of a place with an outstanding learning culture. We were particularly struck by the fact that the staff we interviewed saw no distinction between their personal development and professional development."

That is one of the most profound statements that I have heard. The college is highly organised, with superb teaching staff. Lecturers have rung me in the past few days. We talked about various things that we wanted to put forward. They have said that they were offered the opportunity to move on to Exeter university, to SCAT or to wherever to lecture, but said no and wanted to stay at Bridgwater because it provides the excellence that they strive to achieve as professionals

I move on to some of the college's results. It is a further education college, which is meant to specialise in A-levels. However, it does not; it is one of six in the country to specialise across the entire spectrum. If I were to read out every course that it offers, I, the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be bored by the time I got through them. Such is the quality of the place.

In the past year, the college has achieved a 99.5 per cent. pass rate for A-levels. The national average is 95.4 per cent. Thirty-one subjects covered by the college had a 100 per cent. pass rate. That is a remarkable achievement in anybody's book. It is also particularly pleasing that more than 74 per cent. of those grades were A to Cs. That is a remarkable achievement. So many people decry Bridgwater as the industrial town that people forget, yet we train the very best there. I am sure that the Minister will agree, and rightly, that that is what education is about.

I would like to mention other things that the inspectors said. If I am accused of blatantly banging the drum for Bridgwater college, I will plead guilty. I am incredibly proud of its achievements. In discussing achievements and standards, the inspectors said:

"The College achieves very good, pass rates on courses for students aged 16–18. In 2001, overall pass rates were 81 per cent., 80 per cent., and 84 per cent. The national averages were 66 per cent., 68 per cent. and 73 per cent."

The college is way ahead; it is off the Richter scale. Is that not tremendous? I am delighted. The college has also achieved enormous results at GCSE and went way above what it thought it would achieve.

There is a matter that I would like to ask the Minister to think about. Bridgwater college is in an industrial area, but there is a large rural area around it. A problem that we have concerns transport and getting students to the college. I know students who come from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton's constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who cannot be here because of other parliamentary duties. That involves a cost. I hope that the Government will continue to consider whether such students should bear that cost.

Another problem concerns the scale of getting young people to college. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I represent constituencies in west Somerset, which has the largest district council in the country, but with the smallest budget. Its huge area includes Exmoor. If one asks a student from Dulverton in my hon. Friend's constituency or Minehead in my constituency whether they can get either to SCAT or to Bridgwater college, they will say that it is very difficult to do so. The bus service is not regular enough, so one has to have a car, borrow one or get a lift from somebody. One of the greatest problems that we have had is in trying to ensure that we can get those students to where they need to be.

As I said earlier, Bridgwater college has set up an outplacement in Minehead. Unfortunately, it has not yet done so in Dulverton, although I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that if it were done in conjunction with SCAT, to try to bring more students into the centre. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is not fair that a person who cannot physically get to college should be penalised for that.

I want to talk a bit about the leadership and management of the college. I will read this quite blatantly from the inspector's report. First:

"Leadership and Management are outstanding".

Secondly,

"The college has.… excellent links. Local community groups, employers, public services and local schools regard the College as highly responsive."

Yes, of course we are. In addition:

"Management information in the college is good and staff have a high level of confidence in the reports"

that they produce. That is wonderful. If one believes in what one is doing, one will believe that one can do it. That is vital.

In the remaining five minutes, I want to turn to the meat of the issue—the merger between Bridgwater and Cannington colleges. Cannington is our agricultural college, which serves the whole country and has been a centre of excellence for 75 years. Over the past few years, things have not been as rosy as they could have been. Due to various situations, which I do not intend to discuss now, the college needs help. I pay enormous tribute to Dugald Sandeman and his team at the Somerset learning and skills council, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, for the cool-headed way in which they have dealt with the situation, and to the Minister and his team for the kindness that they have shown in ensuring that Cannington continues to be an outstanding college.

One of our problems is that decisions need to be made. The corporation of Cannington — I am glad to say that that is of the old-fashioned type —and the governors of Bridgwater college will amalgamate the colleges under the guidance of Bridgwater college, Fiona McMillan and her team. Soon, there will be an application to the Secretary of State. It will sit on his desk, it will be from the two groups and it will ask for financial assistance. They will need that for three reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton is aware, Cannington college does not have the most modern campus. Secondly, the colleges are in the rural heartland, which is involved in farming, which in modern terms is not the most sexy of trades. Thirdly, and most important, they serve our whole county. When that application comes, I would ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at it favourably. It will come via the learning and skills council and it will have a financial attachment. I do not know what the total will be, although I can guess.

My hon. Friend makes an eloquent case about the need for Cannington and Bridgwater colleges to merge. For the record, it is worth pointing out that I have a number of constituents who look to both of those colleges for their education. It is vital that the skills that they bring to their areas are allowed to continue. If the best way to do that is to merge them, they have my full support.

I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he has done outstanding work on this issue and I am grateful for all the help that he has given to the learning and skills council and to both the colleges.

The Minister asked me how many people do not want the merger to go ahead. The proposed merger was put out to public consultation and 27 organisations said that they were for it. Only one organisation said that it was not over-happy. However, it has been unanimously agreed that it is an excellent way forward.

I urge the Minister on three issues. First, please do not let Cannington have any problems. Let us get this matter passed and moving, and let us ensure that it is a great success. Secondly, to enable that, Bridgwater college needs all the help the Minister can give, because its finances are being sucked into its own development programme. It has very little that it can give. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, the young people of our area have many problems with its sheer scale, which we cannot get around easily.

Horticulture, tourism, agriculture and food production —for example of high-quality jams —are subjects that are taught at Cannington. If they are not there, they will be sadly missed. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at the application favourably when it lands on their desks in a few months' time, because it has the backing of the community, the county and the best beacon college in the country. If we do not get the merger right, all the work that has been done up to now through co-operation between Sedgemoor district council, MPs, district councillors, county councillors and many others will be for nought. I make my appeal to the Minister on behalf of Bridgwater college and Cannington college.

In conclusion, I say that Bridgwater college is a centre of excellence, and I praise the Government for that. However, there is still a long way to go, and we need ministerial help to bring it up to the best possible standard that we can offer our young people.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing the debate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) is also present to hear my response. I associate myself with the positive remarks made about the excellent work of Bridgwater college. It is worth repeating some of the comments that were made, because they are not hyperbole. When we have an example such as Bridgwater college, we should sing its praises and record the fact that we have done so. Too often in the House, we deal with the problem areas and sometimes the centres of excellence, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater called the college, do not get the recognition that they deserve.

In this short debate, I want to ensure that it is understood how important the work of Bridgwater college is in raising standards throughout the sector. The hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned Bridgwater college's most recent Ofsted inspection, which described the college as outstanding; it is one of the top colleges in the country. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the teachers, governors, other staff and pupils at the college for their achievements.

However, I want to pay special tribute to the principal, Fiona McMillan, whose outstanding leadership and management qualities have played such a large part in the college's success. In November 2002, we developed the success for all strategy for taking the further education sector forward, which stressed the importance of leadership qualities. In my Department, we see again and again the importance of leadership in transforming the education provided—we should not forget that the FE sector caters directly for 4 million adult learners and young learners, and for another 2 million learners in workplaces. Fiona McMillan is a sparkling example of the kind of qualities that FE college principals need which is why I am pleased to pay particular tribute to her.

The Ofsted report makes reference to outstanding leadership and management. It also recognises the college's excellent quality assurance systems and procedures, and its success in widening participation. It also comments on the outstanding support given to students who, as a result, are highly motivated. That is no doubt a good part of the reason for the success rates mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The Ofsted report also mentioned the college's outstanding accommodation, and commended the outstanding specialist resources in some of its curriculum areas. It should be noted that Ofsted's use of the word "outstanding" is outstanding in itself—it is not a word that trips off Ofsted's tongue.

There is clearly much to pay tribute to in Bridgwater college—it is no stranger to national recognition. Recently, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned, Bridgwater college has achieved a remarkable record of success, not least in the number of awards and prizes that it has gained. The college is the "Lord of the Rings" of the FE sector in terms of picking up prizes. I shall mention the awards again, because I believe that the college's situation is unique. It has received a Queen's anniversary prize for higher and further education. It is worth mentioning in that context that 11 per cent. of higher education is carried out in FE colleges, and that 40 per cent. of those going into higher education come from FE—the FE sector is central to the whole higher education agenda.

The college has not one but three beacon awards for inclusive learning, college-schools partnerships and meeting employers' needs. The Government have given it beacon college status. It has also been designated an early excellence centre by the Government. The college has two centres of vocational excellence, one in early years education and the other in motor vehicles. That is a startling record. The list of awards reflects a college that is committed to providing the best possible service to students, employers and the local community.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of further education. It provides diverse opportunities for more than 6 million learners and thousands of businesses. Every community in the country is affected by the further education agenda. I wish briefly to outline the national context in which Bridgwater college operates before referring to some of the specific points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

During the coming years, further education colleges will continue to play a vital role in taking forward the Government's strategies for higher education, skills and the exciting 14-to-19 years agenda that is being developed by the Tomlinson committee. The world of further education is developing fast. The high expectations of learners, employers, the community and, indeed, the Government are placing many demands on colleges. As I take the Higher Education Bill through Committee, people say to me that we need plumbers, not graduates. We need plumbers and graduates.

The focus on further education has never been more profound than it is at present. In the Government's success for all reform strategy, we stated our ambition of delivering world-class teaching and learning for all. We want to spread the Bridgwater college example throughout the country. We want Bridgwater colleges and high standards in each community.

It is important that we celebrate and build on such provision if we are to deliver a high-quality learning and skills sector that provides opportunity and choice for individuals, communities and employers throughout the country. Bridgwater college received funding from the Learning and Skills Council to disseminate its good practice as a beacon college during 2003. That is the whole point of beacon colleges. Bridgwater is one of the few general FE colleges that have beacon status.

Beacons are awarded to sixth-form colleges and to work-based learning providers. A beacon is not just a plaque to stick on the wall to celebrate, important though that is. It means work for Bridgwater college, which is why we are grateful to it. Part of being a beacon college is to spread best practice throughout the country and to be a mentor for other colleges. It is hard work.

It is tough—Fiona and others at Bridgwater college will testify to that. They are keen to undertake such work. Their passion and enthusiasm are commendable.

The clear sense of pride felt by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton about Bridgwater college is tangible and completely understandable. I want all learners to succeed and all institutions to have the skills, resources and support to make that happen. The college is currently funded by my Department to take forward beacon innovation activity in developing curriculum specialisms and skills for life, which relates to the point that the hon. Member for Bridgwater made about learndirect. A total of £200,000 was made available for 2003–05.

The Government's aim is to give all learners access to high-quality learning experiences. We have shown our commitment to further education. The last spending review included a 19 per cent. real terms increase in funding for further education. Assumed funding for further education allocated to the Learning and Skills Council is £4.7 billion in this financial year. It will rise to £5.2 billion in the next financial year and to £5.6 billion in the financial year after that. We are providing additional resources and working with teachers to raise standards across the board.

The Government are committed to working in partnership with the further education sector to deliver our objective of a reformed learning and skills sector, so that in Bridgwater and throughout the country young people have greater choice and have higher standards with clear pathways to higher education. Older students will receive more help to improve crucial skills and progress in their careers and local employers can use a responsive network of colleges and training providers that are committed to delivering the skills that they need.

One of the problems that has dogged further education for a long time—as well as the strange and curious prejudice in this country for academic qualifications over vocational qualifications—is that employers have never felt engaged with the further education curriculum. Their complaint is that educationists churn out the kind of courses that they think employers want without taking the trouble to consult them. An important part of the programme is to change that approach.

Bridgwater college has already recognised that that will require determined action and commitment. It scores on all the points I have mentioned in relation to the Government's priorities. I commend Bridgwater college for its outstanding achievements. I place on record my thanks to the staff, students and governors. I have already mentioned the principal.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke about transport, which is a real issue, particularly in rural areas, and in some urban areas. The mobility of youngsters and older students to access further education, sixth-form and other tertiary colleges is important. An aspect of that is built into learning and skills planning and we will continue to develop it.

The central question asked by the hon. Gentleman was on the proposed merger of Bridgwater with Cannington. The role of the Secretary of State is to give his approval to a merger at the end of that process. I cannot pre-empt that decision. However, it will be based on whether clear educational and financial benefits will arise from the proposal.

The funding aspect of the proposal, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is in the hands of the Learning and Skills Council, which must ensure that there is the right financial basis for merger. Indeed, it holds the purse strings in that respect. Once the Learning and Skills Council is satisfied with that—and only when it is satisfied—the recommendation comes to the Secretary of State. It is inconceivable and impossible for a recommendation to come to the Secretary of State without the backing of the Learning and Skills Council. When that has been provided, the financial imperative and the financial problems must have been resolved. Then the Secretary of State makes the final decision.

I cannot give the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman was asking, for reasons that he will understand, but I assure him that, if that proposal comes to the Secretary of State, it will be dealt with speedily and on the basis of the financial and educational benefits in accordance with the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Given everything that he said, once a proposal comes here, those issues will have been sorted out satisfactorily at local level.

I look forward to the ongoing contribution that all those involved with that splendid college will make in achieving the Government's ambitious plans for the post-16 education sector. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing the debate and, for about the 25th time, I sincerely congratulate Bridgwater college. It is an outstanding example of all that is good about further education. I am pleased to join in this short celebration of its success.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting this debate on the role of London in the United Kingdom economy. London is one of the great capital cities of the world, a world leader in finance, business and commerce. It is the historic seat of democratic government and the monarchy and, more recently, the seat of highly successful city government. It has much to offer and attract. It is a magnet for creative people, a polyglot of activity. London is large scale, with a large working population, which delivers economies of scale and ready markets. I here is much choice and there is also lots of innovation with an easy transfer of talent and skills into both business and cultural activity.

London is of unique importance. It is a dynamic city and has world recognition. It is also the main driver for the UK economy as a whole, but maintaining the dynamism depends on continual, huge-scale investment. That cannot be taken for granted and it is not in anyone's interest in this country for the capital to run down and its arteries to become sclerotic. In recent years, there has been some recovery after years of underinvestment, but I emphasise that London's infrastructure needs regular renewal and modernisation, and the issues that hold back its people and business need to be properly addressed. There is a big pay off for the UK to do that, which the Government must take into account when deciding their comprehensive spending review priorities.

Let me make four key points to the Minister. Most important, as I have said, investment in London benefits the whole of the UK. Secondly, it helps to ensure that London contributes more resources to the central Exchequer than it receives for spending. Thirdly, investment in London is necessary for sound economic and social reasons, such as to deal with the projected growth in population and the high levels of poverty. Fourthly, investment in London enables many of the Government's important national targets to be met.

On the first point London has a high level of productivity—in fact, the highest in the UK. It is 25 per cent. above the national average. That induces competitive pressure, which spills outside of London. We then achieve unproved competitiveness and productivity in the UK as a whole. Investment follows and spreads to other parts of the country. London attracts foreign direct investment, which frequently permeates to other regions in the UK. I know from my role in economics and security on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly how essential and prized for a country's economic prosperity is foreign investment. We must continue to encourage it to invest in the UK, and London is invariably its starting point.

Investment in London is necessary to maintain its global attractiveness. Many businesses in London would not readily relocate elsewhere in the UK. They would more likely go to other countries. London contributes more to central Government than it receives. According to the Mayor, in 2001, it contributed between £9 billion to 15 billion more than it received in spending. Growth in the city's economic activity as a result of well-made investment would increase that amount.

While a net contribution is to be expected from a region that has higher than average income, if London invests insufficient resources to sustain its growth, its international competitiveness and contribution to the prosperity of the whole country will be diminished.

Investment in London is necessary for sound economic and social reasons. There are a number of respects in which that is important, the first of which is transport. London's economic strength is highly dependent on an efficient transport network, able to deliver London's relatively dispersed population to its concentrated areas of employment. If we are to use London's projected growth effectively, the transport infrastructure has to keep up and improve. I have pointed out in past debates in this Chamber on London underground that the system already creaks due to years of underinvestment.

London's population was forecast to grow by 800,000 between 2001 and 2016, and to become younger in age overall. That growth in population is being promoted by the Government. In my area of east London, there is the Thames gateway development and the new Stratford city proposal, both of which are welcome. Transport for London expects demand for trips on all modes of public transport to increase by 2 million passengers a day by 2016.

I have been grateful to the hon. Gentleman in the past for securing debates on the London underground. Does he think that things are getting better on the underground?

That is a good question. At least the money is beginning to flow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was not a supporter of the way in which that funding was arranged; that could have been done so as to present better value for money. However, I would not be overly critical of the infrastructure companies—at least, certainly not at this stage—which seem at last to be getting down to the job that they are paid to do. There is some improvement, but much more needs to be done, especially bearing in mind the population growth that is envisaged.

Substantial investment of about £1 billion per annum from 2005–06 will be required. Failure to invest in London's transport infrastructure will result in losses to both the London and the UK economies.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where the extra £l billion, and all the other extra expenditure that he has in mind, will come from? Will it come from the regions and nations of the United Kingdom? Has he identified where in the Treasury that money is available?

Cohen: I will come on to that, but London, as I pointed out, is an area of growth; it generates growth for the UK economy as a whole, so any extra investment—and this is the nub of my argument—is money well spent. It generates greater wealth and prosperity. The money does, initially, have to come from investment from the Treasury, but in the longer term there are other ways to get it. I am pre-empting my speech, but changing borrowing powers may, in future, be a way of getting more money

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his city, but is it not also arguable that London is greedy? It wants increasing investment and produces more congestion, and then wants investment to sort out the congestion. Would it not be better to be not as greedy, and to hand over some of the jobs and investment to areas elsewhere in the country, thereby remedying the profound inequality in the nation?

I do not believe that London is greedy. As I said, it is a net contributor to, and a driving force behind, the national economy. Its jobs spill over into other regions. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have to have a policy for the regions—and they do—to create jobs there. I do not think that it helps the regions to damp down London's growth potential.

Is it not the case that one of the reasons why a number of London Members are seeking to argue for London is that, according to the Treasury's own figures, its share of national public expenditure has been falling in recent years? Its population has been rising during that time. Some of us want to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye to make that balanced case today.

The point is well made, and I will not add to it.

Failure to invest in London's transport infrastructure will result in losses to both the London and UK economies. For instance, if there were a failure to invest in Crossrail, the country would miss out on an increase in GDP of at least £19 billion. Analysts have suggested that Crossrail could support more than 20,000 additional jobs in central London by 2027. It would link the capital's major business centres, railway stations and Heathrow, and that would improve business opportunities throughout the country. I also urge the Government to approve the final funding scheme for the East London line extension. That will join up a significant proportion of the most deprived wards in London, bringing regeneration, new jobs and economic development.

I shall talk about poverty and worklessness. London is a city of great disparities. Inner London is by far the most deeply divided part of the country, with the highest proportion of rich and poor people anywhere; 48 per cent. of inner London children are poor, and ethnic minorities make up 29 per cent. of the population and have low employment rates. Women with children face particular problems in London's labour market. Policies to improve work incentives and opportunities for parents and people with relatively low skills are required. Increased availability of affordable child care and substantial skills training must be two key priorities for the Government.

The housing demands created by London's growing economy and population have not been matched by adequate supply. As a result, London's house prices have risen disproportionately. Between 1995 and 2002, the increase was 149 per cent. compared with 87 per cent. for the whole of the UK. High house prices create a need for affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing for intermediate and key workers has led to understaffing in our public services, which are important. That is a major problem. Increasing supply, such as at Thames gateway, takes time. For now, intervention should be focused on making housing supply more responsive to market conditions; for instance, social home providers should be utilised more effectively. The Government should also give the Mayor and the Greater London authority strategic control over public housing investment, as is the case in other regions.

I turn to public services, and in particular education and health. The key problem facing such public services in London is recruitment and retention of staff. London has a high vacancy and turnover rate for teachers and health workers. Research shows that in 2003 the cost of living in London was between 17 and 30 per cent. higher than in Edinburgh or Manchester. The cost of living in London is particularly high for the lowest income groups. The only effective way significantly to improve recruitment and retention of key workers is to compensate them financially for the relatively higher cost of living in London.

I move on to crime and community safety. Although significant progress has been made in tackling crime in recent years, London still suffers disproportionately from some of the crimes that are most costly to society, such as robbery and violence against the person. Levels of worry about crime and incivility—antisocial behaviour, street drug dealing and use, litter, rubbish and graffiti—are high in London. These fears have a worse effect in communities where there is economic deprivation, black and minority ethnic communities, women and homeless people.

Would the hon. Gentleman say that tackling crime and disorder in our capital city is not helped by the Government redefining the police allocation formula for funding and then, when they do reform it, not abiding by it and giving London £56 million less next year?

The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but the Government generally have a good record on policing. We have record police numbers. As he will hear, I shall make a case for the Government to look again at funding and increase investment for the police.

It is essential that there is increased investment in policing, including fostering more productive relationships between the police and local communities. Better police numbers mean that more investment is needed in new police technology, new skills and training and better support services. I have been told that the Metropolitan police service infrastructure is creaking due to the lack of capital investment. In my constituency, the land where a new station was to be built has been left empty. Capital investment for the police must be addressed.

London's growth will place further pressure on its environment, not least in dealing with the quantities of additional waste that will be generated. The Government should consider appropriate changes to existing legislation to establish a single waste disposal authority for London. Parks and green spaces must also have greater protection and must be enhanced.

The Government's achievement of many of their targets—including increased bus and light rail usage and reduced congestion in large urban areas—depends on investment in London.

Just before the congestion charge was introduced the subsidy for London bus services was about £1 million a day. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the effect is of the congestion charge? Has it increased bus usage? Has the number of fare-paying passengers increased? Has it had a beneficial effect on the necessary subsidy for bus services from the taxpayer?

I cannot give the hon. Lady chapter and verse, although that is available from the Mayor's office and the GLA. There is no doubt that funds raised from the congestion charge would go to improve public transport. There has certainly been a big increase in money for buses and a better service on the buses in all areas of the capital, which I welcome. That is part of the point that I am making. The Government's national targets are met because of improved performance in London.

There are other targets, such as halving the number of children in poverty by 2010 and eradicating it completely by 2020, reducing the proportion of children in households with no one in work, raising attainment for 14 to 19-year-olds, in schools and colleges, reducing inequalities in health outcomes, reducing crime and fear of crime, meeting national air quality targets, and ensuring a better balance between housing availability and the demand for housing. If London were not performing in any of those areas, the Government's targets would not be met.

The case for investment is strong. Investment in London needs to be budgeted for now in the Government's spending plans. As part of that, they should allow a prudent borrowing power for the Mayor, the GLA and Transport for London for strategic improvements. In the longer term I appreciate that local taxation powers, which are currently under review, will be changed. The London-wide strategic role, which is part of that, needs to be recognised. Resources from high land values and, perhaps, from sales need to be accessed. London's rich should be required to contribute a fairer share, and the business centres in the City of London and docklands should release more of their resources and be better integrated in meeting the London-wide objectives, to which I have referred.

I say to the Minister and the Chancellor, pay up for the investment in London—it is worth it

rose—

Order. Many Members are standing. I remind them that we have three wind-up speeches and that the object of the exercise is for the hon. Member who secured the debate to get an adequate reply from the Minister. If hon. Members keep their contributions tight, we could probably squeeze most of them in

I shall be as brief as I can, but I cannot begin without thanking the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) for raising an important matter of concern to Londoners: the amount of investment and the way that the Government treat London.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned four key points, and I shall stress one of them. Nine months ago, the Prime Minister's strategy unit reported on London and documented what more or less every Londoner already knows. It referred—I am paraphrasing and giving a short precis—to widespread poverty, severe housing problems and a seriously deficient transport system in Britain's greatest city. I do not deny that the Government are taking some action and I do not wish to quarrel with that. Unless action is taken, the problems will get worse because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is estimated that by 2016 there will be an additional 800,000 people living in our capital city.

An additional and chilling point made in the strategy unit report was the condition of the poor. As every hon. Member who represents a London constituency knows, there are great disparities in our city. I have the privilege of representing part of an outer-London borough. However, if one detaches the statistics relating to the outer-London boroughs from those relating to the inner-London boroughs, on virtually every index inner-London is the worst region in the whole country, in the sense of the highest level of poverty and so on. London is therefore entitled to sympathetic consideration from the Government.

Of course, it is true that there is more wealth south of the Severn-Trent divide than north of it, but the idea that everybody living south of the divide is wealthy and that there is deprivation and destitution anywhere north of it is quite wrong. I have heard the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) speak eloquently and sincerely about how her area has pockets of great wealth and pockets of extreme deprivation cheek by jowl.

In introducing his speech, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead talked about the disparity between what London pays out, in taxes and what it receives to run its public services. He mentioned a figure, but the figure I have is of the order of £20 billion. Whatever the sum, it is significant. All I say to the Minister is that London is entitled to have a review of the revenue support grant that it gets, and that we have suffered from its transference from London and the south-east to the midlands and the north. I cannot speak about Scotland and Wales, but I know that Scotland is very favourably treated under the Barnett formula. I hope the Government take account of that. If the gap is £20 billion, let us recognise that such a sum is the equivalent of £3,000 for every man, woman and child living in our capital city.

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the research conducted for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office at Nuffield college, Oxford. It suggests that London does well out of identifiable public spending. It gets £5,177 per head compared with £4,724 per head for Yorkshire

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot enter into a debate with him now. I shall say one thing: if there were equal wealth and poverty in London and in any other part of the country, London would still need more because of the extra cost of living in London, which is considerable. London weighting is inadequate for most professions. I shall end by saying that we are talking about £3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country and, to use the phrase that we hear so often on the underground, London is beginning to mind the gap

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing this important debate and allowing us to put on record some of our arguments as to why London's loss would not be anybody else's gain. My hon. Friend outlined well the case for additional investment in London, and how that would have economic benefits for the whole country. I am not one of those who argue that London's economic success should not be a means of benefiting poorer regions, or that there is not desperate poverty, need and worklessness throughout the country that needs to be addressed. However, as I have said before, one should not kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and it is important that we grow London's economy.

The London analytical report issued last year by the Cabinet Office set out powerfully a framework for London's economic growth. Can the Minister say what has happened to that report? Will there be the promised follow-up? It is important that we take forward the report's findings and recommendations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made the argument forcefully for cash for infrastructure. That is the single most important issue. We must quickly move to a positive decision on Crossrail. Without Crossrail and some of the other major infrastructure projects, it will not be possible to meet the needs of a growing city, which is projected to grow by 800,000 in the next decade. Although Crossrail is a major project with significant upfront capital cost, investment in it will benefit the whole country. It is estimated that Crossrail will create GDP benefits of at least £19 billion over 30 years, and generate tax revenues of about £8 billion during that period. Such an investment is sometimes seen as a drain on our economic resources, but it creates the potential for much wider economic benefit.

I shall refer to the other issues touched on by my hon. Friend, including the removal of some of the barriers to London's economic success, with particular reference to its work force. Alongside a tight labour market, which is drawing in people from all over the country, Europe and the world to meet its needs, we have the worst unemployment of any region—7.1 per cent. in London, compared with 5.1 per cent. in the country as a whole. That feeds into the highest levels of child poverty, with 48 per cent. of all children in inner London living in poverty.

The reduction in unemployment has been slower in London than elsewhere, even while employment has grown. By the International Labour Organisation definition, since 1997 unemployment has gone down in London by an admittedly creditable 19.6 per cent. That is a tribute to the economic management of the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, that compares with 29 per cent. for the rest of the UK. The claimant count is down by 41 per cent., but the figure is 46 per cent. for the rest of the UK. Long-term youth unemployment is down 71 per cent. in London, but that compares with 77 per cent. for the rest of the UK.

The measures that have been introduced, from the new deal to the tax credit programme, have been successful and have made a major contribution to poverty and unemployment reduction throughout the UK. However, they have not had equivalent effectiveness in the capital. If we could only close that gap on poverty and unemployment, I would regard that as a task well done. That should be a critical challenge for the comprehensive spending review, the Budget and the next Labour Government. The disparity is due to three major factors: the cost of housing, the cost of child care and the longer time that it takes Londoners to travel to work compared with workers in other parts of the country. That underlines the need for an efficient, fast and affordable transport infrastructure.

Higher costs in London mean that lone parents have to earn £7.76 an hour to be better off in full-time employment than they would be on benefit. In other regions of the country, they need to earn only the minimum wage. To reduce such cost barriers, we look to the Government to increase investment in affordable child care and to reduce housing costs.

A number of changes could be made to the tax credit regime to make getting a job more affordable for parents. We seek support for London to make a capital investment in growing child care provision and in bringing together the disparate strands of child care funding so that we can close the child care gap in London, which is significantly greater than in any other part of the country. That is a point not about service delivery, but about the economy.

Were we able to make that child care investment, we would reduce unemployment in our hard-core unemployment areas, reduce benefit dependency, cut the benefit bill and increase the tax yield, as has been demonstrated by PricewaterhouseCoopers and many bodies working in child care. By creating jobs, we would be able to stem an unfortunate tendency for the London economy to lock a substantial minority of people out of employment, while drawing in people from outside to take the jobs. That increases the pressure on the other main difficulty—the housing market.

My hon. Friend mentioned housing supply problems. It is particularly unfortunate that, at a time when second home ownership is growing rapidly and the buy-to-let market has been flourishing, 80 per cent. of aspiring first-time buyers cannot afford to get their first toe on the property ladder. That has implications not only for key workers, important though they are, but for the entire London economy. It fuels the desire for higher wages so that people can afford housing costs. The house price to average income ratio is 4:8 in London. double the figure in the northern regions. The average private rent is three times higher in London and there are more than 60,000 families in temporary accommodation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important that the Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should consider the traditional forms of affordable housing? I was advised the other day that some affordable housing had been designated in a new development in my constituency, for which it would be necessary for purchasers to obtain a mortgage of £425,000. In most people's minds, that could not possibly be described as affordable housing.

My hon. Friend is right. There are two issues. One is to make key worker housing affordable. I have experience of shared ownership projects costing £300,000. The second issue is to be rigorous in ensuring that when we speak about affordable housing, we mean not only buying homes. There is and will remain a substantial minority of people who require affordable housing to rent. That is where there is the greatest squeeze.

I hope that, when the Chancellor comes to consider the next spending review over the long term, not only is the argument for the capital infrastructure made, but we take urgent action to tackle the barriers that result in London having both a flourishing labour market and a very substantial minority of its population locked out of the available jobs.

rose—

Order. I cautioned Members earlier that they would have to be brief if they all wanted to get in. I now caution them to be very brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing the debate. As there is a London mayoral election in the offing, it does not surprise me at all that the London lobby is asking for yet more of the nation's resources for the city.

I concede readily that London makes a net contribution to the rest of the UK economy. It is the centre of one of the most centralised states in Europe and it has the vast majority of the nation's resources. It would be foolish to deny that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes that the interdependency between London and the other regions and nations of the United Kingdom is more complicated than he outlined in his simplistic opening argument.

I have often been depressed by the terms in which the situation is depicted. I remember sporadic jock-bashing episodes in the London Evening Standard—that we are all subsidy junkies, whingers and moaners. I hope that the debate has moved on from those days, but if London wants to go another couple of rounds, it must accept a few unalterable facts.

London is the most prosperous city in Europe. Its gross domestic product of £170 billion is larger than that of some of our European friends and allies, including, for example, Austria, Belgium, Finland and Sweden.

London has more millionaires per square mile than any other European city and contains the City of London, perhaps the most dynamic and prosperous financial sector outwith New York. London's economy is one of the most successful on earth, and it still seems to be a desirable place to live, as evidenced by the rising house prices and increase in population.

I concede that London has its problems. There is poverty in some of its boroughs and its transport system has struggled to cope with increased traffic. However, if anything, London is a victim of its own success. As its prosperity has continued to grow—a gulf has developed between it and the rest of the UK, and it is growing each year—it has become a magnet, with people wanting to come here. We should try to dissipate and redistribute what London has to the other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. That would make other places more attractive and some of London's problems could be alleviated.

Although we have devolution, the UK is still one of the most centralised nations in the world. People tend to forget that all the big Departments of State are based in London. Other than the Scottish and Welsh Executives, every Government Department is based in London, generating billions of pounds for its economy. It is extraordinary how little Londoners realise that. They probably see No. 10 and the big, grey buildings in Whitehall, but I am sure that they have no idea how much they contribute to the London economy. The same is true of the art galleries, museums and other tourist attractions that generate 30 million visitors a year. That is the hidden subsidy that London receives from the UK taxpayer, and that is not even to mention the headquarters of national organisations, quangos and the BBC.

London also does very well in identifiable spending, with London and the south-east securing 80 per cent. of all transport expenditure. The extension of the Jubilee line cost £3.5 billion alone, and heaven knows how much the proposed Crossrail will cost. As was noted in an intervention, Londoners do very well in spending per head, although I will not go over the figures again.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell any of the 65,000 homeless families—65 per cent. of the UK total—currently living in London in tacky and dreadful temporary accommodation that everything is so wonderful here?

I concede that London has problems. As I said, it is a victim of its own success, and because it is prosperous, more and more people want to settle here. In Scotland we face the problem of depopulation, as London is a magnet for so many of our talented and bright young people because of its economic activity and prosperity. I suggest that we try to redistribute some of that so that we do not have the problems of depopulation in Scotland and other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. We should try to make the most over-centralised state in Europe more of a level playing field for our young people.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of decentralisation that he suggests is carried out against the poorest people in London? They are made an offer of moving to unlettable council accommodation in the north-east or north-west of England, thus leaving behind education, jobs, family and other relationships. In reality, we decant the poor and most vulnerable out of London to make way for the most wealthy.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would settle for some of those people coming to Scotland. We have depopulation. We need people and skills to come to our nation to help rebuild what is still very much a struggling economy. The economy is overheating in London and the south-east, and he seems to suggest stoking up the fire. I think that we should light a few more fires throughout the United Kingdom so that we have some of London's economic activity. Scotland has a stagnant economy; London is dynamic and going forward, and we should try to redistribute those qualities.

London is so rich and powerful because all the headquarters are located in the city and all corporation and other taxes are paid here. For example, BP and Shell have productive oil fields just off the coast of Scotland, but the taxes and revenues go to London. If the GDP from that were included in Scotland's statistics, it would look much richer and London would look much poorer. That would go some way to redress the balance and deal with what seems to be a fiscal deficit between London and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I read an interesting report by the London School of Economics, which suggested that 4 million jobs in the rest of the UK depend on London's demand for goods and services. That is again due to headquartering. Marks and Spencer, for example, depends very much on the activities of its stores throughout the rest of the UK, and the same is true of Barclays bank and other national companies that have headquarters based in London.

All that may be necessary and we might have to revisit some of the investment issues as they relate to London, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who made the case for London once again, that it is a victim of its own success. We should try to redistribute some of its massive wealth and resources, and I am sure that we could address some of its key problems.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing it. I hope to highlight the key role that London plays in the UK as well as the difficult and specific problems facing London's public services.

I begin with the obviously contentious premise that what benefits London benefits the entire UK. Although it is necessary to acknowledge the real differences between London and the rest of UK, it is equally important to acknowledge how crucial London is for the life of the UK as a whole. Investment in London is investment in the UK and will help to ensure that London continues to contribute more resources to central Government than it receives in spending, as it very much does at the moment.

Needless to say, there are London-specific problems, especially in education, health and the recruitment and retention of public service staff, which should be urgently addressed by increased investment. London's wealth and reputation may give it an air of vitality and luxury but, in reality, it is a city that suffers from a variety of crippling social and economic problems. If London is to continue in its robust role at the centre of the UK economy, it will be essential to stress the specific issues of London's health, education and public service staff.

London is a truly global city with more internationally oriented businesses than any other city in the UK. Those businesses and general foreign investment are attracted by London's ability to offer, among other things, access to vast markets, a deep pool of highly qualified labour and a concentration of business activities that is unmatched elsewhere in the UK. It is essential to appreciate that if those businesses were to relocate, they would not readily go anywhere else in the UK, but would be likely to re-establish themselves in other countries. Investing and spending in London to maintain and further improve its position on the world stage is therefore crucial if the UK is to hold on to the benefits that such global businesses bring.

It must be stressed that London's continued success as a world city represents an indisputable opportunity for the rest of the UK. London garners financial resources through its position in the world markets, attracts highly skilled persons to the UK and helps to generate highly productive businesses. Additionally, foreign investment in London often permeates through to other regions.

The hon. Gentleman is describing central London. Does he appreciate the difference between central London, which attracts the sort of investment that he describes, and outer London constituencies, such as Upminster and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)? Those local authorities are net contributors to Greater London schemes and suffer from a leaching of funds into central London. Outer London districts are in a different position to the one that he describes.

I understand what the hon. Lady says, but I remind her of the comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), whose contributions I listen to carefully. He recognised that inner London is the poorest area of the country and has the greatest problems. In my constituency, some of the wealthiest people in the UK live next door, albeit somewhat uneasily, to some of the poorest. It is essential that London's role in the economy is recognised by central Government and the Mayor.

More activity in London means more growth in other parts of the UK. London's higher productivity—25 per cent. higher than the national average—results in competitive pressure spreading outside London, helping to raise productivity across the rest of the UK. Investment in London is essential to ensure that London continues to contribute more to central Government. As my hon. Friend said, London contributed significantly more to central Government in 2001 than it received in spending. Recent tax policies, such as higher stamp duty, are likely to have tilted the tax burden towards London so that the flow of resources from the capital may have increased since 2001. I recognise that London, as the wealthiest region in the UK, should contribute more in taxation than it receives in expenditure. Yet for London to continue to generate the output and activity that enable it to make such an invaluable contribution to the UK, increased spending and investment must be provided.

Unfortunately, due to financial constraints, traditional Government methods of investment and spending are unlikely to meet London's need to continue to compete effectively. Therefore, we urgently need to consider more flexible methods of financing, whether that is prudential or other forms of borrowing from the Greater London authority. London's economic progress and evolution requires openness and adaptability on the part of central Government. I urge the Minister to address her reply specifically to my hon. Friend's question about whether the Government are giving careful consideration to the Mayor's request to be given extra borrowing powers.

rose—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman promises to be extremely brief, I can just about squeeze him in

The extremity of my brevity will be noticeable. Some hon. Members might feel that I have got a cheek taking part in the debate, not least because I represent a Welsh constituency—I see two hon. Friends nodding in agreement. However, I dissociate myself from the truculent attack on London that we heard from the Scottish Nationalists. It is wholly unhelpful, futile and economically naive to attack London from an ideological position, rather than trying to build a stronger IJK economy, in which we rely on one another.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) referred to poverty and wealth in London as being cheek by jowl. For many years, people in the Rhondda used to say, "We didn't have any cheek; we just had the jowl." That is one of the economic problems faced by somewhere such as the Rhondda, which is geographically isolated not only from London, but from the Welsh capital city of Cardiff. Yet the ties that bind the Rhondda to London's economy are significant. London is a gateway for tourism for the whole of the United Kingdom, because the vast majority of international travellers come through London and are bound always so to do. We must ensure that those tourists do not visit only London, because if they have seen only London, they have not seen the United Kingdom. London cannot take the benefit that it would like to if people do not visit the north-west and northeast of England, south Wales, and especially the Rhondda.

Similarly, the financial services industry, which is the backbone of the London economy, weighs heavily on the people of the Rhondda. The Treasury Committee recently produced a report on the transparency of credit card charges. I urge hon. Members to read about the devastation that irresponsible marketing by credit card companies can inflict on a community such as the Rhondda, where people end up sleepwalking into debt that they will never be able to repay. As we learned last week, light-touch regulation of financial services is in danger of being featherweight. If there is no regulation of the financial services industry, or so little that consumers are not protected, the people of the Rhondda, who have higher personal debt than many in Cardiff or London, will suffer significantly.

I am wearing a Burberry tie, partly because Burberry products are made in the Rhondda, as well as in London. Economic decisions taken by the big houses in London affect what is left of the manufacturing industry in south Wales, yet the "man from Del Monte" attitude is often brought from London or international businesses to United Polymers or Chubbs in the Rhondda, which are told, "I know it costs £1.5p to make it this year, but next year we want it for 95p." There are better ways of enforcing productivity gains in the UK than that heavy-handedness.

Of course I want London to prosper, as any sane British person would, but my biggest worry is that it will be difficult if we remain exiled from the euro. London is the most expensive city in Europe, which is partly because we are still exiled from the single currency that is driving down prices throughout the rest of Europe.

Our financial services industry is likely to be threatened if we remain outside the euro. Trade and inward investment, which is growing in countries that have adopted the single currency, is being hit in the United Kingdom. If we do not join the euro our jobs will be threatened.

congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing the debate. His speech captured the paradox in the debate, as there are positive things to say about London but many problems, too. Equally, London Members across the board have the feeling that they are underfinanced. I particularly identified with the comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about police funding, which is a classic example of how the formula works against London boroughs.

An equally understandable feeling was expressed by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who was present for a short time, and by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), that the British economy is seriously unbalanced and London is over-dominant. I entirely understand that point of view; I grew up in Yorkshire, spent my early professional life in Glasgow and I represent a London constituency. I see every aspect of the problem and I sympathise with those who believe that Britain's decision making and much of its wealth is over-centralised.

It is worth briefly reviewing the positive aspects of London. It accounts for a fifth of GDP and it is more dynamic than the rest of the economy. In the past decade, 360,000 net new people have come to the capital. London is growing more rapidly than the national average and its average income is well above that of the country as a whole, although there are vast disparities within the city.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) captured that point well, as his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) embody the problem. There is an enormous dual economy within the capital city. My constituency, which is a relatively prosperous suburban area, more closely resembles Chipping Barnet and Upminster, but there are pockets of extreme deprivation in council estates in my constituency that are as bad as any in London, or in Britain. The problem is balancing the different factors.

Various London problems have surfaced, the first of which is unemployment. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead stressed it enough, but London now has a significantly higher average rate of unemployment than any region of the UK. It is 7.5 per cent. higher than Scotland, which used to be at the top of the league, or the north-east. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North asked why otherwise relatively successful programmes such as the new deal do not appear to work in London. The answer is that they do not shift the labour market.

At a local level, one can see what is going wrong. In my constituency there is a chronic labour shortage. Students work in term time because they need the money, and they, along with people from eastern Europe, keep the service economy going. Five miles down the road, there is double-digit unemployment, but people cannot work in Twickenham because they do not have the skills or cannot afford the bus or train fares.

At my surgery on Friday night, I encountered a young man who embodied the problem. He was a young man from tragic family circumstances, but who had managed to end up living in a social housing scheme. He was enterprising and had got himself a place on an industrial apprenticeship, but that was in north-west London and his home is in south-west London. He had done his sums and, on fairly low pay, after paying his rent and rates, he was bringing home £40 a week to live on. However, of that £40, £30 has to go on transport. Obviously, he cannot live on that, so he is running up rent arrears, and he will either have to give up his flat or his apprenticeship. Many young working-class people are in that dilemma. We need some explanation of why the existing schemes, which are designed at a national level, do not work more effectively in the capital.

I would like to ask another question specifically on the employment market and Government intervention, although I do not know whether the Minister has the answers or whether the question should be put to the Mayor of London. What is happening with the London Development Agency? Its chief executive and most of its senior staff have left, almost all of its operational targets seem to have been missed, and the organisation is in extreme crisis. Do central Government have any role in the matter, and can they explain what is going on?

My first set of questions related to employment and the odd and distorted nature of the London employment market. My second set of questions relates to the housing market. My suburban constituency may not be typical, but when a modest semi-detached house costs £200,000 or more, one can see the horrible distortions that that creates. I do not think that any of my house-owning constituents would be eligible for legal aid because of the asset value of their property.

Such a level of house prices creates an impossible barrier to entry for working people. On the traditional income multiplier of three, one needs a joint family income of £65,000 to contemplate buying a house, and of course most people do not have that. Consequently,people in modest professional jobs—working-class people have no hope whatever in that market—such as teachers or doctors with an income of £40,000 are buying houses at five times their income. They are therefore horribly over-exposed, and if the housing market turns down, as it probably will, they are potentially in jeopardy. That problem is partly related to the lack of new home building —particularly social housing—but is also a by-product of the overall crisis in the housing market.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead was right to suggest that overcrowding and long journey times are a major economic impediment. I support what he said about the East London line and about Crossrail, which would be a major advantage to the capital. However, I agree with hon. Members from outside London that those big transport projects have to be funded predominantly through the private sector. There is no reason why Crossrail should not be funded in that way, with additional funding provided through a supplement on rates in those areas that will derive enhanced value from the project, as they almost certainly will. There may be some pump priming from the Government, but the funding should come predominantly from the private sector.

On the funding issue, I agree with hon. Members who complain about the vast disproportion in public funding. There is an issue here that is related to what Galbraith called

"private affluence and public squalor "

It is not all private affluence in London, although there are some very affluent private individuals, but there is public squalor. That squalor is partly attributable to the distribution of national funding, however that is calculated; the share of public spending in the regional GDP of London is far lower than it is nationally. That accounts for the fact that all public services in London are seriously overstretched.

My party believes that we have to open that terrible can of worms called the Barnett formula. I know that that is a difficult issue because there will always be the sense that there will he losers if other people are gainers, but that issue must be faced. We must examine the potential for a need-based allocation formula.

Does the hon. Gentleman also concede that part of the problem about the lack of investment in affordable publicly-owned housing in London is that, at headline level, the figures seem enormous, but to build a council house in London costs vastly more than it does to build one in the midlands or the north-east of England, let alone in Scotland or Wales? We are based on a national formula of what is spent on housing but, in reality, we receive far less for our money in London than elsewhere, hence the lack of affordable housing throughout London and the fact that the situation is becoming worse.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am in favour of drastic solutions and local planning committees. In addition, London government must insist on a tough application of either a 40 or 50 per cent. rule for social housing in commercial housing developments. Throughout my constituency, blocks of 14 private homes are being constructed because that is just under the threshold for social housing, and little social housing is being built. It is a scandal and the Government should be dealing with it.

My last point is about regional balance. I share the view of non-London Members. The UK economy is seriously unbalanced. The reference to the headquartering problem was absolutely right, but we cannot direct the headquarters of private companies to the provinces; they will go elsewhere. What can happen is that the Government take responsibility for relocating some of their own activities. I have adopted the controversial slogan of sending the Treasury to Liverpool. The Minister might welcome that because it would be nearer to her constituency.

Apart from the merits of the proposal, which would save enormous rental levels between central London, the north-west of England or other parts of the north, it is a metaphor, not a specific proposal. It is a suggestion that the Government use their own leverage in respect of decision making and employment, of which there is an over-concentration in London, and relocate much of it. I hope that the Lyons proposals will be reflected in the Budget.

London is a world city. Make no mistake, if its economy fails, the UK economy will fail. There is no doubt that London faces intense competition from a range of countries. I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) because I do not believe that competition comes only from Europe. Increasingly, it is coming from further overseas. My medium-term sights are not on Paris or Frankfurt as financial centres, but on cities that have featured in my working life, such as Shanghai and Bombay. They will be the competition in the future, and that is something that the Treasury and Chancellor should pay considerably more attention to than has been the caw hitherto.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on introducing such a timely and important debate. By my calculation, he is the sixth longest-serving London Member of Parliament and, indeed, one of the five slightly more senior, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). Like me, the hon. Gentleman has the interests of the capital close to his heart. Since I have been an hon. Member, he has introduced similar debates.

Like all of us here, the hon. Gentleman has an eye on the general election. I want to take this opportunity to plug our own excellent local candidate in Leyton and Wanstead, Julien Fester, who requires a mere 19.2 per cent. swing to secure the seat from the Labour party at the next election. If the hon. Gentleman is a little complacent about such matters, I wish to point out that I am just old enough to remember a time when Leyton was a Conservative-held seat. That was at the famous 1965 by-election. I was only three months old. My mother told me that I cried all day, but I am sure that that had nothing to do with the fact that Labour had been defeated.

I shall return to the excellent debate. The historical importance of London goes back some 2,000 years. That makes it unusual. For example, Berlin was a small town in as recently as 1750, and cities such as Chicago barely existed 170 years ago. Therein lies a real problem. I refer to the sheer dominance of London and, to that extent, I accept what the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said. Today, London is the political, commercial and cultural centre of our nation. Many from outside the capital city cast an envious eye over London's successes without perhaps appreciating some of its failures and problems, and wish at times to bring it down to size.

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead rightly said that London is the historic seat of democratic government and the monarchy in this country. I also agree with his comments about the large working population and the fact that that brings with it a lot of choice and innovation. London has a unique importance as a city and is the main driver of the UK economy. His message to the Minister was clear, and I think that I speak on behalf of all London Members who have contributed when I say that we hope that the Government will stand and deliver.

The Minister may have entered the debate with a somewhat heavy heart, but she will have realised from the contributions made on both sides of the Chamber that there is a great deal of unity among London Members on a number of these issues. I suspect that one of the usurpers, the hon. Member for North Tayside, might think that the debate constitutes a lot of whingeing from London Members. but he should hear what we say about Scottish Members in the Tea Room when we have discussed these matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet wisely recognised the deep disparities in wealth between areas and even within districts in London. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), my constituency next-door neighbour, rightly outlined the crucial importance of Crossrail. The investment here in infrastructure projects, and Crossrail in particular, will benefit the nation at large. Indeed, I think that she said that it would prospectively generate very large tax revenues. Likewise, she emphasised the importance of employment and unemployment issues, child care provision and affordable housing for key workers, whether in the public or private sectors.

The hon. Member for North Tayside acknowledged how highly centralised the UK has become, arid London is at its core. He also raised the notion of redistribution of much of the economic wealth that London creates. He is right to an extent when he says that London is a victim of its own success, particularly on issues of infrastructure, be it transport, health or education. I am not sure that I have all the answers, and I do not necessarily ask the Minister to produce them, but I will be interested to hear what she has to say on the hon. Gentleman's interesting and important contribution.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) made the case strongly for London housing the deepest pool of our qualified labour. He was right to point out that relocating much of our labour stock is easier said than done. Equally, he rightly recognised that about 65 per cent. of homelessness in the UK as a whole is in the capital.

The hon. Member for Rhondda re-established his new Labour credentials, in so far as they ever needed reestablishing, with admirable aplomb. Seriously, he made a relevant and focused speech on a number of issues, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

London's role as a global trading centre provides a great historical focus for Britain's outward-looking approach. It is often said that 55 per cent. of our trade is with mainland Europe—the European Union nations. Indeed, that is often used as an argument as to why we should join the single currency, but I say forcefully that the logical corollary is that 45 per cent. of our trade is with nations outside the EU. Often, they are the largest-growing and fastest-growing nations and will be the trading partners for the future.

It is precisely the nations that are choosing to do business with other countries in Europe that have joined the single currency. It is for the trade that we do with eurozone countries, and the fact that countries outside are choosing to do business with France, Germany, Italy and Spain rather than Britain, that we need to make the change.

It is fair to say that we have done significant trading with many of those nations, but let us be honest: the power of the English language is an important part of that. The power of relatively deregulated employment markets—they were certainly very deregulated before 1997—has also made a difference in that regard.

London's historical trading is at the forefront of fostering and developing the links with some of the future economic powerhouses of the world. Equally, London's pre-eminence means that, as a city, we are estimated to contribute £15 billion to £20 billion to the rest of the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet pointed out. I am not arguing that London should hold on to what might be considered our money, but I should like to make some observations and I hope that the Minister will consider them in summing up the debate.

We must remember that London is the showcase for the entire country, not only for tourists but for all overseas visitors, people who want to come and live here, and a significant number of businesses that wish to invest in the UK. Many businesses that invest outside the capital have representative offices in London. Therefore, investing in London's infrastructure is of key importance.

I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I was going to say what she said—that there is a risk that we will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Indeed, I was going to use those very words. Failure to invest in the capital's infrastructure might have serious medium-term consequences. I hope that the Minister will take this matter to the Chancellor because what we are debating is the need for a vision about a wide range of economic and spending priorities for decades to come.

The debate addresses local government funding as a whole. I impress upon the Minister the need to keep more of business rates in the hands of London's local government. That would help to fund vital services, such as the underground, Crossrail and health and education. The contribution of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) leads me to state that national pay bargaining helps to discriminate against London's poorest workers; we need to have a realistic London weighting regime.

The lesson of this debate is that all Members—not only London Members—should seek to praise, not to bury, our capital city. Now is not a time for self-congratulatory complacency, but we must also not subsume London's economic success by introducing ever more tax regulation and Government obstruction. London's initiative and innovation is key to our economic welfare in the years ahead.

On regulation, I take on board what the Minister said about the debate around the Penrose report on Equitable Life; I listened to that in great detail with my City of London hat on. I suspect that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) wishes to say a few words on that.

Almost. The hon. Gentleman has a concern for light-touch regulation. I want him to turn his mind to social housing for just a second, and support all other London Members from other parties who want 50 per cent. social housing on all new development sites—not just those with more than 15 units.

My concern is that when I talk to developers in Westminster, many of them say to me up front that if they are told that they must have a 50 per cent. social housing requirement for residential accommodation, that does not make it worth their while to develop and they will sit on their hands. I appreciate that Westminster is an exceptional case. The set rule that the Mayor has proposed sounds sensible superficially.

Whatever target is set for the proportion of social housing, we must appreciate that key workers are people who work in the private sector as well as the public sector. The glue of many of our communities is people who are in relatively low-paid employment but are not necessarily paid from the public purse, such as many shopkeepers. We need a more innovative approach to this matter, particularly in central London where, as has been pointed out, there are strong pressures.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Mayor not only suggested the figure of 50 per cent. but commissioned considerable research into where that would be a reasonable target. The hon. Gentleman says that Westminster is not such a place, but the research clearly showed that that was not an unreasonable figure to ask for in Westminster.

I talk directly with many property owners. They might not be the most Livingstone-friendly people. It is a grave concern that if a set target is in place it might be too inflexible for us to achieve the goals that we all want to achieve. There is not much difference in outlook and in the goals that we all want to achieve. We all appreciate that one of the joys of living in London is that the community is diverse, in all senses of that word. do not want to see ghettoisation, either of very wealthy or very poor people, in parts of our capital city. We must allow flexibility to work to best effect.

I met last week the chief executive of Berkeley Homes, Tony Pidgeley, who spoke glowingly of his relationship with the current Mayor. I mentioned to him two developments in my constituency—one at Imperial wharf, where St. Georges and the council reached an agreement, and one on the former Queen Charlotte's site—where the proportion of affordablec housing would be 50 and 85 per cent. respectively. May I suggest that the hon Gentleman tells the Westminster planners to talk to their colleagues in the London borough of Hammersmith?

I shall certainly make such a request, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will have even more joy directly to his left, with the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. On a serious note, I should also be happy to meet the managing director of Berkeley Homes. It would be useful to glean his views.

I was about to sit down to allow the Minister to take the hot spot. However, in summary, I hope that she will recognise that innovation and initiative are key to London's success, as they have been for 2,000 years. Innovation has an important part to play in our economy, and I hope that she will take on board many of the diverse issues that have been raised during this excellent debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing this important debate. His contribution was useful and interesting, as were contributions from all parties today.

I should like to start by saying that I do not think that there is a divide between what is good for London and what is good for the rest of the UK economy. I could not agree more with my lion. Friend that London is a highly productive environment. He pointed to the fact that productivity in London's economy is 25 per cent. above the national average; in fact, it is closer to US levels of productivity than to average EU levels, for instance. London makes a huge contribution to the UK economy.

It is not, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) seemed to suggest at some points in his speech, a question of somehow redistributing what London has to the rest of the 15K economy. It is a question of recognising London's strengths, addressing its weaknesses, overcoming the constraints on its growth and-—as he said at other points in his speech—stoking fires in the other regions of the UK to try to create there the innovation, enterprise, creativity and dynamism that are found in London. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) that London's highly competitive environment, its innovation and its enterprise are among its greatest strengths.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who says that London acts not just as a gateway from Europe to Britain, but as a gateway for tourists to other parts of the UK, including his constituency in Wales. It is important for other parts of the UK that London prospers and thrives. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster stressed, London is a world-class financial centre, and it is important to foster its strengths. It is also important that it is outward looking and that it looks not just to Europe, but to the United States and cities in the far east. It is central to the Government's strategy that we have tried to create a dynamic centre of growth that looks more broadly afield, not just to its neighbours but to other parts of the world economy. We have tried to get that message across to our European neighbours, so that we have a vibrant EU economy that looks outwards, rather than inwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead recognises—indeed, he is keenly aware—that the financial services strength of London is one of the key issues that we consider when assessing the five tests on the euro.

In the remaining time I shall try to address the points raised in today's debate. A prosperous and successful London is, as I said, essential for a prosperous United Kingdom. Along with the south-east and the east of the UK, London is a net contributor to the Exchequer, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Some estimates have put the contribution from London to the rest of the UK economy at between £7 billion and £17 billion a year. London is not more heavily taxed than elsewhere in the UK. That contribution is a consequence of the UK's progressive tax system, where the wealthy contribute proportionately more than the poor. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is fair and right.

I must, however, correct a misinterpretation among some hon. Members that London does less well in terms of spending per head. I have checked, and according to the latest figures on spending per head in each region, spending per head in London was £117 in 2001–02, compared with the average of £ 100. There is more public spending per head in London than in any other region of the UK.

The hon. Lady said that Londoners are not taxed more than people in other regions. She will know that because of the extreme additional costs, there is a London weighting system for most jobs. She might like to confirm that the London weighting element is still taxed by the Exchequer. It is not untaxed.

As I said, the fact that London is a net contributor to the UK economy is merely a function of a progressive tax system, which is supported by all in the House. London is unique and has special factors—many of which I will address in a moment—and we are trying to deal with those in London-specific ways, some of which have been raised today.

On the subject of regional allocations of money, the Minister will have heard my intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about housing allocations. The reality is that substantial sums of money going into London do not go very far because of high land costs. Is the Minister prepared to review social housing allocations to London so that we get more properties for rent? That is the only way to deal with the terrible housing crisis that Londoners face.

My hon. Friend is aware that the Treasury set up the Barker review to consider the responsiveness of housing supply and to address some of these issues. There will be an update on that in next week's Budget. I shall not pre-empt any announcements today. However, the Treasury is concerned with the housing market supply, the planning system and the responsiveness of the housing market.

Several hon. Members spoke about transport infrastructure. Public spending on transport in London is two and three-quarter times the UK average. Improved transport structure is essential to ensuring that London remains internationally competitive and that people are able to realise their full potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead spoke about some of our ambitious plans, even in his own constituency—for example, the Thames gateway project. There is also the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor, which is creating high quality mixed communities to meet the growth pressures that success brings.

Hon. Members spoke about Crossrail. I cannot give any definitive answers, other than to say that, as they are no doubt aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the detailed advice on that subject that he received from Adrian Montague. He will publicise his findings in due course.

Transport Ministers have just received the Strategic Rail Authority's procurement proposals for taking forward the East London line extension. I understand that that will be considered in the context of the forthcoming spending review. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead can look forward to that process. Transport will remain a vital component of London's economic strength. As he knows, the Government are committed to very long-term investment programmes in London, as in the rest of the UK.

The Government provide strong support to the Greater London authority, and the budget for the group as a whole was about £7.5 billion last year. More than half of that was provided by central Government. Fares and fees provided almost 40 per cent. of the budget, with the council tax precept providing the remainder. The London boroughs control a similar sum, spending approximately £7 billion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who secured the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) raised the question of whether the Greater London authority should be allowed to borrow. I may be able to clarify the proposals that the Treasury has agreed. From 1 April 2004, the prudential borrowing regime will give the GLA and other local authorities new freedoms to borrow to meet capital expenditure needs in London. The Government have imposed no upper borrowing cap for 2004–05. That new flexibility will increase Transport for London's ability to meet the capital's transport requirements. I am not sure whether the Mayor is asking for greater borrowing flexibility than the Treasury has proposed, but it may want to discuss those proposals with him to see if they meets his, and its, concerns.

The London Development Agency, one of the GLA bodies, also plays a key role. I noted the concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on that score. The issue is one for the Mayor and the GLA, although of course the Government take a keen interest in the LDA's internal restructuring and how it has pledged to improve its service delivery. The LDA focuses on maintaining and enhancing London's international competitiveness and position as one of the world's leading economic centres, thus acting as a driver for the nation's economy. The LDA also addresses some of the market failures in the capital, particularly those associated with the high cost of housing, which I have already mentioned. child care, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), and business premises.

Many of my hon. Friends and others stressed the stark disparity in wealth in London. There are disparities between ethnic groups, between types of household, between areas of London, and between those with higher qualifications and those with lower qualifications. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham, key problems are levels of unemployment, which remain higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom economy, particularly longterm unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned the difficulties in respect of child care that have to be overcome before many people, particularly lone parents, can enter into the world of work.

Many Londoners find that they are ill-equipped to access its opportunities. They experience poverty, poor health and social exclusion as a consequence. The Government's strategy for tackling child poverty is multifaceted, but perhaps the most important part is to help each family to secure a decent family income, with work for those who can, and support for those who cannot work.

Some 20 per cent. of all lone parents live in London. We have considered that group in particular when trying to design schemes that make it easier for lone parents to get back into the work force. On child care, we are aware that affordability remains a problem in parts of London among particular groups. That is being examined in the context of the ongoing child care review, which will be taken into account in the spending review proposals. so my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North can be reassured that the issue is being taken seriously by the Government.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the Cabinet Office strategy unit's report on London, which has been completed and is being considered by Ministers. A decision on publication is due to be made shortly. That is an ongoing process that will feed into the Government's strategy on London.

In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. If there are issues to which I have not had time to respond, I will be happy to take them up and respond to them afterwards. The debate has been extremely worth while and broad. I look forward not only to continuing to champion the cause of London in the UK economy, but to creating an environment in which other regions have the opportunity to share similar types of prosperity to those experienced in parts of the London region.

I am pleased to have secured this debate. I stress at the outset that the subject of extending Sure Start is firmly set within the early years framework and is in recognition of the Government's massive commitment to, funding of and progress on that sector.

I remind hon. Members that the key developments to date include the national child care strategy, which was launched in 1998 to ensure accessible, affordable and quality child care. There have been huge expansions in child care provision in the public, private and voluntary sectors. So far, 1.6 million children have benefited, and that figure is set to rise to 2 million by 2006. Neighbourhood nurseries are providing 50,000 new places, of which 45,000 have been given. Sure Start local programmes, of which there are 524, and mini-programmes have made an enormous contribution.

A network of children's centres is rolling out in disadvantaged areas and extending the Sure Start principle. It is providing good-quality child care, early education, family and health services, alongside training and employment advice. All those programmes are rightly located in the Sure Start unit. They do not constitute all the initiatives, but they are important measures to support families and to lift children out of poverty. No Government have done as much on that agenda.

In 1997, following the comprehensive spending review, a cross-cutting review was set up of services for young children. That was on the basis of concern that those services were not functioning adequately, that money was not effectively spent and that they were failing those in greatest need. The review's findings confirmed those concerns. Therefore, in 1998, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced plans for Sure Start to bring together quality integrated services for under-threes through community-based local settings.

The rationale for the programme was the evidence base from the United States programmes, which were targeted at poorer children. For example, Early Head Start in the USA found that, for every $1 spent in early years intervention, $4 was saved in crime, social security and mental health costs. There were statistically significant positive impacts on learning, social emotional development and parenting outcomes. Similarly, an evaluation of the Perry pre-school study by High/Scope found that, when 27-year-olds went through the programme, there was a positive impact in terms of arrests, drug dealing, earnings. education performance and stable relationships. There were also enormous cost-benefits. The study described it as

"an extremely good economic investment, better than the stock market during the same period of time"

The National Evaluation of Sure Start was set up to examine its effectiveness and impact on children, families and communities. Its methodological report executive summary noted that the Sure Start model presumes that changes in existing services will lead to improved service delivery and, ultimately, to enhanced child, family and community functioning.

The programmes were to be targeted at the 20 per cent. poorest wards and were to be rolled out in six waves. Sure Start in Erewash is in the fifth wave. NESS agreed with that targeted decision because local programme areas experienced consistently worse deprivation across a number of indicators, including child and adult health, educational achievement, school behaviour, crime, unemployment and benefit dependency.

The common features for each programme are mandatory. It must provide outreach and home visiting, support for families and parents, good-quality play and learning, primary and community health care, support for children and parents to access services, and parental representation on local boards. To make progress, beyond those core elements there is a higher degree of flexibility. Innovation and local initiative are positively encouraged.

Four objectives to improve Sure Start service delivery were initially set, and a fifth has since been added. They are improving social and emotional development; improving health; improving learning; strengthening families and communities; and the availability of accessible, affordable and quality child care, which was added later. For each objective, public service agreements or targets are attached. Initial targets have been amended and further developed to include, for example, increasing the number of households with someone working, and improving children's language development.

Some initial targets and outcomes have been reported on. There has been success in reducing the number of children re-registered on the child protection register, which was an early target that no longer exists. The number of parents going back to work from households where no one was working has also gone up. Parents say that the information that is given h good, and nine out of 10 parents reported improvements in the quality of services. Sure Start was in contact with 90 per cent. of parents within two months of birth, and that target has been adjusted slightly to include contact prior to birth. The only target that is significantly failing is that for the reduction in pregnant mums' smoking.

Studies in the United States took a long time to produce a through-life evaluation, because benefits of these schemes are short, medium and long term. Nevertheless, there is encouraging progress. A 2002 report by NESS noted high pa rental involvement, voluntary organisations engaged in nearly all partnerships, a wide range of mechanisms to access services, good progress on partnership working, and an encouraging number of volunteers coming forward, with an average of 20 for each scheme. The flexibility given to local programmes has allowed them to be innovative and to respond to their communities. Many right hon. and hon. Members have heaped praise on their own local programmes, because they, like me, can see them working.

Erewash Sure Start has hit the ground running following best partnership multidisciplinary working with parents in key positions. There are many innovative programmes. For example, one notable achievement is the removal of all children in the scheme from the waiting list for a speech therapist—they now all have one. Volunteering is also excellent.

There are many other examples of success, which have been quoted before. In Corby, the number of children who have a special needs assessment before entering school has been cut by 10 per cent. In Leicester, children's referrals to emergency social services have been cut by 40 per cent. Leicester has also improved and expanded breast cancer counselling support by delivering it through a volunteering parent group, which has been trained. Interestingly, that peer approach is working much better than using professionals. In a London borough, children who were referred to the early years programme by social services are now performing as well at key stage 1 as children from far more advantageous homes.

Today's debate is about extending Sure Start, and the Children Bill is an exemplary way forward. It sets a sound statutory framework for partnership working; common objectives, a common assessment and an integrated inspection framework; rationalised budgets and simplified funding; greater freedoms and flexibilities for local circumstances; the commissioning of key services through a children's trust; the appointment of children's directors; and better information sharing and parental involvement. That is all to be welcomed. Local flexibility is at the heart of the Bill.

However, I want to see early intervention and co-located services in all areas, as Sure Start programmes have been a resounding success, meeting need while retaining individuality. I flag up my concerns about the tentative words in paragraph 3.10 of "Every child matters:the next steps". We want all local authorities and children's trusts to consider co-locating health, family and parenting support services for children and their families within good-quality early education and child care settings. That will provide easier access to a wide range of support for the whole family.

Ideally, I want that to be firmed up. Such an approach is a proven recipe for success, evidenced in the US schemes and the encouraging outcomes from our own local programmes and children's centres. Also, children's trusts are not statutory organisations, although they are expected to consider joint commissioning. On that point, appointments of children's directors are key to the success of early years arrangements. I seek reassurance that that process will be extremely rigorous. Will regional Sure Start managers, or local managers with excellent track records be involved in such appointments? Vitally, will parents and young people be involved?

My right hon. Friend the Minister recognises that the Children Bill is the first step in a long-term programme of change, with the last directors not in place until 2008. In the meantime, 46 per cent. of deprived children live outside the 20 per cent. most deprived wards. As Sure Start has proved its worth, I am impatient for further local progress. There is much best practice and good partnership working to build on.

My hon. Friend is referring to the extension of Sure Start, but she referred earlier to the success of Sure Start in her constituency in taking children off the waiting list for speech therapists. Unfortunately, that is not true in my constituency, and I know that there is a shortage of speech therapists around the country. The ability of a child to express themselves is one of the most important parts of their self-development. Does my hon. Friend hope that in conjunction with the expansion of Sure Start there will be an expansion of speech therapist provision?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that there is not only an intention, but a programme to ensure that more speech therapists are trained. I was surprised that the scheme in my constituency managed to secure the professional work of a speech therapist, but apparently that was quite easy. However, I will wait for the Minister to confirm that speech therapy is a priority.

Camden is an example of a council that has forged ahead of the game. It has had an early years focus for many years. It has been so impressed with its five Sure Start schemes that it is rolling out the programme and will mainstream it—I think that it is the first council to do so.

The council has been wholly persuaded that early intervention, linking services and involving parents have the greatest impact on child development and poverty. A decision was taken that funding would be top-sliced without compromising passporting, and that it would be used to enhance existing local programmes through multi-agency parent support teams, drop-ins and community involvement in small areas. The council also funds extra family support and more subsidised nursery places being brought together in children's centres.

All local partnership boards were consulted and signed up to that way of working. Those extended areas will be coterminous with primary care trust localities, and smaller partnership hoards will be set up for smaller areas. A Camden-wide Sure Start co-ordinating team already exists at the local education authority. It comprises a lead officer, a business manager, data and information officers and others, all supporting the project. The target date for roll-out is 2006.

Having five Sure Start schemes was an advantage for Camden, but commitment and creative thinking have allowed it to move forward. I know that the Government already support mainstreaming projects in some districts with a number of local programmes, but Camden did it first and there must be scope for others to follow sooner rather than later.

Other areas have far fewer programmes. My constituency has one, but it has developed skills to work across two areas—because it was part of a later wave, there was more flexibility. Some early strategic thinking by LEAs, PCTs and others, and additional seed-corn funding from those organisations could establish structures, including a central co-ordinating team. Identifying potential roll-out areas, encouraging key local people to learn through existing programmes and, where possible, implementing Sure Start principles and practice would be an excellent precursor to the Children Bill and children's trusts. It would begin to change the culture and practice at grass-roots level.

There is a wealth of capacity from volunteers, as I have already highlighted. In the words of Barnardo's,

"integrated pre-school settings, such as Sure Start, bring about the best outcomes for children"

What encouragement can be given to local authorities. primary care trusts, the voluntary sector and community groups to move further ahead? They know that new legislation is on the way, and moving towards a Sure Start approach can only be a good thing.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on securing this debate. I have had more representations in favour of additional funding for Sure Start from hon. Members across the political spectrum than anything else. It is a bit of an irony: everybody loves Sure Start, but not many hon. Members have chosen to come to have their say in this debate, which is a bit sad. Nevertheless, I am pleased that they like it and I would be delighted with any additional resources that we can secure to ensure the expansion of the programme.

I share my hon. Friend's commitment to the importance of investing in the early years. She comes to the issue having considered a lot of the powerful American research into investment in integrated services in the early years and into the impact that that can have on children's life chances. I come to the issue from that direction, but also from work that has been done in the UK by Feinstein, which shows how children from different socio-economic backgrounds start off very different competences at an early age. One can start measuring their cognitive skills at 20 months.

Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds can have high cognitive skills and those from high socioeconomic backgrounds can have low cognitive skills at that age. What is depressing about the research is that, by the time one locks into school, class has overridden those early cognitive skills. The children with low cognitive skills in a higher socio-economic group outperform those with high cognitive skills from the low socio-economic group

We should try to find ways in which children showing potential at an early age can realise it. That is at the heart of the Sure Start programme. If we really are committed to equalising outcomes on the basis of equality of opportunity, that has to be by investing in the early years. I came back from Sweden last week, and it is very telling that, after 30 years' investment, children there are offered far more equal opportunity. Far fewer children die from child abuse there, and I think that one of the reasons for that is the early investment in parenting support, family support and children's opportunities. That can help to deal with some of the tensions in family life that can lead to abuse, so other good results can come out of such early investment.

I looked with envy at the fact that in Sweden about 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on early years services. Despite the very successful and massive expansion under the Labour Government, we still spend under 0.5 per cent. of GDP on early years services.

The early years are crucial. My hon. Friend mentioned Leicester and Corby as two examples. I opened a new children's centre in Hertfordshire this morning. It is a nursery school that has expanded into a children's centre and provides all the multi-agency services to children from the early years to age five. The headmistress finds that, as the children embark on their nursery education experience, those who have been able to take advantage of the early years services are even readier to do better than those who have not had that experience. Intervention from birth is very important.

My hon. Friend spoke about her experience of speech and language therapists and the benefit that she has experienced locally. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked whether we are expanding their use, and the answer is yes but it takes time. However, some interesting local experiments are taking place, involving the cascading of speech and language therapy knowledge and techniques to those who have not undertaken the full training programme but who can, in the nursery or pre-school setting, do sufficient work to help the development of children's language. That will allow para-professionals to work in early years settings and is one way of growing the competences more quickly than through the full training programme, which takes a long time to produce fully trained professionals, of whom we need more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned our record to date, and it is worth reiterating that, before we came to office, there was hardly anything for children in their early years. There was no national child care strategy. We now have places for 1.2 million children, which did not exist before. There was no commitment to nursery education, but we now have a universal service throughout the country, so that all three and four-year-olds can have access to part-time nursery education for five days a week. We managed to deliver that six months before we said we would in our 1997 pledge.

There are more than 500 Sure Start programmes throughout the country, all of which are benefiting the children living in those areas. They are situated in the most deprived areas in the country, which is important in ensuring that those who can benefit most from early intervention have the opportunity to do so.

As my hon. Friend knows, we are trying to bring together the experience that we have gained with all the initiatives that we have tried during the past five years into the concept of children's centres. It is worth reiterating for the record what children's centres will deliver. They will provide good-quality early years education combined with full day-care provision for children of a minimum of 10 hours a day, five days a week for 48 weeks in the year. That provision will be substantially led by a teacher to ensure that we sustain and enhance quality.

The centres will provide an important outreach to parents. If I came back with only one plea from my visit this morning to Hatfield, it was that we should invest more in supporting parents in the difficult task of bringing up their children. The centres will provide a range of family support services, including child and family health services and antenatal and health visiting services. They will provide support to children and parents with special needs, and I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest as chair of the all-party group on autism. The centres will provide strong links with Jobcentre Plus, local training providers and further and higher education institutions, so that they can support our welfare-to-work strategy, which aims to lift children out of poverty by providing job opportunities for their parents.

The model that we have developed for England is stronger than those that I have seen in some of the Scandinavian countries. Investment in those countries has been made over a longer time, but it has been on the welfare-to-work agenda, providing child care to enable parents to participate in the labour market. Our model is more child focused, takes a more holistic approach to the needs of the child and, over time, will prove more effective in turning around children's opportunities.

My hon. Friend made several points about the Children Bill and spoke about how, through it, we are embedding early intervention and working together across professional boundaries as key features of the delivery of services for children, not just in their early years but through all childhood and youth, from nought to 19. She asked me whether Sure Start managers will be involved in appointing children's directors, which is an important part of the proposal. I cannot promise that, because it is an issue for local authorities to determine, but the posts will be crucial because they will ensure proper accountability. They will embody the integration that we want in the front-line professional services that touch children's lives.

On whether children would be involved in the appointments, that, too, will be a matter for local authorities. It is part of our thinking to put children and young people at the heart of everything we do to configure and provide services. We want children to be involved in the appointment of a children's commissioner for England.

One of the big culture changes that makes co-location so important is that we want people who are not used to working together, whether they are from health, teaching or social care professions, to develop a mutual understanding of children's development. We want them to work across boundaries—even developing the same vocabulary would be a start. Co-location is one of the levers we can use to encourage that culture change. The others are leadership, training, the pooling of budgets and to set and to inspect targets for children's services in the locality.

My hon. Friend drew attention to what Camden is doing to bring the Sure Start programme into the mainstream and I entirely agree with what she said. One of my strong messages has always been that people do not have to wait for extra Government funding to change the way in which existing services for children are delivered in their locality.

Before the debate, I was engaged with officials in working out how to recognise and to brand the next group of children's centres. Although we will fund many of them, we hope to find mechanisms to brand others that do not get specific Government targeting, but which have all the features that I described, which we want in a children's centre. As my hon. Friend said, this is all about commitment and creative thinking. We want to spread knowledge and understanding of new ways of working, building services around the child and working together in multi-agency teams to improve outcomes for children. I am sure that, as we build and spread that knowledge, local authorities will respond by reconfiguring their services in a much shorter time than Government funding will enable us to do.

My hon. Friend asked what encouragement we could give and whether there would be some seed-corn funding for potential roll-out in the areas. I will consider that further. However, we have given money to some areas that are not in the most deprived wards in England, but where just a bit extra will enable them to develop a Sure Start children's centre. We are considering what further work we can do to encourage that development.

Much of the Children Bill is built on what we have learnt on what works for children through the Sure Start programme. We want to spread that learning throughout children's lives from nought to 19, not just in education and social care, but through children's trusts, extended schools, the development of children's directors and integrated local services, and by bringing into the community health services that work with children.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Although short, it has been fruitful and I look forward to further opportunities to discuss the issues to enable us to provide equality of opportunity, which is at the heart of what politics should be about

I start with what I hope the Minister will regard as a piece of good news. The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, a private Member's BAI currently going through the House, has just concluded its Committee stage and has emerged without a vote and with a clear consensus that we hope will see it make its way on to the statute book. In a previous incarnation as a Back Bencher, the Minister introduced and took through the House private Member's legislation for carers. This issue is close to his heart and it is also relevant to the debate on older people in Sutton, which I have been fortunate in securing today, because many of my constituents who are senior citizens at e also carers.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to report to the Chamber and the Minister on a project with older people that I have been undertaking in my constituency. Over the past 18 months, I have been working closely with a range of voluntary and statutory organisations to consult older people and devise a strategy for older people living in Sutton—the aim being to listen to them and devise a strategy reflecting their concerns. I was fortunate in working closely with the Sutton seniors forum and my local branch of Age Concern, whose input has been invaluable. The seniors forum, under the leadership of the chairman, David Dombey, meets every month and regularly attracts more than 200 senior citizens to its meetings, where the issues that are covered reflect the wide range of concerns and interests of older people in the London borough of Sutton.

Sutton borough Age Concern provides a range of services for older people there. One of the most important services that it has established lately is its users and carers group, which I shall mention in a minute—not least because it is made up of older people who have been trained to work with other older people to help them talk and out find out their views on services. That group's work has been valued by Sutton council and the Sutton and Merton primary care trust.

After a round of meetings in late 2002 with council leaders, the PCT, Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust chief executives, the local police borough commander and others, I felt that I had, in principle, a green light to start pulling together the strategy. I established a steering group with members drawn from the Sutton seniors forum, the users and carers group, Age Concern, local churches, the local authority social services department and community engagement teams, the local NHS change agency, and the older people's matron from Epsom and St. Helier, as well as a number of representatives from the PCT.

The group organised a conference that took place last July. More than 300 older people have taken part in the process, thereby contributing their ideas and time. On the day of the conference, 100 older people took part. The day was organised around a series of open questions, the aim being to create a climate in which everyone felt able to take part and contribute their ideas. There was a lot of brainstorming and small group work and people were asked to prioritise the issues that arose. A mass of good ideas came out during the day, including concerns about young people, policing and crime, and the need for a more visible police presence to reassure and deter. Health and access to good-quality chiropody was flagged up, as was the need for more active healthy living initiatives to promote active ageing.

The need to reach out to find and offer support to isolated and lonely people was also raised. That echoes the research published yesterday by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which highlighted the terrible cost of isolation and loneliness in our community. The WRVS found that every year 12,000 older people in Britain die alone and undiscovered in their homes. That is the equivalent of 32 lonely deaths every day. It also found that 17 per cent. of older people living alone said that they were often always lonely, and one in seven said that they were isolated in their homes and felt cut off from the outside world. Some 20 per cent. of all suicides involve pensioners. That serious point was raised during the conference and warrants local and national attention.

Transport issues were raised, particularly the attitude of some—I emphasise some—bus drivers, a complaint that was echoed by many seasoned bus users during the conference. Their concern was the tendency to be too heavy on the throttle and too hard on the brake, causing many an injury and many upsets as a consequence.

Money matters and pensions issues were aired during the day. Participants felt hard pressed to make ends meet on fixed incomes. The No. 1 concern expressed was the feeling that those who had saved for their retirement were taxed twice—on their investment and the interest. The feeling was that thrift was no c rewarded. There was also a sense of frustration that the contribution that older people can and do make goes unrecognised—for example, the role that older people fulfil as carers, often undertaking many hours of care with no entitlement to the carer's allowance. How older people are stereotyped was also raised, and one example given during the conference was the signs that warn us about older people crossing the road and how offensive those signs are. The fact that they depict. An older person bent double with a stick is itself derogatory and insulting to many older people.

Perhaps one of the most positive things to come out of a positive day was the discussion about young people. It began with concerns about antisocial behaviour and calls for parents to control their children more. However, as the discussion progressed, the question was asked, "Why are the parents losing control? Who were the parents' parents?" They were the grandparents, who were at the conference. Although they had perfectly good relationships with their grandchildren and thought them wonderful, they did not know the other children or other young people on their streets, of whom they were fearful. As a consequence of that discussion, there was a strong feeling that work was perhaps needed in Sutton and elsewhere to develop a dialogue between young and old people to find common ground.

Shortly after our conference, at an event organised by Sutton council to ascertain local young people's views on a range of issues, it emerged that they experienced the same concerns about the attitudes of bus drivers, particularly the fact that they were too heavy on the accelerator, too hard on the brake and often too hard on them. The conference generated a mass of ideas, some sense of the priorities that should be taken forward and some of the first steps needed to develop them.

The next task for the steering group was to distil the day into a strategy that would form the basis of actions over the next few years. We took as our starting point the idea that people should not be defined by the services that they receive or by their illnesses or disabilities. They should be treated as people first. They have the right to be treated as equal and active partners by statutory and voluntary organisations in the borough. Before we can change the way in which services are delivered to older people, it is first necessary to change the way in which we think about older people.

The draft strategy has been written and contains six objectives. It is about securing wider ownership of the citizen-based approach that I have outlined; a sustained partnership between older people and statutory organisations; the promotion of a positive image of older people; a dialogue between older and younger people; the promotion of active ageing; and, above all, a joined-up approach to achieve a better quality of life for all older people.

The draft strategy is currently subject to consultation, and the feedback so far has been encouraging. The work on programmes such as the national service framework for older people, the Pension Service and the third age service provides a real opportunity to break out of the normal silos and adopt a more person-centred approach.

In Sutton, older people regularly make their voices heard through the seniors forum and through the work of the users and carers group. The Audit Commission's recent series of reports on the well-being of older people argued for the development of local older people's strategies. The commission points out that only 15 per cent. of older people receive care services, yet policies focus on the services to support the most vulnerable people in times of crisis. That neglects the needs of the wide range of older people who clearly aspire to an active and meaningful life.

To meet the needs of the ageing population, there should be a fundamental shift in approach to considering older people as citizens who are valuable resources rather than as dependants. To achieve that aim, the Audit Commission said that it will get local authorities to do five things. First, they should use their community leadership role to develop strategies locally. Secondly, they should have clear, committed leadership on issues relating to older people. Thirdly, they should involve and inform older people thoroughly. Fourthly, they should have good information on population trends. Fifthly, they should provide comprehensive ranges of services for older people and their carers.

Other organisations such as the national health service, voluntary organisations and the Pension Service should engage in older people strategies and undertake some of their investment planning within such frameworks. The commission will monitor all that in its performance assessment for 2005, so local authorities should be mindful of that over the coming years.

I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. Do the Government agree with the Audit Commission that such strategies provide a useful tool for shaping services around the needs of older people, and for thinking and acting outside the traditional service silos? Does he feel able to offer some encouragement to the partnership work that I have outlined this afternoon?

During the conference, concerns were expressed about incomes in old age, particularly but not exclusively those of women. I was grateful on the day that the Pension Service came along and participated in the event. It went away loaded with queries but it was a useful day for it, and it was helpful that it was there. There is a feeling that there is no point in saving because investment and interest are both taxed. Income plays an important part in the choices and independence that an older person can exercise. Does the Minister agree that the Pension Service has a part to play with statutory and voluntary agencies locally to develop programmes to maximise the take-up of the full range of benefits?

I referred to the stereotyping of older people. Ageism is a serious problem. It is a societal and institutional issue and action is required on a number of levels, one of which is legislation. What came across to me during the consultation is that if the scope of the age discrimination legislation that the Government are currently considering is limited to employment, it will fail to tackle the ageism that exists in the provision of public and private sector goods and services. What we really need, and what older people want, is comprehensive age discrimination legislation.

I want to end by expressing my appreciation to those who have made possible all the work that has been done locally. I thank McCarthy and Stone, Abbeyfield, Sutton police, Sutton and Merton PCT and others for their financial sponsorship of the conference. I thank Adrian Davey of the change agent team and Janet Finlay of the community engagement team for their excellent work in facilitating the day. I also thank Les Murrells and all the other members of the users and carers group who helped out on the day. I also appreciate the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on the day. The person I want to thank the most, because they did the most in organising the event and the work before and since is the head of my office, Ruth Dombey. She has worked incredibly hard and done an excellent job on behalf of my constituents

I am pleased to be able to take part in this brief discussion of an important issue. Sometimes in Adjournment debates, the hon. Member who introduces it represents a constituency that one has never been to and would be hard-pressed to find on a map, whereas today I am talking about a neighbouring borough. I represent a Croydon constituency and I know Sutton well. St. Helier hospital has been mentioned. My wife works in a pathology laboratory there, so I have an understanding of the community that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) represents.

In answer to one question, I offer encouragement to the strategy that the hon. Gentleman is undertaking with colleagues in Sutton. I was interested to hear about the forum. He has been listening to local elderly people. If there were an opportunity for me to make the long trip from Croydon to Sutton, venturing those hundreds of yards across the border with my passport despite snow, hail and rain, I would be grateful to meet members of the forum and the professionals involved. Perhaps we could arrange that to happen in the coming months.

Although our Department is the Department for Work and Pensions, we have a lead responsibility in Whitehall for older people's issues. That does not mean that we run the national health service or the local community police, as the hon. Gentleman understands. However, we have that lead role, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is the Cabinet champion for older people and chairs an important committee. We take that role very seriously.

The demographics of ageing and the ageing of our population are a formidable challenge. I have always regarded it as a challenge rather than a crisis, which some would suggest it is. Having said that, I am always somewhat hesitant in generalising about the needs of elderly people, because they come in all shapes and sizes, so to speak. That became clear to me recently when I visited a nursing home. The youngest resident was 60, and the oldest was 102. Although everyone in that community shared a need for nursing care, there was a wide age span.

Today, unlike 100 years ago, people's retirements may last 30 or more years. The average is probably 20 years. There is a danger of generalising, but one of the major themes of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that we should not stereotype older people. We must recognise the commitment and contribution that our elders make to the community, as well as some of the more challenging issues of disability and dependency. We should not make the mistake of going to the other end of the continuum and talk about ageing in a romantic and positive way because fundamental issues are involved. Let us consider, for example, the scourge of Alzheimer's disease and the challenges that that poses to care agencies, the health service and the important army of carers, with which the hon. Gentleman, like me, is very involved.

Without our younger and sometimes not so young elderly population, what would be the position of the voluntary effort in our society? Many community and voluntary organisations in Sutton, Croydon and elsewhere are manned, or womaned, by younger elderly people. Many school governors are elderly people. Indeed, many carers are elderly people who often care for their elders, such as a young 60-something caring for a parent who is over the age of 90. We must recognise the contributions of older people not only in rhetoric but in practice.

There is not time to talk about everything that the Government want to do for older people, but I shall highlight one or two matters that are close to the theme of the debate. Our aim is to move towards—we are certainly not there yet—one-stop access to public services for older people. We want dedicated, integrated services, not only throughout the Government, but linked to voluntary organisations and, where appropriate, the private sector, including the utility companies. We are listening to older people and devising a strategy to shape public services positively to meet the wide and varied needs of 21st century senior citizens.

The Labour party's manifesto of 2001 included a commitment to

"build on Care Direct to provide integration of health, housing, benefits and social care for older people. This will be an integrated `third age service' to help older people".

I shall say more about Care Direct, later. We are making progress. We are working with partner organisations, Age Concern, Help the Aged and the better government for older people network, as well a other Government Departments to build the so-called third age service to meet older people's social and care needs. I say "so-called" third age service, because I do not believe that that term is readily discussed on the St. Helier estate or in Thornton Heath. We need a language to describe the service, which real people would understand fully. I used the phrase as shorthand.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we listen to older people. Key to the new approach are joint visiting teams that are built around local service and local authority staff with a single management structure. Joint teams are certainly one of the key building blocks for third age development. They provide a basis for wider engagement with other partners. Nine joint teams are up and running in the south-west, with more to become operational in other regions later this year.

I visited Taunton, Somerset, where Care Direct has really got off the ground. I saw joint teams in action. Local Pension Service people are working in the same team with the same management structure as staff from the local authority. One of them would visit an elderly person and be able to provide information and access to council or pension services. That is what I mean by a joint team approach.

In Somerset, a Care Direct number is being widely publicised. As with NHS Direct. the older person—or their carer, volunteer or whoever —can call that number and get not just information about the things that I have mentioned, such as benefits, pensions, housing and social services, but access to the relevant service. That is so important. That is a simple idea. How many of us, when we want to contact bits of the welfare state, struggle to remember how to do that, and the relevant local phone number? We would like that idea and the joint action teams to be developed.

On incomes, we are working with partners on pensioner poverty. We have designed what we call pension credit with the needs of older people in mind. That policy is now much easier to access. None of us likes filling in official forms; I am not very good at it, and elderly people do not particularly like doing it. With pension credit, if someone wants to apply through a form, they can do so. It is shorter than before and is written in plain English. However, if they do not want to fill in the form, they do not have to. They can ring a freephone number and apply for pension credit over the telephone. Our customer surveys show that elders like to do that. A 20-minute phone conversation will often deliver the pension credit. Yes, the form has to be checked and identification has to be proved for antifraud purposes but it is a much clearer approach to applying for pension credit.

I am pleased to say that, at this moment, about 2.6 million people are receiving pension credit. We reckon that, of those, 1.5 million are receiving more money through pension credit than they did under the old income support system. That is important.

Turning to Sutton and Cheam, only a few weeks ago, the Pension Service bus was parked on Sutton high street for a week. Staff from our local service were on board, dealing with pension-related inquiries. On the first day alone, they saw 1 l 1 customers, helping them with queries about state pension forecasts, pension credit calculations and the rest.

One example might illustrate our approach. A lady—I will call her Mrs. G—visited the Pension Service bus in Sutton to see if she would be financially better off by claiming pension credit. She was in receipt of state pension, a small occupational pension and some savings. She was a home owner. When the member of staff conducted the entitlement check. it was estimated that Mrs. G would be entitled to more than £22 a week in pension credit. It was also found that she should be getting £18.75 council tax benefit. That is one example of a real success. That is more than £40 extra every week

Mrs. G completed the relevant application form with the assistance of staff, and has joined the 2,085 households in Sutton and Cheam who, so far—we are still rolling out pension credit—are in receipt of the credit. On average, they are receiving £44.75 a week. Other aspects of our policy are having a beneficial impact.

The point that the Minister is making about the third age service and the arrival of the bus on Sutton high street is useful. Can he say a little more about the Government's intention to roll out the third age service? When might it be rolled out as far as Sutton and Cheam? Some of the benefits experienced in the west country that he outlined would be of interest to both his and my constituents.

One of the reasons why I was eager to take part in the debate is that the hon. Gentleman's approach to the issue is much the same as mine. There may not always be this Lib-Labery across the Croydon-Sutton boundary, by the way; I am not promising that this benevolence on my part will continue over the next 12 months. I can add only that I hope to say more about those issues during this calendar year. He should watch this space.

In Sutton and Cheam, there were more than 16,000 winter fuel payments last winter. We do not yet have the full figures for this winter. Of the payments for this year, 3,845 were made to people over 80. This winter, those people will have got the extra £100 for households with one person or more over the age of 80. I hope that that will be of interest to the people of Sutton and Cheam as the final snow flurries affect our boroughs.

It is important to recognise that alongside benefits there are many other important issues. The national service framework for older people is a 10-year plan to improve the quality of and access to health and social care services for older people. It includes specific standards on eliminating age discrimination, which is important, on promoting a healthy and active later life and on the improvement of services associated with ageing, strokes, falls and mental health care for older people. That is an important strategy, and we work closely with our colleagues on those issues. We must throw into the dustbin of health care history the notion that, just because one is of a certain age, a medical practitioner can say, "Well, what do you expect at your age?"

Increasingly, medical practitioners are treating a condition whatever a person's age and perhaps we need to progress that even further. That is vital in an ageing community. We recognise the importance of other services such as transport. We are blessed in London by the fact that our elderly people have access to public transport free of charge at certain times of the day; we are in a more beneficial situation than many other parts of the country.

From my conversations with older people, I know that antisocial behaviour—vandalism, petty crime—often makes them fearful about venturing out after a certain time, when it starts to get dark. The hon. Gentleman touched on that. All that we are doing to promote safer communities—putting more police officers on the beat and the rest—is important in relation to that problem.

We are about providing greater incomes in retirement, particularly targeted at the very elderly, who tend to be the poorest. Two out of three people receiving pension credit are women. Why is that? It is because they do not have the full national insurance contribution record due to past working patterns, having brought up children and having cared for other people. They did not have access to the occupational pension. We are also promoting greater standards of care and well-being.

I and the Government are engaged in an agenda at local level about how to rebuild the welfare state—I include the voluntary sector in that—around the needs of older people and their families, rather than expecting older people somehow to negotiate what often seems a complex structure of local welfare services. It is important that the welfare state take the initiative in making itself more relevant to the older person.

Those are fine words perhaps. We must put them into practice by listening to older people, and hearing about their needs and their understanding of their local community, as the hon. Gentleman has done. We do practical things such as creating joint visiting teams and getting the local Pension Service, an excellent new development, to link up with the local council. We have one-stop shops and the one phone number. All those things will help us to translate good principle into decent social health and benefit practice