One thing that all Lancashire Conservative Members and county councillors are determined upon is to do everything in their power to help to raise the educational standard of the children of their constituents and that is why I am so pleased to see many of my colleagues here today. I look forward to contributions, if there is time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is, of course, performing his ministerial duties at the Treasury and is unable to attend. However, he knows my views on education in Lancashire and I know that he accepts the broad thrust of what I am about to say.

I am especially pleased to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who will reply to the debate. He has been immensely helpful both to Lancashire Conservative Members and to Lancashire Conservative county councillors in all our endeavours to press the county to recognise the supreme importance of education. I know that what he says will be read with particular care by all our constituents who have children or grandchildren at school.

Over recent years, successive Conservative Governments have introduced some important policies on education. I mention in particular the introduction of parent governors and teacher governors, the local management of schools initiative, which has enabled schools rather than counties to make many decisions about their future, the national curriculum and the league tables. I am pleased by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that she will publish primary school performance tables from next spring. The Government have also given the important freedom to schools to go grant-maintained, about which I shall say a little more later.

My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of excellent initiatives introduced by the Government. Does he agree that all those initiatives were opposed by the Labour party and, more specifically, by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which is depicted as saying no to education at every turn?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The other aspect with which I shall deal is that the council says no to funds that the Government have made available to supplement the money that it has to spend on education.

All the changes have given immense opportunities to schools to improve their standards and they have been of immense help. However, there is one point that is often not properly understood by the public. Education policy overall is a matter for the Government, but the amount that is spent by any county council on the schools under its control is a matter entirely for that county council. It is the council's decision; it is not a matter for Government.

The Government, of course, make generous provision to Lancashire county council from central taxation to add to what the council raises from the council tax and the local business rate. However, it is the county's decision whether it spends the extra money provided by the Government on education or on something else.

That might be a wrong decision.

Yes, indeed.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite what he is saying, capping has implications for the county council? It has to work within that level.

My real point—the hon. Gentleman will be able to comment on my speech in his contribution—is to ask whether the £26.6 million extra provided by the Government will be spent by the county on education in the coming financial year. Will all that—

Yes, it will.

It is interesting to hear, that because we have not heard it from the council. Two things cause prime concern to Conservative Members—I have just touched on one. The first is when the county fails to pass on all the increase that the Government have found for education to the most important of its services. The second is when the county fails to manage its bureaucracy properly and, compared with the number of teachers working in schools, keeps too many officials in county hall pushing paper.

Does my hon. Friend agree that parents in Lancashire, especially of children of nursery age, will be appalled to know that Lancashire county council did not become one of the pilot local education authorities to take advantage of the Government's expansion of nursery education?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I must add that, in their work, he and Conservative county councillors in Lancashire make it a priority to point out to the county, which as we know is Labour-controlled, precisely what is going on.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so soon, and I thank him for giving way. Does he recognise—in relation to the intervention from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—that spending on administration in education in Lancashire amounts to 1.6 per cent. of the total education budget, compared with the national average of 2.1 per cent?

I will comment later on what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The county's management of its funds for education over the years is a story of gross, in some cases outrageous, financial mismanagement. In 1994–95, it cut the schools budget by £5.1 million. As we know, last year the Government were able to increase their allocation to the county for education by only a modest amount—it was a tight settlement. Notwithstanding that, it was an increase, yet the county cut the schools budget by £19.2 million. It cut savagely what went to schools because it was not prepared to cut its education bureaucracy at county hall. Schools therefore suffered at the expense of officials in administration.

I find that remarkable, especially as, at this time, the Opposition are talking so much about the cost of administration in the national health service. For example, on 1 February at Prime Minister's questions, the Leader of the Opposition challenged the cost of administration in the health service and only yesterday those comments were repeated by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in the debate on morale in the health service. Of course it should be remembered that she chose the services of a school that had opted out of a Labour council's control and was in a Tory borough outside the Labour-controlled borough where she lived. What are parents in Lancashire to make of it when they see what their Labour council does to them?

One must ask—this is where I come to the intervention of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) who will perhaps comment on this—why it is that, despite the removal three years ago of colleges of further education from the county's control, the number of staff at county hall, which was already high then, has continued to increase.

Last year, parents and teachers were understandably concerned about the cuts that schools had to make. My hon. Friends, Conservative county councillors and I visited Ministers with responsibility for education, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to make our concerns known. We lobbied hard. We also lobbied Treasury Ministers, because ultimately that is the point at which we must put on pressure.

Last autumn, there was a clear expectation that this year the Government would attach a higher priority to educational assistance to the county than they had been able to do in earlier years, yet, on 28 September, a disgraceful thing happened. Mr. Collier, the then chief education officer, wrote to all head teachers suggesting that the county might have to cut the schools budget by 8 per cent. We did not know what the Government settlement was to be then, but, in September, the county said that it might have to cut the budget by 8 per cent.

Mr. Collier has now retired. He was acting clearly on the political instructions of his Labour masters at county hall. It was an irresponsible thing to do. The letter generated fear, anger and frustration in everyone who read it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the political master on whose instructions Mr. Collier acted was the chairman of the local education authority, Labour Councillor Stan Wright, who sits for a ward in Blackpool, who has, during his leadership of education in Lancashire, been guilty of the most appalling irresponsibility, and who has continually tried to scare parents of Lancashire children?

Following what my hon. Friend says, I hope that all Lancashire parents will write to county councillor Wright. What was said in September was uncalled for as, in December, the Government announced that they would increase the county's allocation towards education costs by £26.6 million or 5.5 per cent. I hope that all parents will write to him insisting that that increase from the Government goes directly into education.

Into schools.

Into schools.

Again, reasonable people will be astonished by the county's reaction to the wonderful news of such a substantial increase. So far, its reaction has been this. In early January, it published a discussion paper that outlined possible cuts in primary and secondary school funding of £25.2 million. That was greeted by parents, teachers and Conservative county councillors with outrage and frustration. No doubt because of that clamour, the county recanted just a little. It modified its proposals to say that there might be a cut in education generally of only £6.7 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents in my constituency are extremely worried that, even if the county does not proceed with its initial proposed cuts of 8 per cent. and cuts the budget by only, as he said, £6 million, that will constitute a real threat to some of the most valued parts of school life, such as music and sports provision, books and many extracurricular activities? Would it not be disgraceful if those services were threatened as a direct result of the county council's managerial incompetence?

I agree with my hon. Friend. What I and I am sure any parent in Lancashire find perplexing is how any county council could propose cuts of £6.7 million in education when the Government have increased its share by £26.6 million. That is what County Councillor Stan Wright must answer.

I am fortunate in the timing of the debate, because the county must make a final decision about its funding on 22 February next week. I hope that, between now and then, parents, teachers and governors will write in the way I have suggested.

Any parent or teacher who is frustrated by the county's education funding has a method of escape from the problem. It is to persuade other parents in their school to request a ballot so that a vote can be taken on whether the school should become grant-maintained. In that way, they will avoid the enormous burden that schools indirectly bear for under-employed staff at county hall.

It is clear—the figures are available for anyone to see, although they vary from school to school—that a large school may benefit by many thousands of pounds every year by saving what is withheld by the county for administration by county organisers. Figures show that, in Britain, grant-maintained schools spend on administration only half what the county spends. For many schools, that is therefore the way out of the county's mismanagement of its finances, and I hope that more Lancashire schools will follow that path.

I think that Conservative Members pay too little attention to announcements by the county council, because they are too busy filling the soundwaves with their unjustified complaints about the county. Were this not so, they would know that the £26.6 million is all to be spent on schools, as the county council has made clear. I am pleased, however, that the parents, governors and teachers of Lancashire understand the issues far more clearly than Conservative Members do. They know whom to blame.

I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) say that the amount of money spent on education is entirely a matter for the county. The fact is that the Government set the parameters within which local authorities have to operate. The hon. Gentleman's astonishing statement suggests that the development of a rich imaginative life, which should form part of any good education, has taken root particularly effectively in his case.

Does the hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that education should become the responsibility of Blackburn borough council and should be taken away from the county council because it has managed education so incompetently?

My hon. Friend's views on unitary status for Blackburn are well known. They do not relate to any incompetence on the part of the county council. They arise from his view of a desirable structure for local government, and that view is not directed against the county council. Conservative Members should put that point to my hon. Friend, when they have the chance, and he will confirm what I am saying.

As I was saying, parents, teachers and governors clearly understand where the blame lies. I am pleased that they were alerted by the chairman of Lancashire education committee to what might be afoot, because their ensuing campaign has successfully prevented even worse excesses by the Government. It would have been no use waiting until decisions had been made and then complaining about those decisions. Far better to encourage a campaign to improve the quality of the Government's decision-making. The Government certainly need a lot of help in that respect.

My hon. Friends and I receive a steady stream of information and complaints from schools and parents in our constituencies—none of them directed at the county council. No school or parent in my constituency has directed any wrath at the county council. I recently received a typical such letter, which helpfully included the latest inspectors' report. It comes from Savick county primary school, whose head teacher has given me permission to use the information that he sent me, as he says,

"to fight the complacency of the present Administration".

The head teacher says that he is sure that I will wish to celebrate, with him, the many good things that the inspectors found to say about the school. So I do. The school's achievements are legion, and are a great tribute to the staff and pupils. But the report clearly establishes that class sizes are far too great. The report points out that, at the crucial key stage 2, class sizes are enormous, all but one containing more than 35 pupils.

This of course is not the fault of the county council. It is the fault of inadequate funding for education generally. Unlike Ministers and the chief inspector, the inspectors who looked at Savick county primary do regard class sizes as crucial to delivering a good education. They say:

"A combination of a reduction in the school's budget and the need to create a reserve fund has caused an increase in class sizes to over 35 at Key Stage 2. Some teaching areas are overcrowded, which not only affects teaching and learning but also health and safety, particularly in science and physical education."

The inspectors also say that financial control by the school is good; it continually seeks value for money. The recommendations of the most recent auditor's report have been put in place. Routine accounting is good and well maintained. The school, the report says, gives satisfactory value for money—yet the inspectors also say that the objectives of the staff and governors must include

"finding ways of reducing the class sizes".

That is tantamount to saying that teachers should be not just good teachers, but magicians too.

As the hon. Lady well knows, it is not simply a matter of class sizes—otherwise, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would not have sent his child past many state schools with smaller class sizes to the Oratory.

Does the hon. Lady agree that one way in which the county might make some savings is to stop campaigning in my constituency against schools that want to adopt grant-maintained status—including Archbishop Temple school, to which many of the parents in her constituency send their children?

It was noticeable that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was unable earlier to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) about administration costs in Lancashire. As he pointed out, they are below the national average. Until we hear a soundly based statistical rebuttal of that statement, Conservative Members should be quiet and cease their accusations against the county.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You heard the question that I put to the hon. Lady. Is she not obliged to answer it?

That is not a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is entirely up to the hon. Lady how she chooses to answer.

I have answered the hon. Gentleman in a way I think effective. My constituents will also think it effective. The hon. Gentleman is merely wasting time in this debate. If he has things to say, no doubt he will make a speech of his own.

The outstanding feature of the views expressed repeatedly to me by parents, teachers and governors is their condemnation of the lack of Government funding and of the lack of importance attached by the Government to education resources. The Government continually imply that teachers and governors must become magicians. All this is clearly understood in Preston, and is often expressed in correspondence by my constituents. They are not misled by the attempts of Lancashire Conservative Members to divert attention from the gross iniquities perpetrated by this Administration on the county council, which its doing its very best in lamentable circumstances.

It is a gross distortion of the truth to keep repeating that it is entirely up to the county council how much to spend on education. The people of Preston recognise that. I look forward to the day when Savick county primary school and all the other schools in my constituency will be able to respond to an Administration who attach proper priority to resources for education.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who represents a borough that is arguably even more incompetent than the county council.

I am delighted to be associated with the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd). It demonstrates again that on education, as on social services—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) introduced a similar debate—it is Conservative Members of Parliament and county councillors in Lancashire who are really fighting for parents and children in the county.

The Government have in recent years increased the allocation to Lancashire year on year, yet the Labour-controlled county council has cut the schools budget by £5.1 million in 1994–95, by £19.2 million in 1995–96 and have proposed—we have heard nothing to the contrary to date—a £9 million cut in 1996–97. That information comes directly from the Conservative county councillors on Lancashire's education committee.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, we pressed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and other Ministers to ensure that the mean and politically motivated attacks on our children's education were overcome by a further substantial increase this year. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), and Treasury Ministers recognised the concern of Conservative Members. Eventually, we got a substantial increase of some 5.5 per cent.—almost double the current rate of inflation.

When we pressed our case, the Government listened. That demonstrates the authority with which Lancashire Conservative Members fight the cause of Lancashire parents. It is up to Lancashire county council and its education committee to pass on the increase. We have heard suggestions that it will do so, but it is not the information we have to hand. I would like to know what the county is going to do when it comes to the final decision on 22 February. The signs so far are that it will not. If it is to pass on the increase, it makes it even more reprehensible that Mr. Collier and the controlling group on the education committee have suggested that there will be one. If there is not to be a cut, they have been misleading everyone in the county.

Last year, every Conservative-controlled local education authority in the country met the teachers' pay rise and school budget increases, and some were even able to recruit more teachers. Why cannot Lancashire county council, which has one of the most top-heavy bureaucracies—across its whole administration—in the country, do the same? My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) asked a pertinent question: why does Blackburn, for example, want to remove itself from the control of the county council? Whatever the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) may say in public, we know what he says in private. My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head.

To take one issue, when will the local education authority in Lancashire address the scandal of surplus places in secondary schools, especially in areas such as Skelmersdale and Burnley?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lancashire met the target set for surplus places by the Secretary of State in 1981 and 1987, which are the most recent targets for which figures are available?

I am not going to comment in detail on the case, except to say that I am advised that there are surplus places in certain parts of our county. Our constituents are entitled to ask why the problem of surplus places in Skelmersdale and Burnley, which happen to be controlled by Labour councils or represented by Labour Members, is not being addressed, whereas in parts of the county represented by Conservatives it is. That question needs to be answered.

I congratulate Leyland St. Mary's school in my constituency, which went grant-maintained in January 1994 and has made great strides ever since. In the past, it was a good to average school, but it is now excellent. In the recent Ofsted report, inspectors picked out Leyland St. Mary's as one of the five best schools in the county. Lancashire Members know that Leyland is not the wealthiest part of the county. Inspectors described it as a school

"well above the national average"

and still improving. It was granted technology college status three months ago. I hope next month to open its new all-weather surface, funding for which has been obtained since grant-maintained status was achieved. That is a measure of what grant-maintained status can do for an ordinary school that has become an excellent school in Leyland. That was the parents' choice. I am pleased that they were able to make that choice, which I applaud.

However, in a recent ballot at Lostoch Hall high school in my constituency, there was the most extraordinary interference by the Labour county council and other Labour activists who had nothing to do with the school. It was not in the area that the person involved represented. A number of parents contacted me to complain about the activities of those Labour representatives. I do not quibble with the result; that is a matter for the parents to decide. That is the key point; the result is immaterial. The Government have given the parents the choice to be able to decide what they want to do about their schools. I hope that their decision not to go grant-maintained was what they really wanted.

I question the local Labour party's involvement, especially in sending leaflets—some without an address on them—which intimidated or misled parents. I and Conservative county and district councillors did not interfere in the process, which is a matter for parents, not politicians. Labour interfered in extremely dubious ways. I find that most reprehensible—especially when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was defying Labour policy by exercising her choice to send her son to a grammar school in a Tory borough 13 miles from her home.

The House may be interested to know that that action has been mimicked by Mr. Hindley, the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Lancashire, South, who represents my area and claims, with some justification, to be extremely left wing. Yet he sends his son to Clitheroe grammar school, in a Tory borough—just—a long way from his home.

The action of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in sending her child to a grant-maintained grammar school in a Tory borough was applauded by her mother-in-law, who is a constituent of mine and a Labour activist in my constituency.

That confirms that it is not only the hon. Member for Peckham and Mr. Hindley who choose, and I do not decry it, to take the opportunity to send their children to the school, whatever sort it may be, of their choice. However, Labour is trying to prevent parents in my constituency, and in those of my hon. Friends, from doing the same. That is a classic example of "do as I say, not as I do".

All that adds up to rank hypocrisy, allied to rank incompetence. I was interested by the report yesterday of the Secondary Heads Association, which had examined the Labour party's education policy and described it as "simplistic and bland", short of ideas, unlikely to assist in raising school standards, poorly thought out, uncosted and lacking in detail. It questioned the Labour party's assurances that local council powers to interfere in local school management would not be restored. That sums up Labour policy on education and is similar to the history of Labour control of Lancashire's education. It was Conservatives who fought for the review of the area cost adjustment—and got it; pressed for substantial increases in the Government allocation—and got them; pressed, locally and nationally, for improvements in and standards for regular testing, for choice and for more information for parents—and got them all. We continue to press the case for reducing class sizes.

This debate is important because parents, teachers and governors, who, like Conservative Members, really care about children's education, can learn the facts of the policies of both new and old Labour in Lancashire and realise that it is only the Conservative party that has their real interests at heart.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important subject, but I regret that Conservative Members have used it as an opportunity not to speak about education in Lancashire positively but to have a go at Lancashire county council.

The right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) referred to the problem of surplus places in Burnley. The problem is much more complex than he suggested. Another school may need to be built, or additional places may have to be provided, at one end of Burnley where there is excessive demand, while a school at the other end of the town may have to be closed. Along with John Entwistle, a member of the county council, I have tried to draw attention to the issue in the press. He and I want to involve the people of Burnley in dealing with the secondary school problem. No quick decision should be made; we must ensure that whatever decision is made is in the best interests of secondary school children.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) said that county councils had the right to determine priorities in their budgets. That is true in theory, but Conservatives tend to forget that local authorities have been capped for some time. In theory, additional money has been made available for education through standard spending assessments, but the Government grant is not rising proportionately. To meet the capping criteria, Lancashire county council must cut its budget by some £45 million, or 5.1 per cent.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something that he said earlier? He is in close contact with Lancashire county council's ruling group. Is the council going to increase its education spending by £26.6 million in the coming year—the amount that the Government have provided?

I must emphasise that a standard spending assessment is not money from the Government; it is what the Government say a council can spend. In the current financial year, Lancashire county council is spending 7.5 per cent. above SSA. Yes, the £20-odd million that is being made available is going to schools; but, because the council must cut its overall budget, other education and social services must be cut proportionately more. The council will continue to spend well above its SSA. It already gives priority to schools, and it will pass the money on to them.

The hon. Gentleman said that Lancashire county council had problems because it had been capped. Surely it makes no sense for a council that has been capped to decrease the amount of money that is available for schools, as Lancashire did last year. A council with limited resources should make education a priority, rather than spending its money elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. Lancashire is already spending 7.5 per cent. above SSA on education. Anyone who does not recognise that the council already regards education as a priority is not living in the real world.

Does my hon. Friend agree that measures such as the proposed voucher scheme for four-year-olds are detrimental to areas such as Lancashire, where four-year-olds are already at school? Lancashire can only lose. Is that not an example of the inadequacy and stupidity of the Government's approach?

That is a valid point. Until nursery education is provided as of right for all who want it, and is included in the grant formula, counties such as Lancashire will be penalised even more by the move to the voucher system. Tory and Liberal members of Lancashire county council understand the problems better than Conservative Members of Parliament: they have lobbied the Government for more money.

Under the area cost adjustment, every primary school pupil in Essex receives an extra £147 this year. Secondary school pupils aged between 11 and 15 receive an extra £197, and those aged between 16 and 18 an extra £235. The arrangements should be reviewed.

I shall give this question another go, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is more up to speed than his hon. Friends. Does he agree that Lancashire county council could save money if it dropped its campaigns against schools that wish to become grant-maintained—such as Clitheroe Royal grammar school, where the Labour MEP Michael Hindley sends his daughter and where, no doubt, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents send their children?

I totally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Like anyone else, including me, the council has the right to campaign against grant-maintained status. We have an absolute right to ensure that parents are in possession of all the facts before they vote. By law, every governing body must decide each year whether to ballot on grant-maintained status. Most have not done so, because they know that Lancashire has a first-class education record, and they want to remain part of mainstream education.

Conservative Members say that there has been an abuse of taxpayers' money. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful way in which the Government have spent millions of pounds on the Grant Maintained Schools Trust and the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation? Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on bribing schools to opt out.

I do condemn that, as I condemn the way in which the Government have spent millions of pounds on advertising their policy on issues such as privatisation over the past few years.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

As the hon. Member will not be a Lancashire Member for long—he is in danger of losing his seat—I will give way to him.

Will the hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) that the Government have an electoral mandate? We won the election. Lancashire county council, however, is wasting taxpayers' money on improper campaigns.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Does he believe in local government or not? Education is a local government responsibility. In 1981, Labour won control of Lancashire county council, and—with or without an overall majority—it has been in control ever since. Having fought elections on the basis of certain policies, it has the right to implement them.

Conservatives often misleadingly say that Lancashire wastes money on administration. According to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), the figure is below the national average. In any event, such matters as student grants—on which Lancashire has an excellent administration record—are part of the education budget, and must be provided for.

The capital allocations have implications for education. The annual capital guideline for 1996–97 is £8.166 million, but the bid was for £37.227 million. The amount provided for improvement and replacement work within that sum is only £265,000. Indeed, in total, the bid is less than that for the committed county council programme for the forthcoming year.

We have many old schools that need to be rebuilt or improved if we are to provide education in the most suitable schools. In many schools, work needs to be done on the smaller programmes. In the forthcoming year, £265,000 is available to spend on 771 schools. What nonsense. Rosehill junior school is desperate to have toilets that are fit for 1996. The county has made that work a top priority. It recognises that the work needs to be done and it carried out some urgent work just over a year ago, but it cannot fund the main programme because it does not have the money.

The simple reality is that the education of our children in Lancashire is handicapped because we have a Tory Government. The quicker they go—just like the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who is looking for a seat—and we get a Labour Government, the quicker we can get on with providing a proper education for all our children in Lancashire.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words about Lancashire and education.

Lancashire county council—particularly the education authority—likes to say no to education. It said no to local management of schools. When it was forced to do it, it delegated to schools the minimum amount that it could get away with. Even now, some years on, when many Labour activists and, indeed, the Labour leadership in London, understand how useful local management of schools has been, the county still delegates less to schools than virtually any other large shire county. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd) made about costs outside schools and about bureaucracy.

Lancashire county council keeps back from schools nearly 15 per cent. of the general schools budget for costs outside schools. If they were among the best rather than the worst in the land, each school in Lancashire would have, on average, another 7 per cent. to spend on teaching, books and other things that help education, and Lancashire county council would have 7 per cent. less to spend on facilities outside schools and central bureaucracy.

Recently, the county showed where its priorities lie. As has been mentioned, the county council recently appointed a new chief education officer. It had an ideal opportunity to look again at the chief education officer's responsibilities, bearing in mind the fact that, since the last one was appointed, a number of schools in Lancashire have become grant-maintained—

An avalanche.

The hon. Gentleman talks about an avalanche, and that is precisely what will happen to Lancashire county council when Blackburn and Blackpool become unitary authorities, because then the responsibility and the scope of the education authority in Lancashire will be reduced considerably.

One might have thought that this would be an opportunity, perhaps, to dispense with the services of a chief education officer and simply promote one of his deputies, thus saving about £100,000 in administrative costs. But, no, the county council never even looked at his job specification; it simply appointed a successor, who may or may not be a very good man—I do not know—without considering his responsibilities or the scope of his task. That clearly shows Lancashire county council's priorities—not books and teaching, but looking after the fat cats at county hall in Preston.

It does not end there, because the county council said no not only to LMS but to teacher assessments and the testing of pupils. It is bitterly ironic that, having said no to the testing of pupils, the Labour party is trying to use the results of those tests—tests that it did not want in the first place—to criticise the Government. The Labour party should criticise its own education authorities for not teaching children better in the counties that it controls, such as Lancashire. We know why the Labour party did not want the tests—because the results in Lancashire could have been much better, and would have been had county hall practised Conservative policies.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that it is not the education authority that teaches the children but teachers, and that the burdens that his Government have placed on teachers have led to intolerable stresses, greatly increased sickness rates and the need to take early retirement on health grounds? Does he agree that the priority should be to enable teachers to remain in post so that they can do their job, which they do so admirably in the vast majority of cases?

That was an interesting intervention; the hon. Lady should address her remarks to Lancashire county council, which should put teachers before bureaucrats and ensure that teachers get the support that they deserve. Her comment about sickness is also interesting, because, as she knows, the record of absenteeism in Lancashire county council is disgraceful. Lancashire county council has more people absent for one reason or another than the vast majority of local authorities, which says much about its leadership and how it cannot persuade people to work for it.

I should also like to say something about the hon. Lady's intervention. She knows a lot about early retirement, because her daughter was forced to take early retirement as leader of Preston council because people in Preston and Lancashire are sick and tired of political posturing. They were extremely angry at the way in which Lancashire county council and Andrew Collier wrote to all the schools and scared all the parents, frightening them with an 8 per cent. budget reduction when they did not have any of the facts or statistics. The fact is that the Government were committed to funding education in Lancashire and in the rest of the country and to putting education first, and that is precisely what they did.

Order. In short debates, long interventions do not assist.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that I would have made a little later in my speech, but, of course, I shall not now do so, to ensure that a few more hon. Members are able to contribute.

Lancashire county council said no not only to testing but to grant-maintained status. That is hypocrisy of the worst order. We are told by the Labour leadership that it believes in stakeholding. What better example of stakeholding is there than to give parents, teachers and governors a stake in their school? That is what Conservatives mean by stakeholding. What the Labour party means, judging by its opposition to grant-maintained schools, is that it wants the bureaucrat miles away to have a stake in that primary, secondary or other school.

That cannot be right, and many Opposition Members understand that by their actions, because, as has been mentioned, Labour activists and Labour leaders throughout the country are voting with their feet and sending their children to Tory-controlled boroughs to grant-maintained schools. Even worse in terms of the doctrinaire policies of some Opposition Members is that some children were sent to selective grammar schools.

It is clear that the Labour's attitude to education has not changed one bit in 20 years. Opposition Members want to climb the ladder of opportunity and pull it up after them to ensure that no one else has the chance to take the opportunities that they had. That is precisely what the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Leader of the Opposition have done. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) went one stage further, because he made the interesting comment that people on MPs' salaries could afford to send their children to private schools. The hon. Gentleman exercised the option to do precisely that. Perhaps a few more Opposition Members would like to follow his example and provide more opportunities for people who do not have the chance to send their children to schools in their own areas.

The policy in Lancashire is clearly to get rid of selection, to get rid of the good schools, particularly in Lancaster, that have always had selection. That must be wrong. Parents must be given choice and the opportunity to send their children to the schools that they think are best for them. The county council wishes to deny that opportunity to parents and to create conformity and an image of levelling down rather than levelling up. That is what comprehensives are all about; we can see the effect across the county, because the results in comprehensives are not as good as they are in many other schools.

I shall now deal with the way in which Lancashire county council manages its budget. Last year, it cut the schools budget by 5.5 per cent., but, as far as I can ascertain, it did not cut the central administration for schools at all. It increased the amount of money for social services. That is fine, but the money was not spent on helping the elderly. I do not know where it was spent, but I know that, at the end of January, the social services budget had a surplus of £3 million. The county council should spend that money now on helping people who need domiciliary care but have had it taken away from them, or it should be transferred back to the education budget so that it can be spent on books and teaching rather than sitting in county hall, which is where it is at present.

The record of the county council over the past decade shows that it has consistently put bureaucracy before books and administration before teaching. It is time that it stopped saying no to the education of our county's children and started saying yes.

I was somewhat puzzled, at the start of the debate, about its central matter, but it soon became obvious when the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) described what he said was a method of escape for people in the county—grantmaintained schools. Perhaps it is no wonder that he wants to wrap the debate around that assertion—I understand that there are no grant-maintained schools in his constituency. I take it from that that, despite his vigorous efforts, the people in the area are satisfied with the education service that is being provided by the county.

Since 1989, only eight secondary schools and six primary schools have voted to become grant maintained. As schools have periodically to take a positive decision on the issue, that means that 591 primaries and 98 secondaries have made a positive choice to remain within the Lancashire system.

The hon. Gentleman has said that schools have to make a positive choice to go grant-maintained. That is different from the situation 10 or 15 years ago, when grammar and other schools had no choice about whether to go comprehensive.

I am speaking about the system that appertains today and the system that Conservative Members try to advocate, which is at the centre of what they are about. They are desperate to get schools in their areas to go grant-maintained. However, schools do not want to do that and Conservative Members wrap a debate around the issue, using as many insults and myths as they can find. For example, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) called the chairman of education in Lancashire, who is the mildest and gentlest of men, a political monster. I have seen letters from the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in which he tells schools in his area that the county will not put the money from the last Budget into schools. The same hon. Member and his colleagues, however, tell us all the time that the county is trying to frighten the electorate.

The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said that Lancashire likes to say no to education. That is a preposterous and silly remark. He described many of the legislative measures in education that Lancashire people and Lancashire county council have opposed. However much we disagree with legislation, the key question is whether, when it has been passed, we in Lancashire put it into practice in the best possible manner. The answer to that is yes, as the record clearly shows. The hon. Member for Wyre said that Lancashire wants to get rid of good schools. That is absolute nonsense. What does it mean? Does it mean that they should be closed and thrown into the sea? That is plainly absurd.

The debate hovers around a self-seeking agenda that has been set by Conservative Members who pretend that they are concerned about the generality of education in Lancashire. They elide education funding and schools and use the two interchangeably. I remind them that education in Lancashire covers a heck of a lot more than schools, although schools form the central and most important part of it.

The hon. Gentleman says that Conservative Members are self-seeking. In January, a discussion paper, not a decision, was issued by county hall for consideration by county councillors. It dealt with cuts in primary and secondary school funding of £25 million. I appreciate that we must draw a distinction between specific cuts and cuts in education generally. The figure was later changed to cuts of only £6.7 million. How does the hon. Gentleman explain those figures against the background of the Government increasing funding by £26.6 million?

They are explained against the foreground of the Government's Budget. The county council estimated what it would get from the Budget and it made its expectations public. Although I would quarrel with the nature of the extra money that was targeted at schools in the Budget, Lancashire decided to put that money into schools, and 5.1 per cent. extra will go to schools to account for the extra money. That extra money did not take account of the fact that, next year, a large number of extra pupils will come on stream in Lancashire or that a large extra amount will be spent on special educational needs next year. It did not take account either of next year's pay rise for teachers, which is likely to be higher than the rate of inflation. All those matters have to be taken into account when considering the money that Conservative Members perceive as extra, as a bonus. It is nothing of the kind.

As I have said, Lancashire is putting 5.1 per cent. extra into the schools budget—not into education in general. To be able to do that, it has to make cuts of 6.4 per cent. in spending on the rest of its services. They include not just highways and social services but the rest of the education service, the youth service and discretionary awards. They will have to be cut to pay for the extra spending on schools. That is an agonising decision for the county, and it has had to make such decisions for 10 or 12 years.

I do not have much time left, but I want to mention one or two other matters. Conservative Members consistently argue that Lancashire spends a vast amount on its central administration, but that is just not true. They say it over and over again, as if doing so might make it true. I repeat that Lancashire spends 1.6 per cent. of its education budget on central administration. Not only is that a lower proportion than all other local authorities in the country bar nine: it is lower than most private enterprise firms spend on central administration. Lancashire is an extremely efficient outfit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned the area cost adjustment and the difference that it makes. The adjustment means that a secondary pupil in Essex—a similar county, according to the Shaw criteria—is deemed to be worth £235 a year more than a pupil in Lancashire. All the Lancashire Tory Members in the Chamber today have voted year after year to maintain an area cost adjustment and a funding system for nursery education that disadvantage Lancashire, and they have the cheek to come here today to argue that the county council is doing a bad job. There is an awful lot more that could be said, but my time has run out. I find the origin of the debate offensive and its execution futile and silly.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on his good fortune in securing this important, if brief, debate on education in Lancashire. I declare an interest—I am the parent of three children, all of whom are receiving state comprehensive education of high quality in Lancashire schools.

The hon. Member sought to paint a picture of failing education in the county, but that view is obviously not shared by teachers, governors or parents in his constituency, where not one school has chosen to opt out. Indeed, at Morecambe high school—the one school where a ballot has taken place—parents voted against opting out.

On the subject of opting out, the House will be aware that the Funding Agency for Schools for England takes over the functions of the local education authority when 75 per cent. of pupils in any sector attend grant-maintained schools. At the current rate of opting out in Lancashire primary schools, that will happen in 2704. That is hardly a real date—it is more of a captain's log star date. It will happen only when we are run by planet Portillo.

The House has seen this morning a grotesque collection of selected half-truths and truths from Tory Members who have sought to distort the real picture of what is happening to education in Lancashire. The truth is that Lancashire has much to be proud of in its education service, despite the damaging funding regime imposed by the Government and supported by Tory Members.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) said, Lancashire has suffered particularly because of the area cost adjustment. If we look at authorities of a similar size, we discover that Hampshire, for example, receives £137 per secondary-aged pupil more than Lancashire, that Kent receives £162 and that Essex receives a staggering £197.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman as a Front-Bench spokesman, rather than as a Lancashire Member, whether he would tell his colleagues in Labour-held seats and Labour-controlled councils in the south that they must do without the money that the area cost adjustment gives them in order to benefit Lancashire? I would be delighted, as would my constituents, if that were the case.

The Government—supported by the right hon. Gentleman—have cut funding year after year, and Opposition Members will take no lectures from them on education funding. Despite the effects of the area cost adjustment, Lancashire is spending 7.5 per cent. more than its education SSA. In the financial year 1996–97, Lancashire is likely to spend 5.1 per cent. more on its schools budget, despite having to bear cuts of £6.4 million in other areas of the education service.

Year-on-year Government cuts in section 11 funding have led to a loss of income of £1.65 million to Lancashire county council, yet the Minister of State, Home Office said that the Home Office used Lancashire's work with under-achieving ethnic minority pupils as a model of good practice. We should consider the voluntary-aided sector, as Lancashire has more aided schools than any other LEA in the country. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster said that his diocese had been

"extremely well served by the Lancashire Education Authority."

Across the range, Lancashire pupils are doing well. Lancashire's 1995 GCSE results compare favourably with those in other LEAs in the same Shaw group. Between 1988 and 1993, the number of pupils getting five or more A to C grades increased by 37 per cent. nationally. In Lancashire, the increase was 51 per cent. A-level performance in Lancashire schools has also been good for a number of years. In 1993, the number of students in Lancashire schools entered for two or more A-levels placed Lancashire fourth in the entire country. I would be the first to accept that that is based on a small sample, because most Lancashire pupils receive their post-16 education in further education colleges.

While mentioning FE colleges, perhaps I might say in passing what a disgrace it is that, at colleges such as Accrington and Rossendale in my constituency, lecturers are being made redundant and class sizes forced up as a direct consequence of the actions of the Government and the Further Education Funding Council.

Lancashire has a good record on special educational needs and is committed to a policy of integrating children with special needs into mainstream schools. There are now more pupils with statements in mainstream schools than there are in special schools in the county. For the past two years, more than 70 per cent. of the statements that have been issued were for children in mainstream schools.

Lancashire is a nationally outstanding authority in terms of the range of provision available for children with special needs. The county provides more than 50 special schools, special facilities in mainstream schools for hearing impairment and language difficulties and specialist teams of teachers for children with complex learning, reading and language, and behavioural difficulties. Perhaps best of all, a new centre for pupils with autism was opened this year. In addition, Lancashire provides specialist inspectors, advisers and psychologists.

In early-years education, Lancashire again leads the way, spending well above the under-fives element of its SSA and providing every Lancashire child with a school place at the start of the school year after their fourth birthday. That means that many Lancashire children—such as my four-year-old son—receive a school place a full year before the law requires. In addition, there are part-time nursery places for about half of all three-year-olds in the county.

Lancashire has been keen to expand the number of nursery places it can offer, but has been prevented from doing so by the low level of capital allocation from the Government. Indeed, the present Secretary of State—like previous Secretaries of State—has turned down specific requests from the county council for extra nursery classes for aided schools in rural areas. Lancashire has a proven track record of being a high-quality, high-level provider—precisely the kind of authority that will be damaged by the Government's half-baked plans for nursery vouchers.

We have heard much from Tory Members this morning about the perceived failings of the Lancashire education service, so let me put this point directly to the Minister. In the last year for which comparable figures are available, Lancashire students received more new mandatory awards than did those in any other LEA in the country. Furthermore, the total number of mandatory awards was the highest in the country in both 1993–94 and in 1994–95. If Lancashire is the failure that Conservative Members have tried to suggest, why does it have the highest number of pupils of any LEA going on to higher education? Is that not a clear indicator of the success of Lancashire schools and colleges?

Efficiency has been mentioned by several hon. Members. The facts are these: on surplus places, Lancashire has met in full and exceeded the targets set by the Secretary of State; on central administration, Lancashire spends only 1.6 per cent. of its education budget compared with a counties' average of 2.1 per cent; on efficiency in administering student awards, the district auditor found, in a national review, that Lancashire had the second highest number administered per employee and the second lowest staff costs per award processed. If Lancashire is as inefficient as the Conservative party claims, why is it that, since 1989, only eight secondary schools and six primary schools have voted to become grant maintained, while over the same period 591 primary schools and 98 secondary schools have chosen to remain in partnership with the local education authority?

The fact is that the gap between the parties on education, both in Lancashire and throughout the country, could not be clearer. The Tories want a divisive, two-tier education system. Their hidden agenda is a return to selection—a system that wrote off three quarters of our children as academic failures at the age of 11, often with disastrous consequences for the children themselves and for the long-term interests of our economy and society.

Labour in Lancashire, like Labour in the House, is about driving up standards for all our pupils, not just the privileged few. We look forward to the day—in the near future—when Lancashire children will get the support they deserve and need and which they can get only from a Labour Government.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench. He will be reassured to know that I agree with little of what he said.

I want to respond to the point about capital spend immediately, in case I am unable to do so later in the short time available to me. In the last three years alone, the Government have made available some £2 billion for county and voluntary-controlled schools capital spend, and the increase for the forthcoming year will be some 7 per cent. Conservative Members recognise that, against the tight financial position that we are still in, that is an excellent settlement that will allow opportunities for all local education authorities to carry out the necessary maintenance and improvements in their schools.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I received a letter this week from the secretary of the Blackpool association of the National Union of Teachers? I shall ignore the bad spelling and typographical errors. It says that I will be pleased to hear that school budgets are to increase by 5.1 per cent. and, referring to the average for English county councils, that that makes Lancashire's 5.5 per cent. "seem a real bonus".

I intended to deal with revenue budgets in a moment. My hon. Friend has provided us with a useful hors d'oeuvre.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on initiating this debate. He has done a service to his constituents and to everyone living in Lancashire by drawing the attention of the House to his concerns about education in the county. He was eloquently backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and, by their presence and occasional interjections, by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), has also indicated his support.

If I dare say so, we witnessed a St. Valentine's day massacre of the Opposition.

Has my hon. Friend noticed several prominent absences during the debate, in particular that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? Obviously he is absent because he is embarrassed by the record of Lancashire county council. Other prominent absences include Liberal Democrat Members, who consistently claim that they say yes to education, but not one of them has bothered to turn up today. Does not that say a great deal about the Liberal Democrats' real attitude to education in Lancashire?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. By their refusal to join in our discussions on Lancashire, Liberal Democrat Members show the priority that they give to that county.

All my hon. Friends emphasised the importance of raising standards and of making the best use of the considerable resources that the Government have made, and are making, available to schools in Lancashire, as elsewhere, to support that end. Government policy is pushing forward all the time across a wide front, with policies designed to raise achievement and to encourage choice and diversity. I shall touch on just some of those.

To begin with, and as the hon. Member for Hyndburn knows, we are currently discussing in Committee the Nursery and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, which will tackle excellence and opportunity of choice for the pre-fives in a way that will lead to a big expansion in provision and obviously contribute to quality of education for those children, especially later in their school lives.

My hon. Friends sought, understandably, a guarantee that the money made available for education in Lancashire would find its way into schools. I know that all my hon. Friends accept that, in practice, it is for Lancashire county council to set its own budget and to decide its priorities within and between services. The council has the last word on how much is spent on education and how much is spent on other services.

Hon. Members should be aware that I have received many letters saying that, this year, Lancashire has been forced to cut school budgets by more than 5 per cent. That is simply not true. The fact is that Lancashire has been able to increase its budget for all services by some £4 million and can spend £888 million on all services. That is a very large sum and it is for the county council to decide how much of it should be given to schools.

I hope that there will not be a repeat performance of so-called cuts—which are not actual cuts, but are based on a wish list drawn up by a local authority, including full allowance for all movement in cash and volume changes. It is then suggested that cuts on that final figure represent a reduction in support. I hope that that will not be repeated in the current year. As my hon. Friends made crystal clear, the Lancashire LEA had an increase in its spending assessment of more than £26 million, or 5.5 per cent. I have to tell the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that that is real money. He implied that it was fictional money, but he should have a word with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is very clear that it is real money.

I repeat what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said on other occasions. We are unclear from today's debate whether Lancashire is committed to feeding all the increase into schools, so it must be made crystal clear to all parents and teachers in the authority that if that does not happen, it is the responsibility of the county council and no one else.

The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) referred to concern about class sizes in Lancashire schools. Despite the horror stories that occasionally appear, the latest available data show that average class sizes in Lancashire are 28 for primary schools and 22 for secondary schools. If there are class sizes of 35 plus, it is for the county council in the first place, and those managing school budgets in the second, to explain to parents why they are so far above Lancashire's average.

My hon. Friends made several references to the quality of grant-maintained schools. I join them in urging parents in Lancashire to think carefully about the benefits that GM status can bring. As we have heard this morning, Lancashire has a tiny number of GM schools—13, representing only 1 per cent. of its primaries and 8 per cent. of its secondaries. Nationally, one in five secondary pupils is now in a GM school.

A glance at the school performance tables or Ofsted's list of recently published oscars shows just how well GM schools are performing—they comprise 40 per cent. of outstanding secondary schools: 29 per cent. of improving schools, against a national average of 18 per cent; and 6 per cent. of excellent primaries, against only 1 per cent. nationally. Going GM sets schools free to make their own choices and develop their own characters. We see evidence all around us of just how much that can do for a school. It releases the energies and talents of staff, and it is the key to raising the attainment of their pupils.

In Lancashire, only 5 per cent. of schools have even held a ballot on going GM, which is half the rate in the country as a whole. Governors are not offering parents the chance to choose; but parents need not wait for governors. They can ask for a ballot themselves, and I urge them to do so.

In relation to the much-reported activities of Labour councillors and Labour Members of Parliament in Lancashire and elsewhere who have been campaigning ferociously against schools being given the freedom to run themselves, while their colleagues are sending their children to GM schools, I can only say that it is not only a desperate and disgraceful situation—it is hypocritical in the extreme. One does not drive up standards in our poorest schools by abolishing some of our best schools. The Labour party needs to learn that lesson.

This debate has been wide ranging and interesting, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising so many important issues. They have clearly ensured that the Lancashire LEA is charged with the responsibility.

I should like to express my thanks to Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents not only of Coventry but of Warwickshire, for this debate. I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their support in arranging the debate. I also thank my colleagues from Warwickshire and Coventry and from Bedworth, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner).

I particularly thank the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) as over the past couple of years, even before the crash, he and I have tried to introduce legislation in the form of regulations to deal with small airports. I am appreciate all my colleagues' assistance. So far as possible, we have sought to take a bipartisan approach to the air crash as we see no need for it to become a party political issue, although it is certainly a political issue with a small "p".

The crash caused tremendous grief to the residents of the Willenhall area and, indeed, to the citizens of Coventry and of Warwickshire. It was a traumatic experience for them. Anyone who visited the scene of the crash on that day, as I did, could not help but be astounded—it was a miracle—that the aircraft did not land on the houses. I understand from the report that the aircraft clipped the roof of one house and came down about 100 yards away. Had it come down on the houses, it would have been a great catastrophe and no doubt the Government would have rushed legislation through the House to deal with it.

I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), on the Government Front Bench. As he knows, there have been a number of meetings. However, my colleagues and I would like to know when the Government will find the time to introduce regulations, based on their own proposals, so that we can debate and amend them and pass them through the House. It is vital that he answers that question today. My colleagues and I cannot keep on going back to residents—I have been to three public meetings—and telling them that it is a matter of finding parliamentary time. The Minister must come clean and tell us whether it is really just a question of parliamentary time or whether the Government do not have the will to regulate on the basis of their own report.

We must discuss the Coventry air crash of December 1994 and the report into that tragedy that was published on 10 January this year. In this debate, I wish to accomplish three main aims. First, as the title of this debate suggests, I intend briefly to discuss the events of 21 December 1994—the crash that left five people dead. That was, in itself, a tragedy. Secondly, I shall highlight the air accident investigation branch's report into the crash, and the implications of that report for future action. Finally, I shall raise the important issue of airport safety—an issue that I have been raising for two years, and the reason for this Adjournment debate—and discuss the impact of the crash and the subsequent report. It would be a mistake not to highlight the issue of air safety.

The crash in Willenhall, Coventry occurred at 9.52 am on 21 December 1994 and left three crew members and two handlers dead and a community in shock. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 737, owned and operated by Air Algerie and leased by Phoenix Aviation to conduct a series of live animal export flights from the United Kingdom to airports in France and the Netherlands. I should add that, as a result of those flights, a young lady from my constituency, Jill Phipps, was killed when standing up for what she believed was right. We should not forget her; she was another casualty.

I shall discuss the reasons for the crash later in my speech when I discuss the report, but it is important to stress that the disaster could easily have been a catastrophe. I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of the events that occurred, but if the aircraft had been just a few feet lower it would have landed on a densely populated housing estate in Willenhall, causing severe loss of life. Nevertheless, the crash was a dramatic episode in my constituency, which had a profound effect on residents not only in Willenhall but also in Baginton and throughout Coventry.

Anyone who visited the crash scene that day or shortly afterwards would have been moved by the residents' reaction and awestricken by the response of the emergency services, whose reaction and work throughout the disaster deserves the highest commendation: neither I nor the residents could find fault with their efforts, and I am sure that all hon. Members present in the Chamber will concur with that sentiment.

The huge emotional impact made by the crash on the residents of Willenhall has not subsided with time. I recently attended a residents' meeting to debate the crash and the report with residents and local councillors. Throughout that well attended meeting, a depth of feeling was demonstrated which made it obvious to me that the crash has been very much in the minds of the people of Willenhall.

The implications of the report were debated at the meeting. The report was conducted by the AAIB in accordance with the 1989 civil aviation regulations, submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport on 7 December 1995, and made public on 10 January 1996. It reached a number of conclusions and made several important recommendations, ranging from the reasons for the crash to suggestions for future action. It is constructive to highlight the key recommendation, as that will contribute to the debate.

The report's first conclusion was that the flight crew allowed the plane to descend lower than is recommended in the guidelines on approach to Coventry airport. Furthermore, the members of the crew were over-tired, because they had been on duty for too many hours. There was a lack of communication between the pilots, and their comprehension of English was limited. To compound the problem, some of the aircraft's navigational equipment was not compatible with devices in the control tower, and the crew would have seen an electric pylon too late to avoid it.

The plane's commander had received an inadequate weather warning and tried to land in foggy conditions. Air traffic control in Coventry had failed to give details of weather conditions and advice on landing visibility. Finally, the radar systems at Coventry airport could not determine the actual height of the plane. Ground staff could not have been aware that the aircraft had gone lower than recommended by guidelines and could not warn the crew and thus prevent the accident. That was coupled with the fact that a newly qualified weather watcher was on duty in the air traffic services unit at the airport without adequate supervision. The lack of accurate information contributed to the crash.

Those are clearly important conclusions, and I urge the Minister to take note of them and to take some action. The people of Willenhall have been profoundly affected by the crash, and it is vital that the Minister should implement the recommendations if he is to restore public confidence. It is essential that the citizens of Coventry are assured, now that the report has been published, that it will be acted upon. To disregard it would not only limit future improvements in airport safety but deal a substantial blow to the confidence of the people who live near the airport at which the tragedy occurred. I acknowledge that, on publication of the report, the Minister announced in a press release that the issuing of permits to foreign aircraft was to be tightened. I await implementation of that announcement, but I must make it clear that that in itself does not go far enough.

Finally, I stress the need for the regulation of airport safety. Quite apart from the 1994 crash, this has been a theme that I and my colleagues have pursued consistently for the past two years, during which I have tabled a number of questions about problems at Coventry airport and had a number of meetings with various Ministers. I hope to meet the Minister for Aviation and Shipping with my colleagues next month when we have sorted out a date.

In March 1995, I travelled to Brussels to meet the European Transport Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, who said that regulation of small airports was needed and that he would be very interested in the results of the report. I have sent him a copy and await his comments.

In July last year, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and I led a delegation of Coventry Members of Parliament to meet the Minister for Aviation and Shipping to raise the concerns of residents of the city of Coventry. One important issue raised at that meeting was the Government's own 1993 proposals for the regulation of small airports. The Minister assured us that he was very much in favour of his own proposals, which I shall outline, but said that he was not responsible for their introduction. Like other Ministers, he claimed that there was insufficient parliamentary time available to discuss them. Now that the report on the crash, which contains clear recommendations, has been published, there can be little excuse for not making the time to discuss such an important issue.

The proposals are that the Department should commission and consult on guidance to create a national network to assist the preparation of noise amelioration schemes; that the Department should encourage aerodromes to review existing noise amelioration measures and their enforcement and arrangements for local accountability; and that the Department should open discussions with the British Airports Authority and local consultative committees about making Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports more responsible and locally accountable for their noise control measures. Why cannot we do the same for airports such as that at Bagington just outside Coventry?

Other sections of the proposals include new enabling powers for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including ground noise. Designated aerodromes should prepare noise amelioration schemes, consult locally and agree with the lead local authority what is to be established. Where disputes arise, the Secretary of State would have the power to settle them.

Those are important proposals and, although far from exhaustive, could make a real difference to people living near small airports such as that at Coventry. I urge the Government to find time to debate them and, if the House so wishes, to implement them.

I hope that I have shown that the crash and the report resulting from the tragedy should prompt the Government to implement not only the report's recommendations but the proposals for the regulation of small airports produced by the Government themselves in 1993.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) should be congratulated on raising such an important matter. As he said, many of us—notably, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), in whose constituency the airport is situated, and I—have become increasingly concerned, but have not had a very satisfactory response from the authorities.

The worrying aspect of the situation that the hon. Gentleman described is illustrated by the deficiencies of the doomed aircraft and its control. As I understand it, some essential safety elements were lacking.

I have known Coventry airport since I have represented Warwick and Leamington. Indeed, it was in my constituency until the boundary commissioners decreed some years ago that it should be located in the patch represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. To use a sporting analogy, the airport resembles a third division or non league football ground suddenly taken over by Manchester United and run with all the corresponding panoply.

Coventry airport is small, but it is nevertheless among the top three or four in terms of the movement of freight. That may seem unbelievable, but freight movement is constant, and it is likely to increase. The Coventry Evening Telegraph of 16 January said:

"Freight business that would increase the number of bigger planes using Coventry Airport is being sought in an attempt to turn losses into profit.

AM & I, the private firm now running the city council-owned airport want to maximise the volume of cargo dealt with in each flight at Bagington.

It would mean fewer small aircraft and an increase in large jets, including Airbuses and Boeing 737 and 727 aircraft. There is unlikely to be any significant overall increase in the number of planes landing and taking off."

I beg to doubt whether all that is true and, in any event, the question of noise must also be considered.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will agree that the salient point is that the airport was not built for such operations. Clearly, safety is critical at any airport. I live near Coventry airport, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, and I see the planes flying in fairly low. I remember that at the time of the accident, which the hon. Gentleman described so graphically, people were already complaining about the noise and saying that there was an accident waiting to happen. When it did happen, it caused pandemonium in Warwick district council offices—I was there at a meeting. People there said that they had always felt that something of the kind could occur.

The noise generated, especially at night, causes distress and irritation to my constituents in the Leamington Spa area and the surrounding villages. In terms of air travel, a distance of 30 or 40 miles is nothing and is accomplished in a few minutes, but the effects are widespread on the ground. Last year we had a very good summer and noise carried even further than usual. People were unable to have their windows open during the hottest period. I, too, noticed the effects, but this is not a special plea. I do not live on one of the main arrival or departure paths, but I see and hear the planes and I am all too well aware of the extent to which my constituents are troubled by it.

The onus lies firmly on the council. I approach the matter in a non-political way, and my approach would be the same even if the council were not of a different political complexion from my own. The council says that it needs to consider the generation of jobs and income for the people of Coventry. That is a laudable aim, but we also have to consider the environmental needs and safety of individuals who live in the area. In the three constituencies alone that I have mentioned—those of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and myself—so many people are affected by noise from the airport that environmental and safety considerations overpower arguments about jobs and expansion.

I, too, have been part of deputations to the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, but we got short change from him. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), is a very fair-minded man and may perhaps take a rather different approach. The problem will not go away. I appreciate the difficulties as international airports are governed differently, but we want new regulations for small airports in this country. We also want higher standards on aircraft noise generated from them.

I have the greatest pleasure in fully supporting the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on being fortunate in securing the debate. Although my constituency might seem a fair way from Coventry airport, my constituents in Binley Woods are very much affected by the activity at Baginton airport. I keep referring to Baginton airport because, to many people who have lived in the area for many years, that is how it is known.

Baginton, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), used to be a small village—indeed, it still is. Coventry airport was a small airport at Baginton village. Activity there has since grown out of all proportion. I receive many letters from residents of Binley Woods who complain bitterly that their sleep is broken in the middle of the night by loud aircraft landing at Baginton airport. If it happened on a regular basis, one could adjust one's sleeping pattern and forget about it, but it does not. The noise is spasmodic and occurs five and sometimes six nights a week.

It is time that the Minister considered the conclusions announced in 1993 on how airports such as Baginton can be controlled properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East has been extremely diligent, as have all Members who represent Warwickshire and Coventry, in meeting the Minister, but, as my hon. Friend said, we can only do that for so long. Firm action needs to be taken to regulate the airport.

There is a lack of transparency in the complaints procedure and a lack of action as a result of them. Some of my constituents who live in Binley Woods regularly telephone the airport to complain, citing exact times of the aircraft noise, yet they are—virtually—fobbed off. They are told, "It is nothing to do with us. It is to do with the Civil Aviation Authority". Yet when they telephone the CAA, it says that the problem is nothing to do with it either. There is a lack of accountability.

I do not want to speak about the crash because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East portrayed it well. I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) that the crash was waiting to happen. I must impress on the Minister that if that airport is not specifically regulated, further crashes could happen. Indeed, although noise is a problem, the big fear in people's minds is that further crashes—heaven forbid—are waiting to happen. Urgent action should be taken to regulate the airport correctly to ensure as far as possible that another crash will not happen. Otherwise, the circumstances will remain exactly the same as those before the crash in 1994. There is also a lack of noise regulation. Aircraft noise was specifically removed from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and that should be redressed.

I want to extend the analogy drawn by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington between non-league and first division sides. Nuneaton happens to have a fairly good non-league side; Nuneaton Borough is excellent. He mentioned Manchester United—I have no arguments against them—who are excellent and first class. The problem is that the aircraft that use Baginton airport are not excellent and first class. Older, noisier aircraft tend to use regional, very small airports such as Baginton, which increases the problem. To most people, regional airports are airports such as Birmingham. The amount of freight traffic landing at the small village airport in Baginton gives it a regional status, so there must be some enactment and enforcement of procedures to ensure that the airport is properly regulated.

The control of aircraft noise has been discussed since 1991, when the consultation paper on the subject was issued. Conclusions to it were announced in March 1993. My constituents who live in Binley Woods and I want to know why, after all that time, no regulations have been put in place to enable people who are affected by airports to voice their opinions and concerns, and why they have not been promised the safety that they surely deserve.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on his success in arranging the debate, the way in which he delivered his speech and the amount of homework that he had clearly done. His speech was comprehensive and included enormous detail. It is a fairly short debate and therefore, of necessity, my speech will be fairly brief.

Coventry airport, as has been said, is in my constituency. It originated before the second world war. Since the airport was built, many houses in its general vicinity have been constructed—some very much closer to the airport than others. For example, Oak Close in Baginton was built immediately adjacent to the perimeter fence. One cannot get any closer to the airport. I invite the House to consider and reflect on the implications of that proximity.

Planning permission was given and building took place because Coventry airport at that time was a small airport, catering for small, light aircraft, which predominantly used the airfield during daylight hours and were not especially noisy or offensive. Some hon. Members might argue that houses in Willenhall in the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, in Binley Woods in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nuneaton, and in Baginton in my constituency should not have been built, and perhaps they are right. The debate on the Coventry air crash should, however, starts from where we are today and not from where we would like to be.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) that much responsibility for the increased use of the airport must lie with Coventry city council, which has long been directly responsible for the airport and its management. It has deliberately sought more business and more flights to offset the substantial losses of the airport. That position has continued under new management.

On 25 January 1995, Paul Dale, the political editor of the Coventry Evening Telegraph, one of our excellent local newspapers, said:

"The city council's aim has been to turn the airport from a £1 million loss-making white elephant into a profitable outfit. The fact that Baginton is now the sixth busiest freight airport in the country is viewed with some pride at the council house."

I must say that distance lends enchantment. I well understand that that may be good news for Coventry council and Coventry ratepayers, but it is bad news for my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Nuneaton and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. The noise and nuisance of those flights are considerable.

I come now to a point rightly touched on earlier by hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East. He drew attention to the fact that more flights naturally increase the risk of accident, particularly in a congested and built-up urban area. Here, for the benefit of hon. Members, I should say that the airfield is on the eastern periphery of Coventry, surrounded by a number of villages. It is now badly sited, which, unfortunately, is placing many people at risk.

During the past few years, the character of Coventry airport has changed substantially—the very point made by the Coventry Evening Telegraph in the passage that I have just quoted. It is now predominantly a freight airfield. The aircraft which crashed on 21 December 1994 in the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East at, as he said, a cost of some life, was a Boeing 737 owned by Air Algerie. It was due to land at the airport, collect freight—in this case, calves—and fly out. It would appear that the equipment in the aircraft was not entirely compatible with ground equipment at Coventry airport, a contributory factor to the accident.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, in his admirable speech, touched on the report that was produced by the air accident investigation branch on 10 January. He went into it in some detail, so I shall not go over the ground that he covered. However, the whole issue is a genuinely important matter and a source of real worry to my constituents living in the villages of Baginton and Stoneleigh which are close to the airfield. They do not want any aircraft from any airline flying with equipment which is not entirely compatible with the equipment that is used at Coventry airfield, and I entirely agree with them.

Already my constituents and those of other hon. Members have much to complain about. The noise and nuisance from aircraft landing and taking off is intrusive. Better and stronger controls are required to safeguard the environment of those living and working close to airports. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, I am not opposed to jobs or progress, but those laudable objectives have to be set against the danger and nuisance caused by night flights. They must be set against the disturbed nights and general inconvenience that they cause to the many thousands of people living near to the airfield who cannot escape the substantial noise intrusion caused by aircraft landing and taking off.

I have visited the airport on several occasions, one of which was fairly late in the evening with members of Baginton parish council. I could not only hear the noise of the aircraft and the substantial ground noise that is created, but smell and almost taste the fumes of the kerosene used by the aircraft. It was singularly unpleasant. There are few bonuses for anyone living close to an airport.

The crash has far-reaching implications, not simply for Coventry airport. Clearly, we must prevent anything similar from happening in the future. It may be helpful for the House to know that, on Wednesday 12 July 1995, I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, the author of the debate, met the Minister for Aviation and Shipping who is in another place. At that meeting, all three of us stressed two separate issues. The first and most important was aviation safety. No one wants a repeat of that terrible December day in 1994. The second was the noise and nuisance caused to so many people by the operation of the airport itself.

I have had meetings with Warwick district council, in whose area the airport is situated, and I have met Baginton parish council and, like other hon. Members, many residents who all say that the nuisance is growing and at a substantial rate. They all naturally ask what action might be taken to mitigate the problems that are being caused by Coventry airport.

A solution may be contained in the Department of Transport document entitled "Review of aircraft noise legislation—announcement of conclusions". Again, that was a point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. The main points of that document are to commission and to consult on guidance designed to produce a national framework for noise amelioration schemes. The Department should also undertake to encourage airfields to review any noise amelioration measures and their enforcement, and to make much greater arrangements for local accountability. Hon. Members whose constituencies surround the airport clearly understand the need for real local accountability to come back into the equation—a point that is not sufficiently addressed in the present arrangements.

The same document says that there should be a new enabling power for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including those for ground noise—in itself an important point. Additionally, the Secretary of State should have a call-in power so that he can approve schemes. A number of other measures are suggested in that admirable document which would do a great deal to enhance and improve the quality of life of those who live not just around Coventry airport but around other airports up and down the land.

However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister, who is listening carefully to the debate, that such measures are no use in a simple report. They should be enshrined in legislation—the very point made so well by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. I believe that I have the support of all hon. Members present when I say that we want the Department of Transport speedily to enact a Bill giving greater powers to local authorities and the Secretary of State which will ensure a greater measure of control over local airfields such as Coventry.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for securing this debate and for the tireless way in which he has doggedly pursued this issue since the day of the air crash at Coventry. Since that tragic day in Coventry, he has applied pressure in every circumstance that one can imagine: he has met the local authority, Ministers and local residents. I hope that he will continue those efforts until we are rewarded with better regulation in Coventry.

I share an office with my hon. Friend in Coventry, and we were there on the morning of the air crash. People had to be in Coventry—which is a reasonable-sized city—to understand the impact of what happened that morning. My hon. Friend and I were working in the office and we heard sirens outside. We did not know what had gone on—whether there had been a terrorist bomb, whether a gas main had leaked or whether the canal had burst its banks. It was then announced on the radio that there had been an air crash. My hon. Friend immediately went to the crash site. The people of Coventry were in a state of shock, and heaven knows how the people of Willenhall were feeling.

Many people had said that there was an accident waiting to happen at Coventry. The plane that crashed was involved in the export of live animals to the continent, following the ferry companies' ban on that trade and the inability of people to export live animals through the ports. We knew that cowboys would be attracted to that trade—they were cashing in on a short-term profit opportunity to transport live animals out of the country by air.

There is no long-term future in such an operation—everyone knows that, so everyone knows what sort of an operation would fill the gap. Local people were concerned about the safety regulations, the aircraft that were being used and the nature of the company that was running the operation out of Coventry airport. The local authority was in a dilemma because the operator was threatening it with legal action if it did anything to prevent his trade.

Lord Goschen has told my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East that the problem is parliamentary time. Does any hon. Member believe that there is a problem with parliamentary time? We have heard the Queen's Speech and we know its content—or lack of content. Parliamentary time is not at a premium this year, nor was it last year. It is a smokescreen for anyone to suggest to hon. Members who represent Coventry and Warwickshire that the problem is parliamentary time.

I do not want to bring party politics into this issue, but I ask the Minister whether the problem is not tied up with the paranoia in sections of the Government about regulation of any part of the economy and with improving or increasing the powers and abilities of local authorities to respond to circumstances such as this. If the only excuse that we are being given is lack of parliamentary time, I suspect that there must be another reason why we are not acting to regulate small and medium-sized airports properly. Perhaps we will get a response from the Minister on that issue.

The local authority was in a dilemma. Phoenix Aviation, the operator of this enterprise, was threatening court action if the local authority did anything to restrain its trade. There were demonstrations outside the airport and this operation left an awful lot to be desired in relation to health and safety at work and safety in the air. The company threatened to take the local authority to court if it took action.

Six people died because of Phoenix Aviation's activities in Coventry, including one demonstrator who fell under a lorry at the gates of Coventry airport and five people in the air crash. I have visited the site—I did not go with my hon. Friend on the morning of the crash; it was his constituency, and it was right that he should be involved at that time—and there would have been mass slaughter in Willenhall if that plane had been on a slightly different path. The plane clipped a pylon, turned upside down in the air, clipped the side of a house and then, mercifully, crashed into woodland at the side of the housing estate.

The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) asked whether those houses should have been built—they were built in the mid-1950s and the nature of the airport has changed over that time. When the housing estate was built at Willenhall the airport was a Sunday flying school.

In the days when much of this development took place, the airfield catered for small, light aircraft. A fundamental change in the role of the airport has occurred over recent years, and that is causing so much worry to those of us who have constituencies around it.

I shall refer briefly to the change in the nature of the airport, the problems that have arisen as a result of that and the council's policies towards it. The airport has been a controversial issue within the local authority for a number of years—some people have been staunch supporters of its continuation and others have been totally opposed to it. A few years ago, we thought that we might be able to close the airport and build a car factory on the site—I do not think I am giving away any secrets—but that deal fell through.

In my view, the local authority sometimes exaggerates the economic importance of the airport. I have talked to local business leaders, most of whom believe that Coventry airport brings very little economic advantage to the city. The airport is only 10 or 12 miles from Birmingham, and because of the nature of freight these days, there are not a lot of jobs involved with it, although there are people who depend on it for their livelihoods. The local authority should bear it in mind—and review its policies accordingly—that an alternative to the continuation of Coventry airport is other economic development.

I have some difficulties with the local authority's powers over the airport. If we are going to put responsibilities on councils, we need to give them power to take action so that we can hold them accountable.

There is a desperate need for regulation that will prevent such an accident from occurring in the future, or at least minimise its likelihood. The British people know and understand certain aspects of the life that goes on around them.

For example, they understand why new regulations are being introduced to control the number of hours that lorry drivers are allowed to drive. They were amazed by this report when it revealed that in the 1990s people were allowed to fly excessive hours; people were in charge of an aircraft when their command of the English language left a lot to be desired; and people were able to operate an aircraft into and out of an airport when their instrumentation was incompatible with the instrumentation available at the airport.

People in Coventry and throughout the length and breadth of the country find it incredible that such things are allowed to happen. The central demand that arises from this debate must be that the Minister should look with some urgency at the regulations that have allowed this to happen. They must be brought up to date to ensure that the air space around our towns and cities is operated in a modern and safe manner so that we are not imposing a massive danger on people in the future.

Lord Goschen, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, said that the main issue was parliamentary time. I have already said that I cannot believe that. If it is not about a dogmatic desire to deregulate in every area of our public life or a strange fear of giving local authorities any powers, the Government must take some action and take it now, without further delay.

This has been an important debate. It is a particularly appropriate subject for the longer Adjournment debates that have been introduced in the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on initiating the debate and on the tenacity with which he has pursued the issue over a long period. It must be a source of satisfaction to him to raise the subject on the Floor of the House and to find such consensus on the need for prompt action from the Government. We will listen to the Minister with great interest.

This is a good example of someone saying what he has to say in a relatively brief speech so as to enable others to participate. As a result, we have heard a range of excellent speeches from both sides of the House, displaying a remarkable degree of agreement on the causes of the problem and the need for a Government response. The onus will be on the Minister to provide that response.

The debate has taken place on several tiers. First, there was the immediate tragedy and the clear consensus that it was an accident waiting to happen. There were also the particular circumstances at Coventry airport. There does not seem to be much disagreement within the House that, for a long time, the arrangements there have left much to be desired.

On that score, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said that it was a matter for the local authority. Clearly, the local authority has played a prime role as the owner of the airport and has pursued the policies that have been described in order to attract extra business. However, such action creates a potential conflict of interest between ownership and self-regulation. Therefore, it cannot be a matter only for the local authority.

Local authorities, irrespective of political complexion, need to be controlled when commercial interests are involved. It must be a matter for regulation. Our prime concern is that it has taken so long to put in place a regulatory regime that takes the onus off the local authority. If one is not allowed to do certain things, one cannot do them. If one is allowed by law to operate in a certain way, when commercial interests are involved, the limits are often pushed to a point at which they conflict with other legitimate interests.

The overwhelming view of the House is that the Minister should tell us that regulatory measures will be put in place to constrict the activities of the operator at Coventry airport and other operators throughout the country. I agree strongly with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that it is laughable to say that such measures cannot be put in place because of a lack of parliamentary time. As everybody knows, the business of the House is being spun out on a weekly basis to try to find something to do in the pre-election period. The idea that there is no time to legislate on a matter that involves safety and appears to command a remarkable degree of consensus is wrong. It is wide open for the Government to legislate and to build on the consensus.

Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said that he would support the introduction of legislation based on the Department of Transport's "Review of aircraft noise legislation—announcement of conclusions"? I agree that we should find time to introduce the legislation, but I do not agree with his statement about spinning out time in the run-up to a general election. I thought that that was gilding the lily a bit.

Far be it from me to disturb even mildly the spirit of consensus that has prevailed for all of 55 minutes.

The point is that, if there were a will to legislate, there would be time to do so. Obviously, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) would not expect me to give any specific commitments when we have not seen any legislation, but it is clear from what has been said this morning and from what I hope will be said by the Minister, that there is general agreement on the need for legislative action. If I was being non-consensual, I would throw the question back and ask why there is a consultation paper dated August 1991 on aircraft noise legislation and a review of aircraft legislation dated March 1993, yet we still have no legislation before the House.

The debate has raised wider issues which cause me great concern. They relate to the regulation of international aviation and the way in which it impinges on our country. The list of conclusions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East includes national and international issues as well as those specific to Coventry. The crew allowed the plane to go too low, so there was a question of competence. The crew were over-tired, and there are enormous issues involved in that. There was a lack of communication between pilots, and the pilot involved spoke little English, which is the international language of aviation. There was inappropriate navigational equipment and there were inadequate weather warnings from Coventry.

Some of those issues are specific to Coventry and to the particular incident, but others fit into a far wider framework. We must look to the Minister to say what will be done at Coventry and to talk about the national regulatory issue. The Government must press hard in international forums to ensure that the potential for such abuse is extinguished.

I find strong parallels between what has been described here and the way in which the maritime industry has moved in recent years. As it happens, I was at a lunch yesterday addressed by the chief executive of Singapore Airlines. Quite independently of this debate, his description of competitive trends in international aviation made me think in the same way as this debate. He was talking about hiring foreign flag crews in aviation. That conjures up images of the factors that contributed to the decline of merchant shipping in this country and to a sharp reduction in safety standards. He said that it was because of the growth of commercial pressures and competition. However, we have to ensure that there is an international order in aviation that draws a high bottom line and precludes the possibility of cost cutting through a reduction in safety measures.

indicated assent.

I see that the Minister agrees with that point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East said, people find it incredible that in this day and age, quite legally, substandard aeroplanes can fly into Coventry, or any other British airport, with pilots who do not speak English and who cannot properly communicate. Our concern goes far beyond the specific tragedy. We need an urgent and strong reaction from the Government to counter such problems, because a similar tragedy could happen at any airport that is used by aircraft in which the same conditions prevail.

It is always attractive to think that good can come out of tragedy. It would be satisfying to my hon. Friends, to Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate and to those who have been bereaved by the tragedy and who have suffered such trauma if, as a result of the lessons that have come to the surface following the Coventry air crash, steps were taken that were specific to Coventry, the Government showed urgency in introducing noise regulations to alleviate the burden of those living in proximity to over-used airfields and alarm bells rang about the potential for disaster on a much wider scale unless we accept that there is a real threat from a reduction in acceptable safety standards in the operation and crewing of aircraft. On all those fronts, we shall listen with interest to the Minister.

I shall pick up the invitation given by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I believe that he is right to say that this is a useful opportunity to review some of the circumstances surrounding the accident, both in the specific context of Coventry and in the wider context of the issues he raises about the control of international aviation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and he has prosecuted the interests of his constituents with his customary assiduity. I very much welcome the general thrust of the contributions from the hon. Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith).

It is clear from all six speeches that we are, essentially, dealing with two major issues: first, the circumstances surrounding the crash of the aircraft at Coventry and the issues that flow from that, which were rightly identified by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North; and, secondly, the general issue of the location and status of the airport and its subsequent development, and the developments in the law and in the powers available to various authorities to deal with the development of Coventry airport and other similar airports.

I share the desire of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that I should restate my Department's sympathy for those bereaved as a result of the tragic accident. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wishes specifically to join in that expression of sympathy. I fully understand the anxiety of many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who live close to Coventry airport. I hope that we can allay some of those concerns by going through the action that my Department has taken to ensure that foreign aircraft that fly to the United Kingdom are safe and by reiterating our determination that foreign aircraft should operate to an acceptable level.

It may be helpful for me to say a little about the safety system under which international aviation operates. International civil aviation, since the second world war, has operated on the basis that all states join the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—and, as signatories to it, accept and comply with the annexes to the Chicago convention, which establishes a number of minimum standards for the safe operation of aircraft. The system of mutual interdependence is reinforced by specific articles in the convention, including an obligation that states will accept certificates and licences provided by another state.

In practice, that system is the only sensible way in which to establish standards on a worldwide basis. Without that system, every state would need to check every foreign aircraft entering its territory against its own national standards, although it would, presumably, be obliged to allow the aircraft to land. It might be possible to detain the aircraft and to prevent it from flying off, but it would not be practical simply to have national legislation that imposed standards on aircraft coming in unseen to any nation state. The obligation has to be to have an international agreement which requires all signatories to the ICAO convention to reach an acceptable standard.

We firmly believe that the ICAO system provides the only practical basis for organising safety on a worldwide basis. In a moment, I shall refer to the detailed ways in which the present arrangements are being improved. The Government have taken a number of measures following the Coventry crash.

May I again draw the maritime parallel? What the Minister has described was, until quite recently, the Government's view of how to handle the safety of ships coming into British ports. There was then a significant and welcome policy change as a result of which the level of inspection in British ports was greatly increased, with dramatic results. The inspection established the high proportion of foreign flag vessels in particular that were seriously substandard. There must be a parallel to that which does not conflict with the general formula that the Minister has set out. It would be widely welcomed if we knew that we had an inspectorate that was liable to turn up at Coventry airport, or any other airport, and say, "Right, we are holding this plane until we have checked every nut, bolt and crew qualification."

It is perfectly fair for the hon. Gentleman to draw that analogy. He knows that, in maritime terms, there are two issues. One is that an individual port state can take action to improve maritime safety. The other is that it is, none the less, necessary to seek, through the International Maritime Organisation, a general increase in safety standards. The hon. Gentleman knows that the greatest truism in marine safety is that flag state control is infinitely superior to port state control.

The aviation equivalent is that, although it is important to have appropriate safety checks in this country to deal with aircraft, from whichever country they arrive, to ensure that their safety is adequate, we also need—this is recognised throughout the world and is underpinned by the point the hon. Gentleman correctly made about the proliferation of airlines throughout the world, whether from the former Soviet Union, from Africa or elsewhere—a basic, high standard of safety, operated worldwide by nation states that allow aircraft to be registered by them and then to take to the air.

I want to pursue that last point, because the Minister attributed to me a view that I do not hold. I am sure that 90 per cent. of flag states control their shipping more effectively than port state control can. However, we both know that there are flag states with disastrous records which have no interest in controlling their shipping, but see it purely as a commercial operation—I refer to the flags of convenience states. By the same token, if there is a possibility that there are countries that register aeroplanes, but do not carry out proper controls, port state controls become much more effective.

In all honesty, there is not much between the hon. Gentleman and me on this matter. He makes a fair point. The parallel is that no one has an interest in allowing airlines to operate substandard aircraft from countries whose standards are perhaps not as good as those operated in the United Kingdom, but my point is none the less valid and extremely important. It is necessary, despite its imperfection, to have an international system that requires standards from its members and enforces those standards to whatever degree possible while ensuring that domestic legislation allows for effective safety monitoring. The parallel between marine and aviation safety is fair, at least on that point.

At present, we fully reflect our ICAO obligations. With the exception of European economic area aircraft performing intra-EEA flights, which do not need a permit, all other aircraft wishing to perform a public transport to or from the UK must obtain a permit from my Department. Before that permit is granted, we must be satisfied on a number of points.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would rather make some progress.

The key points are: first, has the airline been approved by its authorities as being competent to operate the type of flight concerned? Secondly, has the aircraft been certified as airworthy by the aeronautical authority of the country of registration? Thirdly, does the airline have adequate insurance? Confirmation of those points is normally obtained by the airline submitting appropriate documentation. If we have any doubts about safety standards, we do not issue a permit until those doubts have been resolved. That may mean that we have to consult the aeronautical authorities in the country concerned, asking the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical inspection of the aircraft or to visit the country concerned and to clarify safety oversight procedures.

For example, in this case, in view of local concern about cargo charter flights operated by foreign airlines, we decided to ask the CAA to inspect any aircraft wishing to perform similar flights from Coventry airport. Aircraft operated by Nigerian and Russian airlines were inspected. In both cases, the CAA identified breaches of ICAO safety standards. As a result, we deferred consideration of the permit applications while we took up the matter with the Nigerian and Russian authorities.

In the event, the Nigerian airline subsequently withdrew its application to operate from Coventry. In the case of the Russian airlines, permits were granted, but only after the faults identified by the CAA had been rectified and the CAA had re-inspected the aircraft to confirm airworthiness standards. During the past year, the CAA has undertaken a number of inspections of foreign aircraft at our request. In two cases, aircraft from Tajikistan and Sweden were detained on safety grounds.

Turning to the circumstances of this unfortunate accident, may I deal first with the unauthorised nature of the flights. Although an application for the flight had been received from Phoenix Aviation, the UK charterer, at the time of the flight, no permit had been issued. We had not been satisfied that all our documentary requirements had been met and were waiting for Phoenix Aviation to provide the outstanding documents on behalf of the airline. In particular, we were seeking to clarify the leasing arrangements.

Although an Air Algerie aircraft was to be used, it was to be wet-leased—Air Algerie would provide both aircraft and flight crew—by a Ghanaian airline known as Race Cargo. That meant that checks had to be made with the Ghanaian authorities to ensure that Race Cargo was certified to use the Air Algerie aircraft and that Air Algerie's insurance arrangements covered the type of flights concerned. I stress that responsibility for the safety of the aircraft rests with Air Algerie rather than with Phoenix Aviation or any of the other parties involved.

As the operation of flights from Coventry by Air Algerie had not been authorised, any flights operated were in breach of the air navigation order. Therefore, with the assistance of the CAA, we conducted an inquiry into the circumstances of the flights to consider whether any prosecution action should be initiated. However, Phoenix Aviation was placed into voluntary liquidation before any charges could be laid.

The inquiry revealed that a number of flights had operated without the Department's knowledge. It was clear, therefore, that existing procedures for monitoring permits should be reviewed. Under the existing system, copies of all the permits issued to foreign airlines are sent to the relevant UK airport to be used by the foreign airline. If an airport authority had doubts about whether an airline had been granted a permit, it was expected that that authority would contact my Department to clarify the position. This case clearly suggested that that system might not be working as effectively as it should. We are therefore consulting the Aerodrome Operators Association, which represents UK airports, to consider whether the existing liaison arrangements between it and the Department can be improved.

It is clear from the findings of the accident report recently published by the air accident investigation branch that this unfortunate accident resulted essentially from human error. In its thorough report, the AAIB has considered all relevant factors, including the condition of the aircraft. In its view, first, the aircraft had been maintained and was serviceable with no significant defects; secondly, there was no evidence to suggest that the aircraft experienced any systems failure or malfunctions that would have caused the collision with the pylon; thirdly, the estimated weight and loading of the aircraft were within normal limits at the time of the accident; and, fourthly, there was sufficient fuel on board to divert if necessary.

There has been some suggestion—it has been mentioned in the debate today—that the aircraft's inability to receive the Coventry instrument landing system may have been a contributory factor to the accident as it meant that the crew were unable to perform what is known as a precision-approach landing. I am advised that the approach performed by the crew—a non-precision approach—was consistent with the approach procedure set out in the aircraft's operating manual.

On whether aircraft in the UK are required to have ILS equipment compatible with the equipment at Coventry airport, the use of the ILS is just one of a number of acceptable methods for landing in conditions of poor visibility. UK aircraft are required to carry varying levels of radio and radio navigation equipment according to the circumstances of the flights that they are undertaking.

In this case, the AAIB report noted that the crew failed to comply with the operating procedures for non-precision approaches set out in the aircraft's manual and that the aircraft was allowed to descend below the normal approach glidepath. The AAIB also considers that the performance of the flight crew was impaired by the effects of tiredness resulting from the change from day duty to night duty, which was extended to just over 10 hours because of unforeseen circumstances.

There is no international common standard for crew flight time limitations, although the European Joint Aviation Authorities is in the process of agreeing on harmonised FTL requirements. Every state has the option of determining its own standards in this sector. The Algerian FTL for night duties allows for a maximum duty period of seven hours 45 minutes on four sectors. That scheme is more restrictive than that allowed for pilots in the UK.

In this case, the Algerian crew had been on duty for more than two hours in excess of the normal limit laid down by the Algerian authorities, but there is provision in the FTL scheme for duty hours to be exceeded under exceptional circumstances such as a weather diversion. That is in the nature of operating aircraft internationally. The aircraft had been diverted from Coventry because of visibility conditions and landed at East Midlands airport. Once advised of improved weather conditions at Coventry, the aircraft took off from East Midlands and made a second unsuccessful attempt to land at Coventry. It would appear, therefore, that the Algerian crew were operating in accordance with their FTL scheme, although there is no question but that they had been on duty for about 10 hours.

The AAIB makes a number of recommendations. One of them, specifically directed at the Department, calls for a review in permit procedures. My noble Friend the Minster for Aviation and Shipping announced on 10 January that the Department had already acted to amend its procedures for the approval of the operation of wet-leased aircraft by foreign airlines. Those amended procedures now require the provision of a statement from the applicant airline as to which airline's operations and flight manuals will be applicable for the proposed flight. That change will clarify permit responsibilities as regards future applications involving the use of wet-leased aircraft.

On the general issue of safety, my Department has been reviewing how best to monitor the safety standards of foreign aircraft operating to the United Kingdom. I referred earlier to the ICAO system for establishing international standards. The fact that there has been generally good aviation safety is a tribute to the effectiveness of that system so far, but concerns have rightly been expressed about whether these standards are being uniformly applied. We have therefore decided to introduce a number of new measures designed to increase the safety oversight of safety standards of foreign aircraft operating to the UK. Details of those new measures were announced on 10 January by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.

The measures will include increased surveillance of foreign aircraft operating to the UK, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North suggested. My Department will ask the CAA to undertake more inspections of foreign registered aircraft when there is doubt as to whether international safety standards established by the ICAO are being observed.

We shall also assist the ICAO in the implementation of its own system to monitor member states' adherence to the ICAO safety standards. This follows extensive lobbying by the UK Government to persuade fellow member states that ICAO needed some form of monitoring programme to ensure that its standards were being observed. Starting next month, teams including experts from the CAA will be visiting ICAO member states to assess whether ICAO safety standards are being observed.

The Government believe it essential for all countries to ensure that they fulfil their obligations under the Chicago convention and ensure the safety of all aircraft for which they are responsible. It is the responsibility of all states to maintain vigorous oversight of all aircraft that they license and certify. As for the UK, foreign aircraft are now subject to increased surveillance; and if doubts emerge about the safety standards of particular aircraft, we shall not hesitate to take action to ensure that international safety standards are observed.

Am I right in understanding the Minister to say that the Government are refusing to improve the regulations as they apply in the United Kingdom, or to make them stricter than the minimum international regulations? Is the Minister proposing merely to improve the surveillance of those international regulations? The people of Coventry want to know whether the Government are prepared to take action to improve the regulations as they apply to the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman will serve his constituents best by properly reflecting the position that I have just outlined. The ICAO safety standards are acceptably high. If properly observed and maintained, they allow for the perfectly safe operation of international aircraft. The British Government have always maintained such safety standards. The thrust of my remarks and of those by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that some member states do not comply as thoroughly as they should with the ICAO conditions. It is important, therefore, to carry out more inspections on the ground of these aircraft—that is what the Opposition spokesman called for—and to target those inspections on airlines that may be identified as not operating to the correct standards.

The citizens of Coventry may take considerable reassurance from the speed and urgency with which the British Government introduced the new regulations following this incident. They should also be encouraged by the speed and assiduity with which the Government were prepared to react to an event that exposed some of the inadequacies of the present reporting arrangements.

Another important element in this debate, raised by several hon. Members, concerned the extent to which Coventry airport has changed over time. I would not dream of contradicting them; after all, hon. Members who are local to the area see what happens there every day and every week. Coventry now ranks as the sixth largest freight airport in the UK. Its freight tonnage rose from 700 in 1990 to 28,900 in 1994. This expansion of freight activity has doubtless been responsible for a considerable improvement in the local economy.

I fear I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, who suggested that the airport had brought very little to Coventry—if I quote him correctly. Instead, I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that everyone recognises that airports are two-headed beasts: they bring considerable benefits to local economies, which is why they are sought after by many towns and cities, and why improving them plays a prominent part in the plans of many Labour local authorities and local authorities of all complexions; but they have a significant environmental impact, which is why it is necessary to institute a proper regime of control.

We have consulted on, and published, our proposals for new aircraft noise legislation, and we believe that they are the right way forward. They are quite separate from planning legislation and are not intended to deal with planning issues. In theory, it would be perfectly possible for the local authority to alter the planning consent that the airport currently enjoys and within which it operates, but to do so would be unprecedented, not least because it would almost certainly require substantial amounts of compensation to be paid out—an inevitable part of the planning system.

Our proposals, on the other hand, are designed to strengthen the local accountability of aerodromes and to encourage the development of best practice and of measures to reduce disturbance caused by activities allowed under current planning permission.

The operator at the airport has established an airport consultative committee which meets regularly. It is not my place to comment on the efficacy or otherwise of the arrangements—except to say that at the heart of the Government's proposals are enabling provisions to underpin the voluntary measures taken by aerodrome operators. They would be backed by reserve powers to designate an aerodrome if voluntary measures are shown not to be effective.

We remain firmly of the view that this is the right way forward. Work on producing national guidance is currently in hand. I should make it clear that we do not believe it appropriate for central Government to play a role in determining what is best for the circumstances at each aerodrome, of whatever size. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton suggested, the airport was originally very small. There are many similar airports throughout the country, and it would not be right for central Government to override the legitimate interests of local communities, which should be the arbiters of what might constitute the right operating regimes. We lack the local knowledge to undertake the task, and it would be wrong to do it.

I am slightly disturbed by that rather broad statement of principle. There must obviously be local discretion as regards detailed operations, but is the Minister suggesting that any commercial operator or entrepreneurial local authority can turn an airstrip into a major cargo airport, and that it is not the business of the Government to offer any form of protection to people living in neighbouring areas? If so, that is a dangerous principle.

It would be if it was the one that I was articulating, but it is not. I repeat that the proposals suggest that we would back, by reserve powers to designate an aerodrome, the voluntary measures that we believe are, in the first instance, the right way forward. That arrangement allows for maximum local input. The hon. Gentleman is right that it would be necessary to ensure that if arrangements for, say, local consultation were blatantly inadequate, statutory underpinning would be necessary. That principle is not disputed by any hon. Member.

Contrary to what was suggested by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, parliamentary time is at a premium. While it has not been possible to incorporate the legislation in the current Session, we remain committed to its introduction as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

I welcome the opportunity to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to issues in my constituency, notably those triggered by the proposal by the John Lewis Partnership for a large department store and Waitrose supermarket on the university halls of residence playing fields at Bodington.

Local councillors and action groups have for some time wanted me to raise the matter at the highest level that I could. Councillor Keith Loudon said:

"This proposal to put a department store on Bodington field is opposed by virtually the whole community, from university students, who see their sporting facilities moved to an almost inaccessible location, to the elderly in Holt Park, who see their supermarket within walking distance threatened with closure, to users of the A660 and the ring road, who fear the traffic congestion."

That is the view of the councillor for the area.

The councillor in the adjoining seat, Ann Castle, said that a public meeting at St. Chad's showed the public dissatisfaction with the council about the future of Bodington. She drew attention to the fact that Leeds city council tried to

"railroad planning permission through when it had an alleged interest but rejected permission when it does not."

That she, understandably, regarded as "breathtaking duplicity".

The leader of the Conservative group, Andrew Carter, summed up the underlying issue when he said that there was

"a grave question mark hanging over the council's ability to neutrally administer planning applications".

I am not sure whether that is the right English, but the proposal has certainly triggered important broader issues.

The proposal has highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of the unitary development plan, or UDP, system. That process is going on now and has been for ever and a day. It has highlighted the double standards of the Labour group that controls Leeds in handling planning applications. Moreover—this is germane to my hon. Friend the Minister—what may happen in my constituency is in blatant disregard of the Government's planning guidelines.

The university vice-chancellor has stressed to me—this is the university's land and he clearly needs substantial development money—that there is no deal. He said:

"There is absolutely no question of the city council receiving any money from the proposed sale of our Lawnswood land to John Lewis."

I do not for one moment challenge that, but it does not address the real issue, which is that Leeds city council tried to enter a deal and wanted money from it. It wanted half the net profit that the university would have got from the sale of land. The vice-chancellor says that that deal was at a much earlier stage, but it was as late as 1993.

I have a copy of the co-operative agreement that was drawn up and of the commentary on it by the chief development officer. In his commentary, dated 31 March 1993, he outlines the scale of the pay-off. It would have provided the city with £1.5 million if the net offer had been low as £3 million—that is 50 per cent. If the offer had been more than £12 million, it would have got £4.5 million. It is hard to understand how, as the city council has such an interest in the site—even though it did not ultimately sign the deal—it can be objective and neutral. In fact, it backed off as soon as Tory councillors found out about it. They blew the whistle on this hole-in-the-corner deal and it was never signed.

Paragraph 2.4 of the chief development officer's document says that, in return for the money,

"the council would accept specific limitations on the use of its own site"—

the Lawnswood school site, on the other side of the ring road and—

"not submit a competing retail planning application; nor will it as landowner object to a superstore application on the university site."

That is trying to create a Chinese wall, which is not how the Labour caucus works in Leeds. The vice-chancellor emphasised that he had been talking to the council

"in its capacity as a landowner rather than as a planning authority."

That is to regard the city council as a two-headed monster. It is a monster, but to believe that its planning decision will not be influenced by the fact that it is trying to get £4.5 million out of the site is perverse.

The essence of my argument is that people perceive the decision as having been influenced. However good the scheme is—I met the John Lewis Partnership people so that I could know exactly what was being proposed, and in many ways, it is a sensitively designed scheme—if people believe that the city council has different standards for gauging different planning applications, the planning process is brought into discredit.

Nobody in my patch believes that the council can be objective or impartial about that development—or any development on the site. It is determined to develop it. If, as the council admitted in the 1993 document, it was not prepared to propose an alternative scheme or to object to an application for a superstore, the clear implication is that it was prepared to agree to such an application. As a result, local newspapers have carried headlines about the £4 million deal uproar. The widespread opposition triggered this debate.

In considering more closely how the city council handles its planning applications, I draw attention to another example on the edge of my constituency. The Government rightly set up the urban development corporation for the central part of Leeds and especially for the Kirkstall valley, where Headingley rugby football club needed to sell its playing fields to merge with Roundhay, to produce a more viable and effective Leeds rugby club. Over many years, its proposals for developing the site were objected to by the city council and by Labour councillors.

The UDC took a more sympathetic view and planning permission was given to Morrisons. Since then, the city council and the Labour group have not accepted the procedures, and fought tooth and claw on every conceivable ground to delay the scheme. It is still being delayed by High Court actions. Another case is due in a fortnight or so. It is challenging part of the scheme involving land belonging to a charity, the Leeds Schools Sports Association, which desperately needs money. Its small playing field, which is attached to the main site, should be part of the scheme. Writs have been issued against the charity commissioners. Anything that can be challenged, such as this, or highways approvals— a 278 highways agreement—is being challenged to delay the development. Yet within a mile of that site, on the site of the old Burton clothes factory—the Cardigan fields site—the city council raised no objections to an even bigger development than the Morrisons development on the Headingley rugby ground. I think that the reason for that is obvious: in the case of Cardigan fields, the council hoped to gain about £1.5 million.

Squeezed between the different approaches that could be described as double standards is a valuable charitable body, which does much good work in helping inner-city Leeds children to develop their sporting capabilities. Because of delays, the Leeds Schools Sports Association has already lost £500,000, and, if the project does not go ahead, it is likely to lose £1 million. Labour is very good at bleating about its capacity for care, concern and compassion, and its interest in the redevelopment of inner cities; but when it comes to the test, the party acts very differently.

Rumour is rife in the city, and the council's integrity in regard to planning matters has been damaged. Indeed, it is being said that planning approval is more probable if the council is likely to make money out of it. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an indication—I doubt that he can do more—that, if and when the John Lewis Partnership makes a planning application for the Bodington fields site, he will be minded to call it in and take the decision out of the council's hands? I know that the matter is not of great regional significance, but it is very important to the city of Leeds. Given public opinion, I do not think that the council will be able to convince people that its view is impartial and neutral.

Let me deal with the broader issue. The unitary development plan may be a dream for planners and lawyers, but for the rest of us it is a nightmare. It is imposing huge costs and anxieties on individuals, parish councils and anyone who challenges proposals; it is a process that is going on and on. The inspector is assiduous; everyone speaks favourably of the way in which he is handling the matter, and everyone is allowed a say. This, however, must be the biggest single plan for a city in the history of planning. My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to confirm that no structure plan has been opposed by so many people, on the basis of so many features.

There is now a planning hiatus, and a serious risk of prolonged planning blight. Part of the reason for that relates to the council's UDP procedures. Is Leeds behaving in a way that is out of the ordinary, and should it have acted more expeditiously? Perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify that. Nothing can be decided in any part of the city until every aspect of the plan has been decided. When will the protracted agony end, and when will my constituents know what will happen to Bodington fields? I fear that we shall know nothing until well into 1998, and the problem will not be over: my constituents will have to deal with the same arguments again when John Lewis submits a formal planning application.

The John Lewis plan is very detailed. It shows all the greenery, raised areas for screening purposes, buildings and so forth. Why is a UDP inspector being given such a detailed plan? I have always understood that structural plans are about broad general use.

Let me be more specific. If the plan is approved on the basis of all that remorseless detail—traffic flow information, for instance—what will happen if John Lewis pulls out, or wants to change its plans? Will the inspector be able to tie down the development so that it remains as he approves it? Alternatively, will John Lewis—or someone else—be able to submit yet another plan which, because the site was approved in the UDP for retail development, could produce a quite different planning application? Given that none of us trusts the city council to do other than pass a retail application for the site, my constituents might then be landed not with a relatively sensitively designed scheme but with something appalling, as happened in 1986.

In 1986, when the university and the developers submitted a scheme, the city council was on the residents' side, and opposed it. There has been a remarkable U-turn. In its appeal, the council then said:

"There is…a clear and unavoidable conclusion that the development of the appeal proposals would seriously threaten the attempts of the City Council to maintain and enhance its city, town and district centres … Such development would undoubtedly conflict with the strong and unequal guidance from Central Government which seeks to prevent development which would undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres."

The council also attacked the traffic impact. One of the key factors in the dismissal of the appeal was the impact on traffic patterns. I cannot envisage a lessening of that problem in 10 years. Although a new road across the site, linking the ring road and Otley road, will ease the pressure on the roundabout, the traffic-light junction is likely to cause more congestion on the ring road. There is a lot of wishful thinking about the park-and-ride facilities: it is hoped that they will stop people from driving into the city centre. It is said that the Harvey Nichols store will act as a city-centre magnet, encouraging people to go into the centre. On the other hand, they will supposedly be attracted to the John Lewis store outside the centre; is it conceivable that they will then travel further in on a bus, to do more shopping? In fact, people will not behave like that.

The supertram is also cited, but, at the current rate, it may not operate in my lifetime. If people are going to visit the store, they will travel by car, and if they are going to go on they will go round the ring road to Marks and Spencer: they will not go into the city centre.

The development will, however, draw from a huge area. Even John Lewis's planning proposals show that it aims to tap a huge arc of prosperous satellites north of the city, running quite a long way into North Yorkshire; and why should we imagine that the development will not appeal to the south of the city? The Ikea superstore is one of many huge developments in the south, and it draws many people—including me—from the north. Those who travel through the city will add to traffic flows and pollution. In 1986, the city council used all those arguments in opposing development on the site, but it is ignoring them now and claiming that traffic problems will be eased.

Local councils are supposed to take the Government's planning policy guidance into account in designing their development plans. Remarkably quickly, we have received a revised version of the last definitive guidance. Note 6 was put out for consultation in July last year—I believe that the consultation ended in October. When will it be implemented? It is clearly central to the current debate in Leeds. Has Leeds followed the guidance? It has not even followed its guidance to itself in many respects. In its own "Leeds Countryside Strategy" document, it describes the playing fields as part of a

"network of urban green corridors"—

the lungs of the city. It now ignores the evidence that it gave in 1986–87 and it has ignored its policy documents in other areas, but, more important, is it ignoring the Government's guidance, which it must heed?

The consultation document clearly reinforces the Government's determination to revive and create more vital town centres and to protect neighbourhood centres. Rather than harming town centres by putting large-scale out-of-town developments in place, the document is concerned with promoting strategies for improving town centres and the retail developments in them. It does not preclude out-of-town developments, but it spells out certain important criteria against which they should be assessed: for example, the

"impact on existing centres; their accessibility by a choice of means of transport; and their impact on the overall amount of car travel."

In other words, it is trying to reduce reliance on the private car.

The document's central aim is to sustain and enhance the viability of town centres and to

"support local and neighbourhood centres."

Leeds city council cannot show that the Bodington scheme matches any of the criteria. Evidence that the city gave in 1986–87 showed that town centres in my constituency, in Otley, which is nearby, in Holt Park, which is closer still to the development, in Headingley, on the other side of the ring road, in Horsforth, which is down the ring road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and in Moor Allerton, which is across in north-east Leeds, will be severely damaged. It is absurd.

Turnover could be diverted in Holt Park by about 42 per cent., in Headingley by 36 per cent., in Otley by 12 per cent. and in Horsforth by 38 per cent. Those towns are already struggling to maintain viable town centres. Many shops in the centre of Otley have closed; many more have been turned into charity shops. The Asda supermarket at Holt Park—the linchpin of the development of Holt Park—is a smaller, older supermarket, but Asda would invest much more money in it if there were no development on the ring road at Bodington. If Bodington were developed, it would have a terrible knock-on effect at Holt Park and the store would close.

There is no case, in terms of the situation that we faced in 1986–87 or the developments since, which should lead the city council to make such a horrendous U-turn. One really cannot trust Labour in Leeds. It proclaims how much it cares, but when it comes to the crunch, dogma prevails. It makes a song and dance of listening to residents in Labour wards, but ignores the strong feelings of residents in Conservative wards. Understandably, there is a great sense of outrage in my constituency.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) for raising the issue of out-of-town retail parks. He described in graphic detail—given time, he could have added to the detail—the difficulties that some Labour planning authorities impose on local residents.

He asked many questions and I shall answer as many as I can, but I shall have to write to him; otherwise I will have only about 30 seconds to answer each one, and some of the answers are more complicated than the questions.

I am aware—one cannot help but be aware—of the local concern and controversy about retail parks that are proposed for the north-west of Leeds, and I note the worries about the possible development of land at Bodington fields. As my hon. Friend is aware, there has been a history of interest in retail development of the area, and in 1989 proposals for a shopping and leisure development were turned down on the recommendation of one of the Secretary of State's inspectors. That in itself raises a question.

More recently, in 1993, Leeds city council made proposals in the draft Leeds unitary development plan. It proposed a range of policies for shopping and retail development in the city. Among those, I have identified locations where the council—I emphasise the word "council"—thinks that there is potential for major convenience goods retailing. One of the locations is West Park and the Westwood area of north-west Leeds. The council takes the view that there is a deficiency in facilities for selling convenience goods, which might be remedied by developing part of the Leeds university playing fields at Bodington Hall. On that basis, the council made a proposal in the unitary plan for such a development at Bodington fields.

As my hon. Friend knows, we attach considerable importance, for good reason, to settling local planning policy through preparing development plans, such as the Leeds unitary plan. That process allows for widespread consultation about the plan and its proposals for development on particular sites. It is an important opportunity for local residents to put their views. It allows the public to comment on the plan and to make formal objections, which are then considered by an independent inspector at a public local inquiry.

If the matter was straightforward and was moving with the grain of local residents, one would not expect much of a necessity for consultation. One would expect the unitary development plan to proceed, as it has in many areas, with simplicity and without taking too much time, but in this case some 19,000 objections were made to the Leeds UDP. Only one other council, which, I suspect, is notable for a similar attitude, managed to beat that record—Bradford. It is worth emphasising that the system works where the plan goes with the grain. Where it is imaginative, local residents will go along with it and understand, but in this case there were some 19,000 objections.

Some 200 or 300 of my hon. Friend's constituents have already taken advantage of their rights and objected to the proposal for Bodington fields. The public local inquiry into objections about the Leeds unitary plan has been under way for some months. I understand that the inquiry inspector will consider all objections to the city council's intentions for the retail development later this month. During the inquiry, the inspector will consider objections about a number of retail sites and consider options that have been suggested by constituents and, perhaps, by prospective developers. One such proposal might be at Woodside quarries in north-west Leeds, and there is controversy about that, too.

My hon. Friend asked about the reaction of the UDP inspector to the specific and minute details of the scheme submitted by John Lewis. As he is aware, the inspector deals only with broad issues; he does not approve anything. The John Lewis application is not before him. The inspector makes broad recommendations.

The inquiry inspector has a duty to look carefully at all the objections—all 19,000 of them in the case of the Leeds UDP. In due course—it will be some time away, because of the length of the inquiry into the Leeds plan—he will make recommendations to the council. The council must then decide the final form of the plan after considering the objections and recommendations. That is to ensure protection for the people of the area. That is why the process has taken so long in this case. The procedures then allow for another round of public consultation about any modifications that the council might propose, including a right of objection.

I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the plans provide a distinct safeguard to ensure that major decisions about development are not taken without a full hearing and an appreciation of all the points of view. Obviously, it would be wrong for me to predict the outcome of the inspector's consideration and the view that the council might eventually take, but our national guidance on retail policy will be a major consideration in any of the decisions.

The Government's key objectives for town centres and retail developments are to sustain and enhance the viability and vitality of town centres; to focus retail development in locations where the proximity of competing businesses facilitates competition from which all consumers can benefit; to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, services and facilities to which people may have easy access; to maximise the opportunity for shoppers and other town centre users to use a means of transport other than the car; and to maintain an efficient and innovative retail sector. All those objectives must be taken into account in the Leeds unitary development plan and in the two cases that my hon. Friend mentioned.

As everyone is abundantly aware, there has been considerable concern about the development at Bodington fields. There is nothing to prevent a planning application being submitted and, as my hon. Friend says, such an application has been made. The matter might eventually require a decision by the Secretary of State either because the city council refers it to him or, in the event of refusal, because there is an appeal. As my hon. Friend is aware, for that reason I cannot specifically comment.

The city council will receive any planning application for a retail park in Leeds, and it will be expected to have regard to the current development plan and to the emergent plan, although there may be uncertainties about the planning status of the site. If its status is not firmly established in an adopted plan, which is a plan that has passed through all the stages of preparation, objection, inquiry—

Order. We must move on.

I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the problems that I and my colleagues see as caused by the Government because of their weak approach to European funding for projects in the south-west. I shall refer first to a report called "No Go South West 1996, Bureaucracy Run Riot—How Whitehall Blocks Britain's Euro Funds". That Liberal Democrat document was produced by Robin Teverson, a Member of the European Parliament. His earlier document called "No Go South West 1995" was warmly received by business men in the south-west. Mr. Bell, the managing director of Curnow Shipping, said:

"I thought 'No Go South West' was an accurate, succinct situation report. Since its earliest days I have been a member of SWEL's Euro sub-committee so ably run by Paul Davis … At one of our regular meetings, about two years ago, there was a trio from Government Office South West. At the end of the meeting I voiced the suspicion that 5(b) funds were never going to flow our way because the Treasury saw them as being added to the PSBR. The reaction was volcanic: the sky duly fell in on me: It was very obvious that I had touched a raw nerve.

It is sadly significant that Minister David Curry avoids any mention of the Treasury's attitude and the other three Departments beyond GOSW."

I shall quote another brief comment from Mike Boxall, the chief executive of the West Country development corporation. He is one of the ambassadors for that corporation as are many of my colleagues. He said:

"I believe your paper 'No Go South West' has provided a very useful contribution to resolving an unsatisfactory situation and I also believe that lessons learned from the experience of the last two years or so should be remembered for future programmes … we are still awaiting the Guidelines for this involvement by the Private Sector and you can imagine the frustrations this brings."

Alison Best, the senior policy adviser for the National Farmers Union, said:

"We share your disappointment that the Minister has failed to acknowledge the current problems of accessing European funding. According to our information only three projects have been accepted for submission to the next meeting of the EAGGF Working Group and there is a further eight or so which MAFF may regard as suitable for submission. There are at least 24 applications which we have been told will be delayed until the June meeting of the Working Group at the earliest … our suggestion here is obviously what are the facilitators supposed to be doing?"

I have many such comments, but a summary of the problem is that the Government simply do not care, despite the positive regional policy that is driven at European level and which has meant that Plymouth, Cornwall and Devon are in line for major funding for economic development. In the period 1994–96 Plymouth has been allocated £23 million of Euro-funding, and Cornwall has access to £170 million of projecting 5b funding earmarked for the south-west. Europe wants local and regional communities to decide for themselves how funds should be used, and it involves itself in administration and paperwork only for the largest projects.

Thanks to the Government, nearly two years into the programme, the south-west has seen very little hard cash. Of the £193 million of European money, only about £6 million has been received and 75 per cent.—three quarters—of projects that were approved by the working groups before November are still waiting for offer letters because of delays by Government Departments. It takes an average of six months for Government offices to approve a scheme. That is wholly unsatisfactory, and it is the reason for the debate.

The paper chase is the key. Under this Government, Departments use 100 words where 10 would do. We have only to look at the IACS form from MAFF. Our version is the biggest, the most pedantic and the most time-consuming in the whole of Europe. But when it comes to applying for Euro-funding for the south-west, our Ministers seem to have made the largest effort of all. The application form is brevity itself, but unfortunately, after it has been filled in, it is downhill all the way.

Understaffed and perhaps unappreciated by the Government, the Government's regional office in the south-west tries hard, but it requires completed forms no less than four months before the date of the working group meeting. Anyone who applies now will get in for the June meeting—if he is lucky. If the date is missed by a day or two, he can forget it until October, by which time perhaps there will be a general election. Even if the form gets that far, staff shortages in the regional office mean that many forms are sent to Scotland for assessment by consultants.

Probably because of "No Go South West" and our pressure, two secondees have been employed at the south-west office to help with applications. However, that does not seem to help, because the applications are not getting through to the European Commissioner. At the last working group meeting, the commissioner was targeted as the person who had held up the meeting. However, one of the problems was that the Commissioner, Mr. Oreja, had not received the papers in time to look at them properly. He received them so late that he could not examine them thoroughly. He asked to hold up some projects for a week to look at them further, but the Department of the Environment said that that was a matter for national Government, and there was no way that he could delay matters for a week. The DoE said that, although the Government gave the Commissioner the papers very late.

Neither the UK nor the Commission currently recognises regional or local influence or responsibility for 5b, and that means that we could have sent the papers ourselves. That meeting took three hours longer than normal and people left it disillusioned and annoyed. Some new time limits were set at the meeting and were sorted out by the Commissioner. First, it was decided that as soon as a project has been approved at a working group meeting the project has to start within 12 months.

Secondly, as soon as a project has received a proper offer letter it must start within six months. But that falls, for the obvious reason that projects cannot hold on to EU money while millennium or national lottery funds are applied for. However, that sensible possibility lapses because some projects that have been approved are still waiting more than 12 months later for an offer letter. No time limits are set on the Government between working group approval and an offer letter. For example, the county's UK and overseas tourism marketing project was promised fast-track approval at the November working group meeting. The offer letter is still currently stuck in the Department of National Heritage, as are more than 55 letters. When David Curry wrote, he said that nearly £23 million had been approved.

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that it is customary not to use a name in this House, but to refer to a constituency or to a ministerial title.

The Minister stated that nearly £23 million had been approved and more than 60 offer letters issued for European regional redevelopment funding alone. I am sorry to say that that was incorrect. When he wrote the letter, the £23 million represented the 192 projects that were awaiting offer letters. Indeed, 60 offer letters had been received from 192 projects, but 55 are still waiting for offer letters. The tourism budget is on hold until the end of 1996 as a result of the huge demand for the money. It is sad that the Government's incompetence is causing that astonishing shortage in funding.

While in no way arguing that there are not delays—indeed there are, and we should streamline the procedures—I should point out to the hon. Lady that someone came to see me a fortnight ago about a delay in an application. When I looked into the matter, I found that the proposal had been submitted late. When I went back, I was told that those involved had met the deadline. Does she accept that not all the fault lies with the Government, as she is obviously trying to suggest?

I am happy to accept that comment. I do not know what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in my constituency—where I have problems with the Leader II project—everything that I said, alas, has been valid and accurate. I took the Leader II team from Holsworthy to see the Minister, but it made no difference at all.

The hon. Gentleman, whose work on the common fisheries policy is well known, might like to think about the money that is wasted by Whitehall on the fisheries investment programme, which should come back on track. Although Ministers were forced to take us back into the scheme to buy off a few Euro-rebels, it is sad that we still have not had money for any of those projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be sad to know that the money is available, but not for those who need it. It is such a small, sensible and well-targeted programme, and he will agree that it could make all the difference to fishing ports in the south-west which are struggling against the onslaught of competition.

I cannot imagine why the Government would not fund the project—they are guilty of typical penny-pinching that would make Scrooge blanche. It is avarice, and the Government are putting the tidiness of their accounts before the survival of vibrant and energetic rural fishing communities. I believe that that is a very important point that the hon. Gentleman will respect and honour. I cannot comment on his constituency, but I know from my constituency's problems that his comments are not correct.

Once a form goes through the Government office for the south-west, it wends its way through Whitehall. The gap between the approval of a project and the receipt of a letter could go into "Alice in Wonderland". Many Departments are involved. I have referred to the Department of Heritage, and there are cases in which three other Departments have been asked to comment. The result of such an interdepartmental spat will be that an application will go from Department to Department and—perhaps after about nine months, if one is lucky—an offer letter will be sent.

I have dealt with many of these funding issues, and I speak from the heart on behalf of my constituents. The misery is that by the time a letter is sent, the official start date for the project has gone. That is the real result of the Government's action. If a project is worthy of EU funding, it must be a real project and not make-believe. If those involved want a project to start, they either have to expect a delay—that is happening, tragically, in my constituency—or find some money to cover the appallingly long interim period.

The problem in my constituency and most other areas of the south-west—although west Devon and Cornwall are particularly affected—is that people cannot find that sort of cash anywhere, and that is why EU regional funding is critical for our future. We know that we need outside help—even if the Government do not—to overcome recent economic disadvantages. In many areas farming, agriculture and food production, processing and distribution are the primary economic engines. In my area, however, we have grade 3 or grade 4 land. One cannot make much money from culm measures, even if a fraction of the funding is provided by the Department of the Environment. The situation is tough—there are only two fields of grade 2 land in my entire constituency, for example—so the south-west will always require assistance.

What has happened to the European money that has been pledged to us—some £200 million for 1994 to 1999? Instead of funding hundreds of projects across the south-west, it is tucked away in the Government's bank accounts, earning a healthy rate of interest for the Chancellor. We believe that the Treasury has been sitting on at least £43 million-worth of European funds in transit from Brussels to Britain's most disadvantaged areas. By last autumn, a mere £6 million had reached the intended areas. When the remainder is finally wrested out of Whitehall—if we manage that—I am certain that it will not be inclusive of interest. In other words, the delays have not just inconvenienced the south-west, but short-changed us.

Every time Europe offers the south-west a hand up, the Government knock us down. When the south-west's fishing ports stood to benefit from the European structure investment programme, Ministers withdrew. When Robin Teverson, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, successfully persuaded the Commission to include the Penzance to London railway line in plans for a high-speed network, he did so despite the opposition of Conservative Members of the European Parliament. Sadly, the Government have made it clear that they will continue to oppose the plan in the Council of Ministers. No wonder people in the south-west have lost all faith in the Government's ability or desire to help them.

The hon. Lady is going too far. She is now criticising the Government she wanted to join at the end of last year.

Far from it. I can provide my former Conservative colleague with letters saying that I—as an ambassador for the south-west—supported that link. A number of former colleagues have plundered selected sentences from letters that I have written to constituents in the past four years. My two former Conservative colleagues from the south-west who are here today are honourable men, although some may not be. They are more than welcome to look through my entire filing cabinet at all my constituency letters. If they did, they would find that I have not short-changed my constituents, just as the hon. Member for St. Ives has not short-changed his constituents. I think it unlikely that the two Conservative Members who are here today would disagree with most of what I have said.

I am aware that it is imperative that I allow the Minister some time to reply, as I have put a number of questions to him. I despair, however, and I do not believe that the penny-pinching will be affected by the debate today. Good will, common sense and decisive action for the south-west are certainly too much to ask for from the Government.

When Robin Teverson sent his report to those consulted during its creation and to those affected by the delays, he received a sackful of replies, not one of which dismissed it as political propaganda. In fact, they all said that, if anything, the outlook was even darker than he had painted. All but one, that is. The response from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside stood out. From his vantage point, the outlook for the south-west was rosy, although I do not suppose that he has seen any of our recent water bills. Perhaps he did not listen at the meetings held in the past few years with the Prime Minister, which produced nothing. He found nothing to criticise, and proposed no remedial action at all.

All he has to do, it seems, is to sit back and wait for the smoothly oiled Whitehall machine to deliver bounty and prosperity across the south-west. I am sad to say that he must have a different south-west in mind. Perhaps he was thinking of the south-west of one of his addresses in Belgravia, where the part of London that he looks across is indeed part of the prosperous south-east. The south-west, alas, thanks to Government action, is missing £194 million of funding over the past two years. We could use that money.

The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) says that she is an ambassador for the south-west. If she really is an ambassador for the south-west, it is going to continue to sink. She has voiced a number of misconceptions, which I shall try to correct in the short time available.

The European programmes are a success and are combining well with our programmes such as the single regeneration budget, challenge fund, English partnerships and rural challenge. The hon. Lady has not shown a notable interest in European programmes until now; I certainly have had no correspondence with her. Her interest, if belated, is nonetheless welcome because it gives me an opportunity to correct misconceptions.

There has been little significant economic development in west Devon in recent years which has not benefited from a combination of funding, including European funding. The Pitts Cleave industrial estate at Tavistock and the West Devon business information project are examples of projects in the current 5b programme. I hope that the hon. Lady acknowledges the excellent Meadowlands leisure pool facility in Tavistock, which was aided by an earlier programme.

The Government have secured a very substantial increase in European funding for the south-west—more than £228 million of grant available from the structural funds up to 1999. With match funding, the total investment from the public and private sectors will be almost £460 million. The programmes include £170 million from the objective 5b rural development programme for Devon, Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and west Somerset. It is by far the largest 5b programme in England, yet the hon. Lady says that it is one of the smallest.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I have very little time and I have a great deal to say and much to cover.

As I was saying, the programme includes £23 million for Plymouth, under objective 2, for areas of industrial decline; £8.9 million from the Leader II programme to help rural communities in Cornwall and Devon—almost half the total for England. This matter must be put in perspective. The hon. Lady is one-eyed in her view. As the saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." The programme also includes £13.4 million from the United Kingdom's Konver II programme for areas affected by defence restructuring, which has recently been approved. The whole of Devon and Cornwall, Wiltshire, Avon and parts of Somerset, Dorset and Gloucestershire are eligible—but the hon. Lady did not mention that. There is some £3.2 million from the PESCA programme for areas affected by restructuring of the fishing industry.

Those programmes often combine with other Government programmes where the south-west has also been successful—such as SRB challenge fund in which Devon and Cornwall have won some £34 million in the first two bidding rounds. Projects coming forward benefit in many cases from both European funding and SRB funding. The SRB often provides the match funding on which the hon. Lady touched.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend is in a robust and boisterous mood, given New Zealand's victory, sadly, over England in the first game of the world cup. For the benefit of the House, will he differentiate between allocations—which I suspect he is talking about—and actual take-up? Most of us are worried about the low take-up in response to the very generous allocations from the various project funds.

I shall try to touch on some of the points my hon. Friend raised. I note his reference to my ancestry. I guess that he is insinuating that I have failed the Tebbit test. I usually cheer for one side but bet on the other. It looks as though I am not out of money this time.

Delays cannot be laid at Government's door, although the hon. Lady made a good attempt to do so. The objective 2 and 5b programmes were due to start in January 1994. However, the Commission's approval was not forthcoming until December 1994—one year late. So, the true picture is that these programmes have been running for barely one year. That explains some of the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks).

In 1995, arrangements were set up for consulting local partners and inviting and appraising applications. Publicity and guidance were sent out and advice given to countless applicants on how to access the funds. The Plymouth objective 2 programme has largely been settled with about 75 per cent. of the money committed. In the objective 5b programme, more than £35 million has already been allocated,—rather more, in fact, than two years' worth of the total programme. Therefore, to a degree we have caught up on the delayed start.

Overall, more than 730 applications have been received-531 of those, 75 per cent., have been appraised and considered by local partnership working groups; 154 applications have been either rejected or withdrawn; 237 projects have received offers of grant totalling more than £36 million; and many more will shortly get offer letters. I note that today, to continue with the misconceptions, a letter has been received from Cornwall county council saying that 60 offer letters have been issued on which decisions have been made, and that there are 32 approvals outstanding. I am sorry about the counting—the correct figures are that 88 offer letters have been issued, with another 104 projects with the working group awaiting recommendations.

All that adds up to a remarkable achievement in one year, yet the hon. Lady apparently wishes to decry it as red tape. On the contrary, it demonstrates the considerable demand for the programmes, the effort organisations and individuals have put in to create worthwhile projects and the Government's commitment to the success of the programme. It also reflects the very hard work of our new Government office for the south-west in Plymouth. The money is getting through to the people on the ground. Almost £7.5 million of grant has already been paid.

rose—

No, I am not giving way. I have only four minutes and I need to cover millions of pounds of project money.

Surprisingly, many projects are failing to come forward with claims, especially in the first quarter. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement, especially in the south-west. My hon. Friends have been making these points and following them up for some considerable time, in contrast to Liberal Democrat Members. In the south-west, the Government office has already published some excellent guidance and targets have been set for dealing with applications within four months.

rose—

The hon. Lady had better sit tight. She asked for figures and answers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady took more than her share of the time available. She asked for answers and I am trying to give them to her.

The Government office will keep applicants informed of progress and will inform them, within eight weeks, of any issues which need to be raised, in order to keep matters moving forward. Additional guidance and seminars are planned, in particular about private sector involvement in applications. These developments reflect the commitment of the Government to ensuring the success of European funding programmes in the south-west.

The Leader II and Konver II programmes have also been crucially delayed awaiting the Commission's approval. Leader II was due to start in November 1994, when Leader I ended. The Commission's approval was not forthcoming until July 1995—we are talking not about weeks, but months—and this has placed a considerable strain on the on-going projects in west Cornwall and North Tamar, whose administration costs have had to be covered without European grant. I am pleased to say that grant towards these costs—some £68,000—will be paid by the end of this month.

rose—

The hon. Lady asked for answers, but she has given me little time to answer.

There has been a complaint that the money has been held by Whitehall. That is nonsense and it shows how little some of the Euro experts understand about the system of funding. Money is paid from the funds to national Government in advance of local expenditure on projects. As the Government are a net contributor of funds, on balance we lose by that system. There are no so-called delays of Euro-funds from the Treasury.

There was also a comment about the time that it takes for the Government to examine programmes. Surely the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon accepts that it is appropriate carefully to scrutinise funding and applications when utilising public money. We must receive value for money through those programmes and assess them before they are allowed to go forward. The systems that apply nationally for the appraisal of applications and the monitoring of projects are far tighter than for previous structural funds, and that is largely because the Government have pressed for more careful scrutiny. The money is working through the system, and the Government have exceeded themselves to ensure that the money reaches the people that it should go to in the south-west.

I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the Department of Transport's discretionary purchase of blighted homes, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. I know that he has taken an intense interest in this subject. Today's debate is an extension of the debate which took place on 15 May last year on, broadly speaking, the same subject. Therefore, I need to spend only a little time outlining the background.

The Minister and the House will know that I have been much concerned with the development of the A27 in the Worthing area. We have had a public inquiry that lasted almost a year, the report of which has now been tabled. I expect that the Department will publish the report in the near future.

The effect of blight is almost entirely on the Government's preferred route and has little effect, if any—a matter of half a dozen houses or fewer—on the bypass route. Which route is selected is obviously a great concern because the choice will affect enormously the degree of blight. I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend will tell us when he expects the inspector's report to be produced and when the Secretary of State expects to make a decision on it. There has already been great concern about the length of time that it has taken to reach a decision; uncertainty is one of the major problems that my constituents face in this matter.

In relation to the choice of route, I shall say nothing more than that I hope to present a petition that contains more than 15,000 signatures of people who favour the bypass route rather than the Government's preferred route, which would have a serious effect on the town. I have no doubt at all that the bypass is the right option, and I shall do all that I can to ensure that it, rather than the other route, is selected. Meanwhile, many houses have been blighted, some of which have been purchased on a discretionary basis by the Department of Transport.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well that, some time ago, the Department of Transport lost a court case on this matter. The case is now quite famous. One of the conclusions was that the criteria the Government used in exercising their discretion were not right. Consequently, a review of the various guidelines took place, and that was still taking place when we had last year's debate. The guidelines have of course been published subsequently, and they give me grave cause for concern.

The essential point is that section 62(2) of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 states that the highway authority may

"acquire by agreement land the enjoyment of which will in their opinion be seriously affected by the carrying out of work or the use"

of the highway. Essentially, the criteria which are used in determining that are at issue. The Government recognise that the criteria that they originally used were wrong. The way in which they handled the matter was backed up by a number of ombudsman reports, which I mentioned in the previous debate and which the Department has recognised showed a deficiency in the process.

It is extremely important that those decisions are taken at ministerial level. They seriously affect the lives of people, and not only in relation to the road and the noise.

The decision must take into account, for example, medical conditions and the effect on job opportunities because people cannot move. Despite the assurances that I was given in the previous debate, I am concerned because my constituents have received letters from officials that say that they have decided one thing or another. This is a matter for ministerial discretion, and the responsibility should not be assumed by officials, even under the next steps agency arrangements, because they cannot take a sufficiently broad view.

The crucial point is that the Department is now prepared to include the decline of property values in the criteria it uses. It is absolutely clear that, if the value of property declines as a result of the building or proposed building of a road on a particular route—this may also be true in relation to railways—the fact that the value has declined shows that the enjoyment of the property is likely to be diminished. I should have thought that that was not open to serious dispute—the courts have taken the same view—but this is what has happened. Paragraph 7 of the guidelines states:

"We will not normally offer to buy your property unless we are of the opinion that it will be seriously affected by BOTH diminution in value AND noise arising during the construction period or during the first year following the opening of the road to traffic".

It contains an exception for medical reasons.

There is nothing in the legislation that requires both criteria to be met. It is clear that, if the value has declined, that would be a necessary and sufficient condition for discretion to be exercised. I take the view that it is unreasonable—which is an important aspect of it—if the Department does not act in that way because the legislation says nothing whatever about also taking noise into account. In a sense, that is the crux of the matter. If one were merely to take the diminution in value into account, the discretion would have been exercised in a great many other cases. I shall return to this issue later.

I do not know whether it was as a result of this impending debate but, yesterday, I suddenly received no fewer than three responses from the Department about particular cases. My secretary, who is perhaps more cynical than I am, expressed some surprise at their timing. However, I must say that they have given me further cause for disquiet.

One response says that the individual cases are being reconsidered with all the evidence and that

"I am able to inform you that, based on the current information, we have formed the opinion that your enjoyment of your property will be seriously affected by the severe aggravation of an existing medical condition by physical factors caused by the construction of the Worthing-Lancing improvement.

However, these physical factors are not likely to arise for another two years when the construction of the scheme is expected to start".

In effect, the Department is saying that it will defer consideration of whether to exercise discretion to buy until nine months before the start of construction. My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding in the affirmative.

People are suffering from medical conditions, it is accepted that their property has been seriously affected, and yet they are now being told that they can re-apply later and that the Department may or may not then exercise its discretion. That creates a degree of uncertainty for people who are suffering from serious medical conditions, as the Department recognises, which is really quite intolerable. It is simply a device to improve the Treasury's cash flow, or it may, ultimately, not happen at all.

When individuals' lives are being seriously affected in this manner, such delay should not occur. Since I have not previously received many letters like those I have mentioned, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully examine the issue. I do not think that one can procrastinate as the Department is now proposing.

I return to the question of diminishing value. The situation is developing in an interesting way. In many cases, my constituents have received replies that say that the Department recognises that the value of their property has diminished, but that the question of noise must also be taken into account. That is the Department's view, and it is not what is stated in the legislation. Some of the cases have been refused on the basis that the two criteria have not been met. I have had trouble having the diminishing value quantified but, fortunately, a couple of months ago, I received a letter which was sent to my constituent that recognised a reduction in value and quantified it. It said:

"We have carefully considered the valuation evidence submitted by the Agency's Valuer and have concluded that the diminution in value due solely to the road scheme is 16.7 per cent."

The letter then lists the unaffected market value as £150,000, the current market value as £125,000 and the reduction in value as £25,000.

Despite that, the Highways Agency is not proposing to purchase the property, even though my constituent has clearly suffered a loss of £25,000 as a result of the Government's road scheme. The application is being turned down on the grounds that noise must also be taken into account. That is not right, and bears out what I said previously. The building of roads and infrastructure—it is also true for railways—is, effectively, highway robbery. Roads are being built at the expense of people who happen to have the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cost should be borne by the community as a whole. People should be compensated or their property purchased to avoid suffering, which is no fault of their own, as a result of a Government decision over which they had no control.

I do not doubt that, over the Minister's head, is the shadow of a Treasury Minister. Although my own halo is a little out of date, it is still there, and I do not doubt that the sums involved are substantial. Across the country, we are probably talking about hundreds of millions—perhaps billions—of pounds and I can understand why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be concerned about it. All that that sum reflects is the extent to which individuals are suffering as a result of present policy. I therefore argue strongly that we ought to change the policy and that at least one of the necessary and sufficient criteria ought to be reduction in value.

Another point, which I made in the previous debate, is that we are talking about gross cost to the Exchequer. Once the road has been built, the properties purchased by the Department can be re-sold. Although they will be worth less, they will certainly not be valueless. It is important to consider the long-term net cost rather than the gross cost.

Although I have described an important point of principle that affects not only my constituency but many parts of the country, I hope that the solution to it will be simple. I hope that, in the light of the inspector's report, the Government will come down in favour of the bypass and at most have to purchase only about half a dozen houses. They could re-sell the houses that they previously bought and the area presently blighted could be reinstated. Much of the problem has arisen because the houses that have been bought—I am glad that they have been bought—have been occupied by unsuitable tenants, causing the whole area to fall in value and creating additional problems.

My hon. Friend the Minister is not unsympathetic to my view. I very much hope that rapid decisions on the cases will be made, especially the medical cases, because the uncertainty that I described cannot continue. A serious interdepartmental review of broad, longer-term policy is needed—perhaps considering the experience in France where one simply pays over the odds and far fewer problems of planning blight result. I hope that such a review would produce a sensible and just result, unlike what we have at the moment.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) for raising the issue and for giving us a further opportunity to debate a subject, which, as he said, he raised on 17 May. I should like to express my personal appreciation of my right hon. Friend who, sadly, is due to retire at the end of this Parliament. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who no doubt has an interest in these matters, is in his place. My right hon. Friend has been a distinguished Member for a number of years and has shown his customary assiduity, application and interest in the affairs of his constituents as vigorously as ever on this important issue. I pay genuine tribute to him. I hope that he will allow me to deal in very specific and rather legalistic terms with a number of the issues that he has raised.

Since the previous debate, there has been a review of the trunk road programme in England, as a result of which 77 schemes, of which the environmental impact was no longer considered to be acceptable in relation to the benefits, were removed from the programme. In those schemes, the route protection is being withdrawn and owners of property on or near the routes will no longer be affected by the prospect of road improvements.

Other important bypass and relief road proposals remain in the programme, including the proposal to improve the A27 between Worthing and Lancing. As my right hon. Friend said, the scheme has a long history, which I shall not go into again. The review of the programme confirmed its importance as a much-needed improvement to the only east-west trunk road route south of the M25.

Following consultation on four route options, a public inquiry, to which my right hon. Friend referred, ended, as he knows, on 24 August 1994. I can inform him that the inspector's report following that inquiry has been received by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. It is inevitably a lengthy document. We will give it very careful consideration and make an announcement as soon as possible.

I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on any of the issues involved in the report, whether they relate to the route or to the desirability of one or other option, while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is taking a quasi-judicial decision on the matter. Nor of course can I make any prediction about the outcome. I note my right hon. Friend's concern that, whatever the outcome, there should be an early decision and I shall of course draw that to the attention of the officials involved in considering the report.

What is the position on publication of the inspector's report?

I will have to write to my right hon. Friend about the report's content and the timing of its publication. I have no reason to believe that the report will eventually be treated in anything other than the normal way. Subject to whatever view my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport may take of the report, it will find its way into the public domain.

The announcement that I made on 19 July of new guidelines for use by the Highways Agency in considering applications for discretionary purchase of property seriously affected by trunk road schemes require, as my right hon. Friend said, the Court of Appeal judgment in what is now known as the Owen case of 30 June 1994 to be taken into account. The guidelines require the agency to consider diminution in value of a property as well as the predicted effects of noise and other physical factors when forming an opinion, as is required by the relevant legislation on whether enjoyment of the property will be affected by the construction or use of the road.

It is important to remind ourselves of the purpose of the discretionary purchase scheme. It is not the only opportunity for an individual to sell an affected property. The discretionary purchase scheme enables the Department to act as a buyer of last resort where the enjoyment of a property is or will be seriously affected by trunk road proposals, where the owner has a pressing need to move that is not connected to the road scheme and where hardship can result if the property cannot be sold except at a heavily discounted price.

Under the new guidelines, I shall also consider cases where the owner or another person who normally resides at the property has a medical condition that would be severely aggravated by the physical effects of construction work or use of the new road. My right hon. Friend referred to those three conditions, about which I wrote to him just the other day.

I must make it clear that the point of our treatment of medical conditions as my right hon. Friend described is that the effect of the scheme on the medical condition of the individuals concerned will not manifest itself until work starts. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to endorse the comment made by my right hon. Friend, a former distinguished Treasury Minister himself, that that does indeed help Treasury cash flow. It would be an inappropriate use of public funds to acquire properties many years—in this case two years—before the likelihood of work commencing, where the rationale for a purchase under discretionary purchase rules is medical effect. That is why, in cases relating to medical condition, an offer to purchase is deferred, or owners are invited to reapply nearer the appropriate time.

I noted that my right hon. Friend said that that does—I shall not say might—cause further uncertainty in the minds of those who have been asked to re-apply. I shall certainly reflect on that. I can confirm that it is not the purpose of the new guidelines to add to the perfectly understandable concern in such a situation; rather it is to recognise that, where the key to the request to purchase is a medical condition related to the onset of the scheme, the actual purchase should be broadly proximate to the start of works on the scheme.

The House may also be interested to know that, when revising the guidelines which are used for discretionary purchase in advance of construction work and which relate to the powers of section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980, we also considered the criteria for discretionary purchase during the course of construction or immediately after the new road is opened relating to other parts of section 246. Those criteria were relaxed and made more consistent with the guidelines applicable for discretionary purchase in advance of works and a number of owners whose properties are seriously affected by construction work or a newly opened road have benefited.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads promised in the debate on 17 May that all applications made for discretionary purchase under the relevant powers and rejected since the 1994 Court of Appeal judgment in the Owen case would be reconsidered. The majority of those cases have now been reconsidered under the new guidelines and owners informed of the result. Owners were given an opportunity to submit any relevant new information in support of their applications and new assessments have been made of predicted noise levels and physical effects. Information from professional valuers on diminution of value caused by scheme proposals has been obtained.

All that information has been taken into account in reaching new decisions on cases in accordance with the new guidelines. That has involved a great deal of work by the Highways Agency. I have, as my right hon. Friend was generous enough to say, taken a close personal interest in the many cases where the decision reached was borderline and where my right hon. Friend or other hon. Members may have made specific representations on behalf of their constituents.

I acknowledge the fact that, as my right hon. Friend said, some of the determinations will have been made by officials. That is where, ostensibly at least, the cases are not borderline and are relatively straightforward to determine, but I reiterate my outstanding offer that if I am asked to look again at any such decision by an hon. Member on behalf of a constituent, I shall most certainly undertake to do so. I appreciate that the thrust of my right hon. Friend's remarks is that these are important matters for people who are affected on whichever side of the guidelines they may eventually fall.

I should say that other owners, whose applications for discretionary purchase were rejected before June 1994, have also been given an opportunity, through advertisements in local newspapers, to apply to make fresh applications for consideration under the new guidelines. More than 50 cases are still being reconsidered and they will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

In connection with the A27 scheme, 48 applications have been considered or reconsidered under the new guidelines. In six cases, an offer to purchase has been made with immediate effect. A further five cases, in which owners or occupiers have a medical condition, have been accepted in principle under the provisions of the guidelines for purchase at a later date to which I have just referred. Thirty applications have been rejected and seven are still under consideration.

The properties that the agency has agreed, or provisionally agreed, to buy under the new guidelines add to the total of more than 120 properties on which offers to buy had already been made in connection with the A27 scheme. None of those properties would be required for the proposed route of the scheme. It is our policy to seek to limit the effects on the character of a locality affected by trunk road proposals which may be caused by widespread advance purchase of property. It is with that aim in mind that, in the new guidelines, we intend to target offers to purchase on those properties which are seriously affected by physical factors, including noise and diminution in value.

The Highways Agency will, as my right hon. Friend suggests, also seek to return as many properties as possible that have been purchased under the discretionary powers to private ownership at the earliest possible opportunity. However, necessarily, the resale of property must avoid destabilising the market in the locality.

I understand that, but my hon. Friend has not answered the fundamental point, which is that the reduction in value in itself is sufficient to reflect a serious reduction in the enjoyment of the property. That brings out clearly the need for the guidelines to be further revised. If anything, the change tightens the criteria.

I am aware that some owners have been disappointed that their applications have not been successful and feel that the guidelines should have been drawn more generously to allow the Highways Agency to purchase an even greater number of properties, but with regard to my right hon. Friend's example of a constituent whom he claims has lost £25,000—if I quote him correctly—and whom he describes as having been the victim of highway robbery, I remind him that the powers under the Highways Act 1980, which allow discretion to purchase properties of which enjoyment will be seriously affected are in addition to, not a substitute for, the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which clearly give owners the right to claim compensation for loss in value one year after a road has opened.

There is no obligation on the Highways Agency to acquire property which is not required for a scheme, and the use of guidelines to ensure that cases are considered in a fair and consistent manner has been established since 1992. The important point is that those discretionary powers are to be applied in cases where the person concerned has no foreknowledge of the effect of the scheme; where the person concerned or a person residing in the relevant property can show serious effect in terms of their enjoyment of the property, as defined, and as qualified as my right hon. Friend said, by the judgment in the Owen case; and where the individual concerned has a pressing need to have the property acquired in advance of the compensation available under part I of the 1973 Act, which inevitably will be paid to any person who can show the loss that I have outlined a year after the scheme has opened. Discretionary purchase is not a substitute for the part I compensation, it simply provides for those exceptional circumstances.

I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend is understandably concerned at the effect of the application of the new guidelines, but I stress that there is no sense in which they affect part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which remains the bulwark on which those who may be refused compensation in these cases can none the less rely if they continue to experience deterioration in the value of their property a year after the scheme has opened. It is that series of criteria taken together that it is important to bear in mind in these cases.

The new guidelines comply in full with the judgment given in the Court of Appeal in 1994. In the case of Owen, a further judicial review in November 1995 confirmed that the Secretary of State had not acted perversely or irrationally in reaching the decision to reject Colonel Owen's application in accordance with the guidelines and Colonel Owen was refused leave to appeal that judgment on 12 February.

We will continue to consider applications in accordance with the two-stage process set out in the guidelines. Our intention remains to provide relief to owners whose enjoyment is seriously affected and who have a pressing need to sell in advance of entitlement to claim their statutory compensation.