This debate, which I am grateful to have been granted, is about Government assistance to the Ford plant at Halewood. I welcome the impressive support of colleagues from Merseyside and beyond. I note the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), and that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I understand that others may be coming later to support me. I must also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is here but subjected to enforced silence. Such support is indicative of the severity of the crisis now facing the Ford plant at Halewood.

Everyone knows Ford, but not everyone knows Halewood. Halewood is at the extreme south of Knowsley, abutting Liverpool to the west and Widnes to the east. It is situated conveniently on the motorway network—the M62 goes to east Lancashire and across the Pennines to the east coast ports, the M56 links it to Greater Manchester, Manchester airport and north Wales, and the M6 leads to the far north and the south.

Halewood is home to Ford (UK), which is by far the biggest employer on Merseyside. On Thursday 23 January 1997, Ford made an announcement that cast a shadow over the future of this important factory. I intend to spend a few minutes tracing the history of the factory and describing the detail of the announcement, the background to it and its severe implications for Merseyside and beyond. I shall question Ford's decision, draw some conclusions as to why it should be resisted, and seek Government support to persuade Ford to change its mind.

The plant was founded in 1960. Ford was attracted to the 346-acre site by the excellent communications that I have just described. Between 1960 and 1963, Ford spent £30 million on building what was then the world's biggest car factory under one roof. The official opening was on 8 March 1963. The first car off the assembly line was a 997 cc Ford Anglia, which is still in the Liverpool transport museum as part of the industrial heritage of Merseyside.

In 1968, another important event took place—the unveiling of the Escort Mark I, 1.1 litre. Six generations of this car have since been built at Halewood. The plant has also produced the Cortina, the Capri, the Corsair and the Orion, which are variants of the Escort. In 1969, the millionth car came off the production line.

In 1981, the Escort received the European Car of the Year award, and was the world's best-selling car. It retained the latter record in 1982 and 1983. Between 1986 and 1996, the Escort topped United Kingdom car sales for all but three years, and 129,000 Escorts were sold in the UK in 1996. Total world sales since 1968 have been nearly 18 million. Of course, the Escort is now made in Saarlouis in Germany and Valencia in Spain—names that will crop up numerous times in my speech.

Such sales owe much to excellent design and marketing, but they also owe much to the work force. Continuous improvements in productivity have been achieved not only through capital investment by the company, but through changing work practices and successive tranches of job losses at Halewood, from a peak of employing 14,500 people to its present level of 4,500 in the vehicle assembly plant. The company admits that the production costs per unit are better than those of the nearest comparable plant, in Saarlouis. Continuous improvements in quality have led to the award of Ford's Q1 standard in 1995—the cordon bleu in-house quality mark.

In addition to those 4,500 workers in the vehicle assembly plant are the 1,000 in the transmission factory on the same site, which makes transmission units for the Escort, the Fiesta, the Scorpio and the new Ka—those for the Scorpio and the Ka are for export—making Ford Halewood a key component in the industrial infrastructure of Merseyside and the wider region. High-volume family car production makes it by far the largest manufacturing employer in Merseyside, with a footprint of employment covering the whole of the Merseyside area—north, south, east and west—as well as Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire and north Wales.

In addition to those directly employed by Ford, the number of jobs provided in the supply of goods and services to the factory is unquantifiable but massive. Then there are the jobs provided in the local economy by the spending power of all those employees, from the local shops, large and small, to Halewood Labour club.

My hon. Friend touches on the important issue of the wider spread of jobs in Merseyside. Is he aware that much of the glass installed in Escorts is produced at the Triplex factory in St. Helens, which has also struggled over the past few years? The potential loss of that valuable order could have a major impact on the employment prospects at Triplex in St, Helens.

Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that practical example. The effects that he describes could be repeated many times elsewhere.

On Thursday 23 January 1997, the announcement hit Mersey side like a bomb. In round figures, 1,300 jobs were to go on the Escort production line at Halewood, reducing the work force from 4,500 to 3,200. The new Escort would not be made in Halewood, but would be produced solely at the German and Spanish plants. Production of the old Escort would continue at a scaled-down rate until the end of the century. Thereafter, a new multi-activity vehicle, which I shall refer to as MAV, would be built on the platform of the Escort, supplying the European niche market of people carriers—cars such as the Renault Megane Scenic. At the moment, the MAV is little more than a computer-generated schema.

The announcement had been extensively trailed against the background of declining sales of the Escort in this country and worldwide, and losses suffered by Ford across its European operation. The company announced a loss of $291 million on its European operations in 1996. However, it should be noted that those losses cover the whole European operation, not just production of the Escort, and were certainly not down to Halewood alone. The figures for any losses that may have been incurred at Halewood are not, as far as I am aware, available.

Within a fortnight of announcing 1,300 job losses at Halewood, Ford announced a profit of $39 million for the final quarter of published figures. The company claims that that is reduced to losses of $88 million after a one-off payment is taken into account. I wonder whether that one-off payment is the cost of writing down Halewood.

The declining sales of the Escort must be a factor. Halewood is currently dedicated to Escort production. However, the sales performance of the Escort must be taken in context. First, the United Kingdom sales figure of 129,000 is a serious decline from the 1990 peak, but all car sales declined during the recession. Those 129,000 sales still made the Escort the second best seller in the UK market in 1996.

Secondly, the UK is the Escort's best market. Comparisons with sales in Germany and Spain make interesting reading. United Kingdom sales between 1990 and 1995—remember that our recession was deeper than that in the rest of Europe—went down by 27 per cent. In Germany, sales went down by 37 per cent., and in Spain they went down by 24 per cent. The company's figures for sales in Germany are different, but they fail to make the adjustment for West German sales only in 1990 and sales in the unified Germany thereafter.

Even more interesting comparisons can be made between national production and national sales of the Escort in the three countries. United Kingdom sales are 85 per cent. of domestic production, according to figures that I have been given. That means that we are a net exporter. The figure for Germany is 132 per cent., and that for Spain is even higher. Germany and Spain are net importers of Escorts.

Thirdly—this is a crucial point—the new model Escort is designed to arrest the recent decline in sales across its markets. It is timed to ride the upsurge in the market as we emerge from recession.

In spite of all this, production of the new model has been assigned to Saarlouis and Valencia, not to Halewood. The implications are serious. The loss of the new model Escort takes Halewood out of high-volume, two-shift family car production—the big stuff in the automotive industry. The concession that the old model Escort will be produced until 2000, concurrently with the new model coming off continental production lines, is meaningless. Old models do not sell when the new model is available. The only car that ever bucked that trend was the Fiesta. That was in the context of rising sales. The Escort would have to do so in the context of depressed sales.

The promise of the MAV as the basis of the future survival of the Halewood plant is to be treated with the utmost reservation. It is still at the earliest stage of development—little more than a gleam in the designer's eye. As of last Monday, when we met management, it had not been put to the board for approval of development costs. It appears that development may be dependent on a large grant from the UK Government. Even if it gets off the drawing board and into production, there are further reservations about the MAV, because it serves a niche market, with low-volume production and sales in comparison with those of family saloons such as the Escort.

Putting all that together, the prognosis for Halewood is difficult. It must struggle to buck the market trend, with the old Escort competing against the new, followed by dependency on the MAV in low-volume production. Make no mistake: we want the MAV and we want it to be a winner in its niche market, but we also want and need the high-volume production of the new Ford Escort. The two are not incompatible. If the MAV is based on the Escort platform, there is no reason why the two could not come off the production line.

On behalf of the hon. Members from the Wirral area, one of whom has had to take a trappist vow for the debate, may I draw to the attention of those following our proceedings the fact that there are more hon. Members present in the Chamber than there often are for debates subject to a three-line Whip? We could obviously take up the whole day debating the issue if that were possible. That is how seriously we take the problem.

We in Wirral have suffered from huge job losses—not just any jobs, but jobs paying decent wages. I want to stress the link between wage levels and families. Much emphasis in public debate is put on the desire for stable families. It is difficult to have stable families without decent family wages. For many of us, my hon. Friend's speech has another dimension. Jobs are important, but people usually require them so that they can nurture children, so it is also a blow for them.

I shall make some observations about the point my hon. Friend has raised later in my speech, when I turn to the direct financial costs of supporting an additional 1,300 unemployed people. I am sure that my hon. Friend and all hon. Members are aware of the indirect costs of unemployment and its associated deprivation.

The prognosis for Halewood is difficult. We want the MAV to be a winner in its niche market, but we also want the new Escort. The MAV represents only half the future that we would expect if Halewood were to produce the new Escort. Virgil's expression,

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"

is apposite in respect of the MAV. It means, "I fear the Greeks when they bear gifts,"' and refers to the Trojan horse. Arguably, the Trojan horse was the first ever people carrier.

Why then was Halewood singled out for an uncertain future? What can be the reason for effectively exporting 1,300 jobs from my constituency to Spain and Germany in order to manufacture the new model Escort for import into the United Kingdom, the market where the Escort is the second best seller, where it sells in greater volume than any other market, and where, in a declining trend, its sales have held up better than elsewhere? The United Kingdom is the only country that exports more Escorts than it produces.

Can the reason be productivity levels at Halewood? I have referred to the heroic achievements of the Halewood work force in improving productivity to the point at which the Escort is cheaper to produce per unit than in Saarlouis. I am advised that production costs per unit are cheaper in Valencia. That depends on how one calculates the statistics, and one would expect that of such a relatively modern factory.

It should also be remembered that current assessments of productivity at Halewood are based on a long period of single-shift working during the depressed car market, when Halewood had to carry the costs of down-time payments and the other diseconomies of scale when a production line designed for double-shift working is reduced to a single shift. The factories at Valencia and Saarlouis did not suffer the same disadvantage when productivity assessments were made.

If Escort production capacity has to go—I shall qualify that "if—there is a strong case in terms of productivity for consolidating production at Halewood instead of cutting it there.

If the problem is not productivity, can it be quality? Again, there have been heroic achievements by the work force at Halewood, leading to the award of Q1 status in 1995. That was also against a background of single-shift working and interrupted production runs which can affect quality, as the management told us last week. Despite that disadvantage, the work force achieved Q1.

Thus, in terms of commitment, productivity, quality and sales, the work force at Halewood are not agents of their own misfortune as has been suggested in some misguided sections of the press; they are innocent victims.

Can the reason be over-capacity across the three plants at Halewood, Saarlouis and Valencia? Some journalists have suggested that Ford has half a plant too many producing the Escort, that the company needed to amputate one plant, and that Halewood was the weakest. My evidence on productivity, quality and market performance of Halewood Escorts gives the lie to that. In any case, the argument about over-capacity is open to question. If the new Escort is as successful as Ford intends it to be, the capacity of the plants at Saarlouis and Valencia will probably be inadequate to meet the expected demand.

My hon. Friend mentioned over-capacity. Did he hear the reported comments of Mr. Jac Nasser on Radio 4 today, when he said that Ford Halewood has to compete not only with southern Europe, but with eastern Europe? Is there not an argument to be made about the fact that Ford is increasing its capacity in areas that do not have the same employment and working conditions that are expected in western Europe?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point that I hope the Government will bear in mind in discussions with Mr. Nasser, when considering their commitment to production in Britain.

I return to over-capacity, and the inadequacy of the Saarlouis and Valencia plants to meet expected sales of the new model by possibly 100,000. If Halewood were to lose the new Escort, the 1,300 jobs would be exported to provide expanded production—possibly a third shift in the factories in Spain and Germany—to produce cars for import into the United Kingdom.

If over-capacity can be ruled out, why did Ford single out Halewood and not share the pain across all three plants? There are several possibilities. An article in The Observer on 19 January compared the difficulty and cost of making people redundant in Britain, Spain and Germany. It showed that it is easier to make people redundant in the United Kingdom because there are fewer legal hurdles and binding agreements to overcome. It is also cheaper to make people redundant in Britain, because redundancy terms are more generous in Spain and Germany, where all employees are entitled to redundancy payments, not just those who qualify under the two-year rule.

The company argues, with some justification, that the severances will be voluntary and the terms generous, but leaving aside the economic abstractions, every redundancy is a personal tragedy for a family—1,300 tragedies in this case. The pill has to be sugared, because the age profile of the Halewood work force is such that, after all the successive job losses, it is a difficult life decision for a worker to take the money knowing that he is most unlikely to have a comparable job ever again. Finally, once the redundancies have been made, the jobs will no longer be available to the local and national economy.

A further argument is that greater financial inducements have been provided by the Governments of Spain and Germany to the company to keep production there. I have no hard evidence for saying that, but I would not be at all surprised if there were evidence to support it. I simply ask the Minister to bear that in mind in his discussions with Ford.

I shall not make political points about the cost and the ease of making people redundant in Britain. Others may wish to do that. I confine my remarks to the effects of the announcement about Halewood on my constituency in Knowsley and the surrounding region.

In conclusion, the announcement that the new Escort will not be produced at Halewood is catastrophic to the economy in my constituency, and those of many of my hon. Friends who are here today. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is now in his place.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the effect on the local and regional economy. The people of Ellesmere Port where the Vauxhall Astra is made are deeply worried by the announcement. There is no glee in Ellesmere Port. My constituents recognise that it is a serious blow to the regional economy following the job losses at Gallaghers, H. H. Robertson Ltd. and Prestige. Manufacturing jobs are being lost throughout the north-west, and, whatever the product, they are creating serious crises for many thousands of families in the region.

Absolutely. There could not be a better demonstration of the objectivity of the case that I am presenting than the fact that car workers in a factory just across the Mersey are supporting their opposition in the market. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton) have joined the debate.

We are talking not only about 1,300 jobs but about the knock-on effects of job losses in a myriad of suppliers—great and small—of components and services to the Halewood factory. There is a further knock-on effect of such wages and salaries across the retail economy of my area, and a social cost in an area where unemployment is far higher than the national average.

There are hard financial costs as well. There is the cost to the Treasury of sustaining with benefits those who lose their jobs and the indirect and wider cost of the consequences of unemployment, and the attendant social deprivation. Such arguments are, of course, of general application when unemployment occurs, but I ask the Minister to take particular note of this incidence.

Merseyside is an unemployment black spot. It has suffered more than its fair share of job losses in the two recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. It is the only industrial region of mainland Britain that has objective 1 status. This is not a scouse whinge; our heads are not down on Merseyside. Indeed, we are energetically regenerating Merseyside. A blow such as the Ford decision, however, is a severe setback.

Moreover, Ford is the sort of flagship multinational inward investor whose investments do two things in an area such as ours. It not only gives a big boost to the local economy with its own jobs and the piggy-back jobs that it brings with it: it punches a hole through which lesser investors follow, on the principle that, if Merseyside is good enough for Ford, it is good enough for them. There is a confidence factor, and if Ford disinvests, that is damaged. We scousers have plenty of pride and confidence in ourselves, but we need others to have confidence in us, too—notably Ford.

The argument that I present to the Minister is for selective regional assistance and affirmative action for Merseyside. Some might call that special pleading, but it is an argument for the balance of trade in the automotive industry.

It is predicted that the four best sellers in the UK family car market will be the Fiesta, the Escort, the Mondeo and the new Ka. If Escort production is taken from Halewood, all those but the Fiesta will be produced abroad and imported into this country. A conservative estimate is that that will involve 360,000 units, or £2.8 billion, on the debit side of the balance of payments. The social costs, the regeneration of Merseyside and the balance of trade are hard financial reasons for keeping the Ford Escort and the 1,300 jobs at Halewood.

I know that the Minister is seriously interested in the issues that I have put before him: the impact of the announcement on Merseyside and the danger of the domino effect on the Halewood plant, the Merseyside economy, and other Ford plants about which I could have said much—I could have mentioned Iveco in Langley or Bridgend.

I know that there is on-going dialogue between Ford and the DTI at the highest ministerial level and through officials, and I urge the Minister to pursue those discussions with vigour and commitment. I suspect that they will touch on support for investment in the MAV. I encourage him in such discussion. We want the MAV, and if any work force can make it succeed, Halewood can. Compared with production of the Escort, however, the MAV offers Halewood only half a future. I urge the Minister to explore any and every avenue with the company that could lead to the award of the production of the new model Escort at Halewood.

I end by quoting the motto of Liverpool: Deus nobis haec otia fecit—God gave us all these leisure pursuits. It refers to the parks and gardens of Victorian Liverpool. We in Knowsley, South, we in Liverpool and on Merseyside have had enough of enforced leisure. We want jobs—specifically the 1,300 at Halewood.

rose—

Understandably, many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. May I therefore make an appeal for short speeches?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on securing the debate. I am conscious of time, and shall not detain the House.

I am slightly disappointed that none of our Conservative colleagues who represent Merseyside has been able to be present, but I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who has responsibility for Merseyside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South described the effect of the decision on confidence on Merseyside. I do not believe that that can be overstated. The decision comes at a quite critical time for us on Merseyside. We have been living with objective 1 status for three or four years. It is a double-edged sword. It provides very much needed European aid, which is essential in the region if we are to regenerate the local economy and improve economic activity, but its downside is that it is a recognition of just how bad things have become.

We on Merseyside are making many improvements. A new city centre is emerging from the ashes of the 1970s and 1980s, when manufacturing fled the region, and hopes for the future of the region have been growing. There has been some success in the campaign to attract new jobs in my constituency, which borders with the constituency of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The Wavertree technology park is one of many examples of success in attracting new businesses and generating new jobs on Merseyside.

Just as we were hoping to come to the end of objective 1 status, Ford's decision has been a huge blow to the confidence of Merseyside people and their work in partnership with local authorities—and in many respects with the Government—in lifting the region and pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, demonstrating the skills, ingenuity and resilience of the people, who have had to face and grapple with such economic difficulties.

Ford's decision has had a major impact on the image that people have of Merseyside. I criticise the company for the way in which it handled the decision and remained silent about the reasons why it had arrived at it. That left commentators, the press and others around Britain and in Europe to draw their own conclusions based on images—often the wrong images—of Merseyside. The way in which the decision was taken did not allow for any clear analysis. Everything was privately indicated in meetings with Members of Parliament, the unions and the Government.

It is clear that Ford has been facing serious problems. There is no question but that the Escort has been losing its position in the car market. It has made its case to Members, the Government and the unions, and explained how it has been losing money hand over fist with that product. Hon. Members understand the difficult competitive world facing car manufacturers; we appreciate that, when people buy their cars, they base their decision on different judgments than those they made in the past; we understand the problems facing volume car producers such as Ford when they are deciding what new products to bring on stream.

The hon. Lady referred to Conservative Members from her region. I represent an area further south that makes motor cars. Rover and Land Rover are virtually within spitting distance of my constituency, although not in it. She does her own region proud in her defence of it.

I do not feel that the decision is so much a reflection on Merseyside itself, as the hon. Lady seemed to be saying. It is, as she is now beginning to say, more of a reflection on Ford, which has had problems in attracting buyers of certain designs of car over the past five years or so. That has been a problem for Ford Europe, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will go on to say that that problem is not reflected in some of its competitors, such as Rover and Land Rover. The decision is therefore to some degree a reflection on the company, rather than on the area or the work force of Merseyside.

That is my point precisely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has explained, the workers at Ford Halewood have demonstrated their capacity to grapple with the problems that the company faces and to work in partnership with it. There has been an unprecedented period of freedom from all kinds of industrial problems at the plant. The workers have demonstrated their commitment to the company, and shown that they are prepared to work with it to rise above the challenges that it is telling us about.

I believe that Ford's decision was based on reasons other than those about which it is prepared to come clean. As a country, we must face up to the fact that Ford has three plants in three European countries, that it has taken that decision, and that, in doing so, one factor that it has taken into account is the difference between the employment requirements in the three countries. There is a strong belief on Merseyside that we have suffered because it has been easier and cheaper for Ford to make 1,300 people redundant at Halewood than it would have been at either of the other two plants.

My hon. Friend has talked about those 1,300 jobs, and I want to talk about the consequences for the 1,300 workers. Every week at my surgeries, I see the consequences for the health of men who stop working at 50 with no prospect of further work. There are also important consequences for the job opportunities of young people on Merseyside, who hoped to find employment and develop their skills at the plant.

We are aware of the problems that Ford has faced, and of the changing car market. Why does the Department of Trade and Industry appear to have been taken so much by surprise by Ford's decision? Given the major impact that it will have on our trade deficit, why was the Department caught on the back foot? It seems to me that the German and Spanish Governments had been working more closely with the company in trying to prevent the decision from going against workers and businesses in their countries. I greatly regret that.

A view is developing on Merseyside that objective I funding should be used to support Ford's decision to bring new manufacturing to Merseyside, but I believe that that would be a mistake, and that other funding should be used instead. We should use DTI funding rather than European money, because clearly most of that has already been earmarked for other projects, and we are coming to the end of it.

I am conscious of the number of people who want to speak, so on that point I shall finish.

I too shall be brief, because I realise that so many people want to make contributions.

In 1982 there was a similar problem, which had largely been caused by bad management-labour relations. I shall not say who was to blame, because that would be futile. I was the chair of economic development at Merseyside county council at the time, and we had four hours of discussions with Bill Hayden, who was then the chief of Ford Europe.

As a result, agreements were made within the company between the work force and the management, and the workers agreed to co-operate in the changes in productivity and works practice. This time, however, Ford has not consulted anybody. I presume that it did not even consult the Government before making its statement.

Since 1982, the labour force has carried out all its promises to improve productivity—so much so that, on 17 January, Ford News, the house magazine of the Ford company, said that Halewood workers had reached their productivity objectives under the company's total productivity maintenance scheme in record time.

What was the reward for that? It was the notices sent out to the effect that 1,300 workers are to be made redundant. What message is the Ford Motor Company sending to other workers in this country who may also be asked by management to agree productivity deals and changes in works practice? My hon. Friends suggest that the company chose Halewood for the cut—

rose—

I shall give way in a minute.

I think that Ford chose Halewood because it believes that, unlike other Governments in Europe, the British Government are a soft touch. That comes across in all their actions in connection with Europe. They are not at the heart of Europe. Ford and other companies—a recent example is Toyota—have shown that they want to be at the heart of Europe.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the work force at Ford are not asking for special treatment? However, there is something that the workers do expect—this is something that the Minister will have to address when he sums up.

They expect not to be put at a disadvantage compared with those in Spain or Germany simply because it is cheaper for the company to get rid of them than to get rid of workers in other parts of Europe. If that is what lies behind the decision, all the Government's claims to be friendly towards industry and employment go out of the window. If work protection in this country is so weak that it makes us vulnerable, it is time that the Government thought again about their approach to the social chapter and other such issues.

I am fully in accord with that. Not only is it cheaper to lay off workers in this country: there is also the whole body of employment law in Germany.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall continue, because I want other hon. Members to be able to make their speeches.

There are works councils in Germany. In Saarlouis, one can see the management and the workers constantly discussing the problems of the company. Firms can also be taken before labour courts in Germany; in Spain, public inquiries have to be held, and there are local and regional labour authority controls.

I am not asking the Government to pick up the bill, because they will have to do that anyway. However, they have an option about the way in which they pick it up. One way would be to help the Ford workers by investing and giving encouragement to ensure that production of the Escort continues at Halewood. Otherwise, they can pick up the bill in another way—by paying out an estimated £50 million in redundancy payments, unemployment pay and other social benefits.

If the Government choose the second option, they will blow a huge hole in this country's foreign and gold currency reserves. The price, on top of the social costs, could be £2.8 billion. I ask the Government to weigh those options, and to ensure that they take into account the fact that a failure to support Ford will mean that about 10 per cent. of the economic activity on Merseyside will be affected. Not only the Ford company and its workers, but workers elsewhere on Merseyside, will suffer.

The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has rendered the House a service in so ably painting the depressing picture of what will happen as a result of the job losses at Halewood. It is for the rest of us to put some brush strokes on that canvas, to try to support the points that he has made.

During the 25 years that I have been representing the people of Liverpool—first as a councillor, followed by 18 years in this House—there has been a depressing litany of job losses. I have stood alongside the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and others on many occasions when we have been to see Ministers and employers to plead for jobs.

All of us know that, for the past quarter of a century—almost since it was founded—a sword of Damocles has been hanging precariously and threateningly over the Halewood plant. In turn, that has sapped morale and led to a loss of confidence. Despite the corrosive effect of such prolonged uncertainty, the employees have delivered substantial improvements in output and quality. Their reward has been the loss of 1,300 jobs. It is no wonder that, not unreasonably, they want to know what they had to do to secure their long-term futures.

My late father, having left the Eighth Army at the end of the war, went to work on the Ford shop floor for the whole of his life. For that personal reason, and because I know that many Liverpool families depend on Ford, I am completely aware of how devastating the effect of this announcement will be—as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and others have said—on those families who depend on employment at Ford for their homes, their futures and their livelihoods.

Ford is a giant employer in an area which has always had a weak manufacturing base. The knock-on effect into the local Merseyside economy on suppliers and retailers is incalculable. What a mockery this makes of myriad job creation initiatives and the conferring of objective 1 status if jobs such as these continue to haemorrhage and flow away. I had assumed that objective 1 meant inward European investment. Instead, this haemorrhage in employment represents disinvestment and the export of jobs to much more affluent parts of Europe. There is no logic—and no sustainable or coherent strategy—to this, let alone any sign of social responsibility towards the people involved.

Even the most ardent European would be hard put to explain why—despite being specially designated as objective 1—Merseyside should end up exporting jobs rattier than cars. It also makes a mockery of the Government's claims that the lack of employment protection through the non-application of the social chapter has made the United Kingdom a mecca or a honeypot for inward investment.

We have the worst of all worlds. We have a lack of minimum standards for employees, and when employers are choosing whether to make German or British workers redundant, they inevitably go for the cheaper British option. That doubly fails British working men.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have literally five minutes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I know that other hon. Members want to get in.

It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely shrugging his shoulders and saying, "You win some, you lose some." Losing one's job is not like the roll of a dice—it is not like losing a bet. Unemployment means having nothing to do, and that very rapidly ends up meaning nothing to do with the rest of us. Unemployment leads to alienation, depression, isolation and suicide. These are the consequences that one sees in communities riddled and racked with high unemployment.

In the 18 years that I have been in the House, I have seen all too many job losses without commensurate job gains, and that has had a devastating effect on family and community life. It saps the lifeblood of the community. We have been promised—as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South has said, by "Greeks bearing gifts"—the prospect of a new model at Ford. That is all well and good, and the work record of the people at Halewood more than warrants the bringing of that new model to Ford. But what about the 1,300 jobs on which the hon. Member concentrated our minds this morning? What about the continued production of the Ford Escort on Merseyside?

There is no reason why those two things should not go hand in hand, or why the burden of job losses should not be shared across all the plants mentioned by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South. The Government must do whatever needs to be done to secure that opportunity. The workers undoubtedly feel anger, and one can understand their sense of frustration. What the Government and the House must do is to give them the opportunity they are looking for to use their talents, their energies and their dynamism to build cars—something that they are good at.

Merseyside's biggest problem has been its industrial image. Sometimes that has been unfair, but it has undoubtedly turned away some investment. The last thing we need now is a long-term crippling industrial dispute, and we must do all we can to prevent it. Leadership is needed from this House, the Government and all parts of the Merseyside community to ensure that a constructive solution comes out of this. We must harness and channel the energies and dynamism of the community, not negative and destructive purposes.

I declare an interest, in that many of my friends and those with whom I work in St. Helens are shop stewards and employees at Halewood. One can actually see the Halewood plant from St. Helens, South, as it is only just down the road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). People who live in St. Helens and Knowsley know what unemployment means, and it is not just the loss of a job.

In the 14 years that I have represented St. Helens, South, I have watched the Government wipe out the mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) knows about this, as his constituency has suffered in the same way. We have watched the glass industry shrink, and we have watched friends lose their jobs at 40, with no jobs to follow. They are on the scrap heap at 40—can one imagine it?

Now we are watching it all happen again at Halewood. It is more than a tragedy—it is almost the final act of desecration. It need not happen. In the north-west, the workers provide skill, hard work and a commitment to jobs. Many thousands of men will be sitting at home this morning watching television because they have nowhere to go and nothing to do. Those men are skilled in glass work, engineering and mining, and they have talents and training. All they want is an opportunity to use their skills. "Get on your bike," said Lord Tebbit many years ago, but if one rides out of Merseyside, one either goes into Greater Manchester or into the sea. But one will not find a job, because beyond us lies more unemployment.

What do we have on Merseyside? We have communications, and a road structure that is second to none. Funnily enough, we have the money. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) knows the saga of Vauxhall and about getting the company's money out of the Government. The DTI nearly blew the whole scheme because of its incompetence.

The Government do not give a toss about Merseyside—let us be truthful. Where has the objective 1 money gone? There are buckets of it—an ocean of it—left. Where has the RECHAR money gone? It has not been used. It is all there. I have spoken to local European Members of Parliament on the matter. All we want is a change in the rules so we can rely not on a Government who will not give us anything, but on third-party funding. Those discussions have now begun.

This is not just a tragedy: it is a disaster. We could re-tool and reinvest—the money is there. All we need is willpower on the part of the Government of the day—please God, the present Government will not remain "the Government of the day" for long. We need them to show willpower and to get in there, to do something about an area whose skills are undoubted.

I leave the Government with one interesting thought. They tell us that we live in a world of increasing prosperity, and that the British public are better off. I suggest to them that they read The Independent this morning, which shows that—contrary to all their comments—the average weekly wage has fallen from £228 to £225 a week. But on Merseyside and in the north-west, our prosperity has fallen by 12.7 per cent. Now this has come upon us, and it is yet more disaster. We have the money, but we do not have prosperity—we are not given a chance or a fair deal. It is time that the Government began to realise that millions people in the north-west of England deserve a chance.

I make two points. First, the Government appear to have been caught on the starting blocks by this decision, yet they have key responsibilities, not only because of the effect on the balance of payments and regional employment levels, but because their decisions on employment policies have made the United Kingdom a soft touch as opposed to Spain and Germany, when multinationals make difficult decisions about which plants to close.

This morning, I spoke to Andy Richards, the district secretary for the Transport and General Workers Union for Ford workers in south Wales. He told me of the sense of betrayal in the plants at Bridgend and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is on the Opposition Front Bench and who would have liked to speak in the debate—his constituency adjoins mine. As he knows, the workers in south Wales have done everything that the Ford company has asked. Delegations have been brought from the United States and elsewhere to marvel at the efficiency of the plant. The workers feel let down.

Secondly, the decision does not affect only Halewood. We feel sorrow and anger on behalf of those at Halewood, but the decision will have consequences for the plants in south Wales. At Bridgend, the new Escort engine—the 14, 15 investment—is in question. If Halewood production is transferred to Saarlouis, engine production for the Escort at Bridgend will almost certainly transfer to the German engine plant at Cologne, and 700 jobs could be lost at Bridgend. There is no other product at Bridgend, the overheads would remain constant, and there is a real danger to the plant as a whole.

The Swansea plant produces drums and discs for the Escort and engine parts for Bridgend, and it has lost the air conditioner investment through the Ford decision. We are now seeking to produce the worldwide fuel pump for the Escort, and the scenario that is relevant for Bridgend also applies to Swansea. When production of the Transit axle finishes in 1998–99, or possibly a year later, there will be no programme at that plant, which could have disastrous consequences for south Wales.

The Bridgend plant employs 1,500 men, and the Swansea plant 1,200. Both plants are effectively tied to the Escort. Those jobs are high-wage, high-quality, London-wage jobs, and it will be disastrous for south Wales and for Halewood if the decision goes ahead and the Government do not fight it, even at this late stage.

The air-conditioning production plant that was promised to Swansea and Neath was lost to Portugal in the same announcement, because the Welsh Development Agency could offer only £6 million, whereas the Portuguese Government offered £49 million. That gives some indication of the auction that is taking place among European Union Governments and of the fact that multinationals can blackmail national Governments. I hope that that lesson will not be lost on the Government.

We need some agreement at European Union level—just as there is with export credits—to ensure that national Governments are not picked off in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and I share the concern about the dire consequences for south Wales if the decision goes ahead.

Much of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I will confine my remarks on behalf of the people of Bootle and the Ford workers to supporting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We are talking about the loss of 1,300 jobs in Merseyside—a loss that we can ill afford. My constituency will share that loss.

I had occasion to meet some of the Ford principals with other hon. Members at a meeting in the House. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the implications of the social contract, which figured highly at the meeting. I asked the Ford management a question about it, and it seems strange that there has been no reference to this in their written response to us. In my opinion, there is no question but that the non-existence of the social contract has worked to the detriment of the Ford workers at Halewood. I am convinced of that.

Another matter that has not been mentioned is the Ford company's moral obligation. I urge Ford to consider that obligation. The record of the work force has been mentioned, but Ford also has a strong moral obligation to the Merseyside community at large. As has been said, the decision will have a devastating effect across that community.

Ford has an obligation because the records will show that the work force, the local authorities and the community have supported the company on Merseyside and have made it a highly successful operator, despite the current profit and loss indications. It is time for Ford to say that it will reconsider the matter and come back with something better to support the people to whom it owes a debt of honour.

I take this opportunity—it is probably the last one I shall have—to ask Ford to reconsider. There must be a way around this. Life is not all about profit. I would advise Ford to read a little booklet called "The Common Good"—the recent statement by all the Churches on what profit and loss is all about. That is the key. Profit is fine and Ford is entitled to expect it, but we are entitled to expect from Ford fair and just treatment for its workers, particularly those who have worked so hard and long, and have co-operated with all the adaptations in working practices that the company has suggested. The company owes a debt to those people.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South that the severance terms are generous—they are certainly far better than what the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is offering the dockers, but that is another argument—but severance is not everything. The company has another duty—to secure the common good, and the good of the Merseyside community.

I have only a few minutes to make my case, and the issue that I want to raise is as important as the Ford decision. Merseyside Members of Parliament will know that the economy of the area has been based for the past century and beyond on the port. Think of the factories along the dock road in the last century—Tate and Lyle, Silcocks, the British American Tobacco company—and the host of ship repair yards on both sides of the Mersey. All that has gone.

When Ford and other parts of the car industry first came to Merseyside, it was hailed as a new dawn for the area: we were moving from a port-oriented to a broader industrial economy. In the 1970s, there was a similar situation to today's, when two plants in my constituency left Merseyside, along with other industry.

The Government must consider the alternatives. The fact that Liverpool happens to be on the wrong side of the country and is therefore affected by the European Economic Community means that the Government have a responsibility to consider areas such as Merseyside, and the north-west as a whole, and to ensure that industry goes where it is needed. They have failed absolutely in that responsibility.

The work force at Ford have been as good as any set of workers in the Ford companies here and abroad, and there is no reason whatever for the decision. The uncertainty will be devastating for Merseyside's future. Ford's decision is a blow to the area, a blow to Merseyside and a blow to the north-west. We hope that the Government will turn their attention to the problems facing areas such as Merseyside.

The economy of the port has changed dramatically. At one time, 20,000 people were employed on the docks, but today there are fewer than 500. There are no companies left along the dock road. The whole economy has to change, and the Government's influence should be seen on a daily basis. They should not leave the place to rot. Government intervention is of prime importance. The Ford workers have done all that was required of them, and it is a scandal that they should be left in this situation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on securing this debate. He has done us all a service. All who spoke in the debate did so passionately and constructively about the immediate and long-term effects for Merseyside and other places in the United Kingdom of Ford's plan for Halewood. They were right to record the dismay and anger of those directly affected by the announcement of the 1,300 job losses, and the added uncertainty about the remaining jobs. They were also right to spell out the impact of such job losses on the already fragile manufacturing base of Merseyside.

If the decision remains and the worst scenario comes to pass, it will eat into the very heart of the community, and undermine attempts to regenerate Merseyside's regional economy. The redundancies have not been brought about by a lazy, unco-operative and unproductive work force; on the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South and others so graphically showed, the workers responded positively to every new idea and work practice introduced by the company.

Indeed, there is evidence that the unions and the work force have been ahead of the local management in accepting and promoting new manufacturing techniques. The productivity increases and the high quality of product at Halewood bear witness to that. Cars are being produced to the highest standard set by the company.

It is significant that not one Conservative Member spoke in this debate other than by way of intervention I suspect that that is because they were, and are, embarrassed about the policies that they advocated through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Those policies were predicated on the belief that manufacturing industry was of secondary importance to this country. They clung to the view that Britain had a great future based on the service sector alone.

Over the past 17 years, Conservative Members have argued that we need a low-wage, no-skill economy, with minimal protection for those in work and reduced support for the millions who have been thrown out of work with no hope for the future.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman was not here for the whole debate, and as a local Member of Parliament he should have been.

In case Conservative Members have forgotten, I want to remind the House of what has happened to manufacturing jobs. When the Government took office in 1979, there were 6.6 million jobs in the manufacturing sector in Britain; by December 1995, that had fallen to fewer than 4 million. Each year, 172,000 people were thrown on the scrap heap in pursuit of a failed and destructive policy.

What happened in the United Kingdom generally was visited on Merseyside with a vengeance. In 1983, more than 650,000 people were employed in manufacturing on Merseyside; nearly 200,000 of those jobs were lost by 1996. Today, there are 10 people chasing every job on Merseyside. There is little hope of finding alternative employment for those thrown out of work, no matter how skilled or talented they may be. Long-term unemployment is, sadly, a fact of life on Merseyside. It scars the community and damages its social fabric.

We need a united approach to Ford's closure announcement for Halewood and its proposals for the long-term future of its other operations in the UK. We all recognise that Ford is important to the UK, but set against that is the fact that the UK has been important to Ford, which has done well out of us in terms of grant aid over the years, and has been provided with a strong home market for its products and a base for its export activities.

We all want the relationship to continue, so we must look for ways in which to preserve Ford's presence in the UK at a higher and more definite level than the company currently projects. That is why the Labour party should be kept fully informed of the Government's discussions with Ford. After all, the Labour party may be in government in a few weeks' time.

indicated dissent.

It is no good the Minister dismissing that by claiming that discussions with the company are confidential. We all know that, but the problem can be got round on Privy Council terms. If it was good enough for the Deputy Prime Minister to beat a path to the door of the Leader of the Opposition about the Greenwich millennium project, surely the current negotiations with Ford should be given at least the same priority.

The negotiations will cross over a general election period; the Government may fall, and the responsibility would then pass to an incoming Labour Government. Thousands of jobs are at stake and the car manufacturing base on Merseyside is at long-term risk. It is therefore important for the Government to get it right, which they could do by showing willingness to be inclusive and to put the country's interests before their political survival.

There can be no question about the fact that Ford has been planning its global strategy for some time. The moves it is making are born not of panic and short-termism but of what it considers its strategic need to respond to new markets and new competitors. There is strong evidence that the German and Spanish Governments have been closely involved with Ford in looking for ways of meeting that need. The same cannot he said for the UK Government.

It would clearly be wrong to overstate the power of Governments to influence corporate decisions or investment strategies, but they can have an effect if they try hard enough and early enough. The Spanish and the Germans have been doing that. We need to know when the Department of Trade and Industry first became involved with Ford, and what efforts it made to retain the new Escort model for the production facility at Halewood. The Minister should tell us today.

This debate will be studied not only on Merseyside but elsewhere; it will be examined by others who work in the automotive and manufacturing industries. They will want answers about why the Prime Minister claimed to be surprised by Ford's announcement, when anyone with half an inkling about the company's global strategy could have told him that such a decision was a possibility; they will want to know who did not tell him about Ford's likely strategy for its European car operations and the possible effect on the UK; they will want to know when, if ever, DTI Ministers first engaged with the company to consider ways in which to keep production of the new Escort model in the UK; they will want to know what is on offer to the company, how many jobs it will bring, and over what term; and they will want to know why the Prime Minister is prepared to put his trust in a Chancellor of the Exchequer who, when told of the 1,300 job losses at Halewood, shrugged his shoulders and said, "You can't win them all." They will want answers from the Minister today on why the country should put up any longer with a Prime Minister who does not know what is going on and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not care. Their actions and indifference have hurt Merseyside. The tragedy is that fewer people are likely to be working as a direct result of their mismanagement of the country and the economy.

I place on record my appreciation of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the sponsor Minister for Merseyside. I also appreciated the restrained and constructive way in which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) opened the debate. Clearly, he is concerned about the matter, as I am. He wants to ensure that there is a satisfactory outcome, as do other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton).

On the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), I have received an explanation and an apology from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who cannot be with us today because he has a long-standing prior engagement. My right hon. Friend took part with the hon. Lady in the delegation that visited me at the DTI, and he is clearly concerned. I have no doubt that, had death not intervened, Barry Porter, the former Member for Wirral, South would also have attended the debate.

I regret Ford's decision and the impact that it will have on Merseyside. However, the House should recognise that Ford has made it clear that its decision was commercial, and that it will allow it to put in place measures to improve the plant's competitiveness, and, I hope, to secure its long-term future.

With the hon. Member for Knowsley, South and other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I pay tribute to Halewood's good progress in improving productivity and quality. However, the House should appreciate that the continental plants with which Halewood is competing have not been standing still. The battle for productivity, like the battle for inflation, is never over. One must always re-examine work practices to stay ahead of the competition.

We should take encouragement from the fact that Ford has not, despite some comments to the contrary, been talking about closure. It has made it clear that it considers that the plant could become the home, and sole European source, for a new sort of vehicle at the turn of the century.

Irrespective of any grant application that might be received by the Government—we have not yet received an application—we are working with the company in assisting the plant to achieve levels of performance that would help it to compete both in the marketplace and for new investment. As the hon. Member for Knowsley, South—and, I hope, other hon. Members—know, impressive efforts are being made by the local agencies, co-ordinated by the Government office for Merseyside, to support the plant. The work on a proposed supplier park is a good example.

I was interested in what the Minister said about productivity. Does he agree with figures that show that it is £600 cheaper to produce the vehicle in Britain than it is in Germany?

The information that we have from Ford is that those figures are incorrect. Ford says that Halewood is more expensive than Valencia and only marginally cheaper than Germany. If transport costs are considered, as has been said, Halewood is not cheaper. According to Ford, measured by man hours per car, Halewood is 10 to 20 per cent. more expensive than Ford's continental plants. We must address that, not brush it aside.

The Government are firmly committed to supporting and developing the competitiveness of the automotive sector in the United Kingdom, at Ford and elsewhere. We are working with companies at local, regional and national level. Only last year, I officially opened the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders industry forum, which is designed to help companies based in Britain compete with other companies based in Europe and the rest of the world.

We are already listening to Ford's concerns. The House probably already knows, but I place it on record, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I recently met Jacques Nasser, the president of Ford Europe. My officials are discussing the possibility of financial assistance to support future investment at Halewood. Those discussions are continuing, but they are at an early stage, and I can make no promise about their outcome. We have an open mind, and are listening to what Ford says. I hope that the House will welcome that.

One of the most fundamental contributions that a Government can make is the provision of a sound macro-economic climate, with low inflation, low taxation, sound public finances and a flexible work force. When I met a delegation of hon. Members last week, I made it clear that the matter involved two issues. The first was the 1,300 job losses announced and the second was the long-term future of Halewood. I expressed the hope that the 1,300 job losses could be addressed in some way by Ford. That is the basis upon which we have been proceeding in our discussions.

I regret to tell the House that, at present, all discussions with the company suggest that it is unlikely to revisit the 1,300 job losses. To date, no proposals for reducing the number of job losses has been put to me or my officials by Ford.

Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the multi-activity vehicle is based on the platform of the Escort? It is likely that there will be under-capacity for Escort production for the market beyond the millennium. Will he investigate with the company the possibility of investment not only to bring the MAV to Merseyside but to retain the Ford Escort? There is a case for having both.

I do not rule that out. Yesterday, I met Tony Woodley, whom many hon. Members will know. I was impressed by his constructive position. I understand that he is having further discussions with Ford tomorrow. We intend to have further discussions with Ford next week. We will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind. However, he must appreciate that it is ultimately a matter on which Ford must make a commercial decision.

Will the Minister give way?

This must be the last time, because the debate must finish at 11 am.

My hon. Friend knows that there have been all-party discussions on this. With the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), we have been able to meet Ford and the unions. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the information we get is thoroughly checked, because there is a huge dispute between what Ford says about productivity and cost and what Mr. Woodley and his colleagues presented in our discussions. That is fundamental to any discussions that the Government might have.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some hon. Members have said that they have evidence that disputes Ford's figures. If that evidence is available, I would like to see it. I shall consider it. To date, such evidence has not been supplied to me.

Many hon. Members mentioned our employment laws. In making a product, what matters is the productivity of the plant. One does not close down, or reduce output at, the most productive plant. That is the position that Liverpool has to address. Ford has also suffered a setback in the markets, as some hon. Members rightly acknowledged. That has added to the problems that have had to be grappled with.

I cannot deal with all the points raised in the debate, owing to lack of time, but I shall answer the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) who commented on objective 1 status. Only last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, who is with us today, met the council leaders of Merseyside, and they all agreed that matters were progressing much faster. There seemed to be no dispute about that, so the hon. Gentleman's comments were out of date.

Many fine cars and memorable names have rolled off the production line at Halewood since the first 997 cc Anglia. I have owned two cars built at Halewood: a Ford Anglia and a Ford Capri—they were among the best cars that I have owned. I hope that, for many years to come, others will be able to say the same of new models that have yet to be made at Halewood.

I am grateful to have secured today's Adjournment debate on revenue support grant for Kent county council. Such a debate is timely, and I welcome my parliamentary colleagues from across the county here today. Among those whom I welcome are my right hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) and for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).

We also have a message of support from ministerial colleagues—the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew) and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who cannot be here today owing to ministerial duties.

No Government cuts have been forced on Kent county council's budget. That fact must be clearly identified as a thread that will run through the debate. Kent received a fair settlement in recent announcements on local government finance—Kent county council will receive a £22 million increase for the year 1997–98. That increase allows it to spend a massive £1,029 million and makes it one of the highest spending authorities in the country but, controlled by a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, it is imposing more severe service cuts than any other county in England while refusing to implement efficiency savings or embark on a restructuring programme, as it has been advised to do by professional financial commentators, Price Waterhouse.

The council's failure to acknowledge the fair Government settlement, and its failure to slim down bureaucracy, leads it, allows it and enables it to attack services for the most needy and most vulnerable people in our county. To exercise a different philosophy and different policies from the Conservative party is one thing, but to fail to take action in any one of the past four years to reduce bureaucracy and administration is incompetence. It is nothing less than a declaration of war by the county council majority on the people of Kent.

The socialist alliance at Maidstone cannot say that it did not see the problem coming. The problem was as evident to us as it was to the alliance: it was as clear as the appearance of a juggernaut on a straight country lane. If not negligent or incompetent, the behaviour of the Labour and Liberal Democrat members on Kent county council is wilful and malicious, and the people of Kent will have none of it.

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that the Liberal and Labour regime's adoption at county hall last autumn of the old highwayman's call to stand and deliver was most appropriate? Does he further agree that the county council was dishonest to pursue a campaign demanding an outrageous 10 per cent. increase in grant while knowing that it would receive only an inflation-rate increase, then to brand that increase as a cut? Does he agree that the behaviour is akin to Saddam Hussein's human shield in terms of using the elderly and vulnerable—those who use adult centres, the youth service, libraries, the fire service and the Kent music school—as a human shield to create as much mayhem as possible across the county?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right, and he will know that Conservative representatives on the local education authority voted against cuts to Kent music school. That is on record and can be seen by those of our constituents who support the music school. I shall refer to other matters raised by my hon. Friend in a few minutes.

I take this opportunity to welcome into the Chamber my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The intellectual power on this side of the Chamber is increasing massively by the hour.

The political majority on Kent county council has signally failed to act responsibly. That is no surprise to Conservative members, as the political leadership of the council is clearly well beyond its second best.

I was asked by Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the excellent leader of the Conservative group on Kent county council, to make something crystal clear. When the Conservative party retakes control of Kent county council on 1 May—and restores a political pattern that has served our county well for more than a century—the Conservative-controlled Kent county council will, first, reinstate any fire stations that have been closed; secondly, reverse any cuts in the adult education service; thirdly, reverse cuts in the youth service; fourthly, restore full library opening hours. Those are absolute commitments from the leader of our group on Kent county council.

I am heartened by the pledge my hon. Friend has just made on behalf of the Conservative members of Kent county council. The area that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and I represent is about to become a unitary authority. That is a sign that the area is the largest conurbation in Kent and its most industrial part. It unwittingly contributed to the peace dividend when it lost its major employer in the dockyard in the early 1980s. Adult education is essential—I am sure that all hon. Members know that it is vital to have a centre where the young can go to develop their education and their skills, where those who took early redundancy from the dockyard can go to develop new skills and where our considerable elderly population can go for exciting recreational and educational facilities. I am sure that people of all political persuasions agree with that.

Order. This intervention is becoming a speech.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose record of service to our county is distinguished. Conservative Members would like to pay tribute to her for the battling way in which she has fought for her constituents, whom she has represented so well and over so many years. I should particularly like to pay tribute to her on her contribution to the future of the adult education service.

The commitment that has been given by the Kent county council Conservative leadership is so good that I must repeat it. We will reinstate any fire stations that are closed, reverse any cuts to the adult education service and to the youth service and—

Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair rather than the Doors at the end of the Chamber.

Your glow is so strong that I dare not look at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but I shall from now on.

The announcement that I have just made will be welcome news for Kent residents.

I shall now revert to Kent's budgetary position. I have a copy of a confidential memorandum—

From Conservative central office.

It was sent to all Liberal Democrat members. The hereditary Member should keep her mouth shut and learn to listen.

I have a copy of the confidential memorandum sent to Liberal Democrat members which contains what is, for them, an honest statement. It states:

"Nevertheless a large part of the budget pressures are as a result of our own policy decisions."

I shall not take long, because my hon. Friend has much to say. That interesting document, of which we have copies, also makes it clear that the current state of Kent's roads maintenance is due to the present regime's neglect. The council wants to spend money on other things, such as twinning with Hungary or trips for the councillor who represents Dover.

Exactly so—my hon. Friend anticipates a later part of my speech. The realism that suddenly swept through the Liberal Democrat group was a bursting of new flame. It recognised that it has, by its decisions, contributed to the present financial situation of Kent county council. Given that rare burst of political honesty, why are the Liberal Democrats so committed to cutting front-line services, instead of reducing bureaucracy and administration? Why are they frenetic in their desire to establish new committees, new forums and new talking shops, and why do they indulge in a wide range of non-core activities?

In an excellent article in Kent Today by Paul Francis, we are told that Kent county councillors are considering awarding themselves extra expenses to pay for babysitters. I am informed that the Labour co-chairman of the economic development sub-committee went on 14 trips overseas between 20 April 1994 and 6 to 7 June 1996. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I gather that his name is Mr. Prosser, and that he is the parliamentary Labour candidate for Dover.

What were those trips for? The answer that is usually given is that they were in pursuit of European Community grants. My geography was learned a long time ago, but as I recall, Philadelphia is not in the European Union and, at the time when the trips were made, neither was Hungary. Constituents who run voluntary organisations to help the handicapped tell me that they have lost £1,000 in grant, which was the only grant that they received from Kent county council. How can those trips be justified, when any one of them was worth at least £1,000 in grant to a voluntary organisation in my constituency?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

I shall not give way.

The money for those trips—however important they may turn out to be—could have been given to voluntary organisations in Dartford, Swanscombe or any other community in Kent, and would have been warmly welcomed by voluntary workers and carers.

The main thrust of Kent's socialist coalition's argument is that the council faces a £79 million Government cut in funding. The House knows that Kent's funding was not cut; it received a 2 per cent. increase of £22 million. That is hardly a cut, yet the council comes up with the figure of £79 million as the amount that has allegedly been cut. How come? It is simply explained, though deceitful in origin.

The county council wants to spend an extra £101 million. It announced that it needs an extra £101 million to fund its wish list.

More foreign trips.

That may well be. The Government announced an increase of £22 million—which everyone recognises is a fair settlement—thus leaving Kent county council to claim a shortfall of £79 million. By black art spin-doctoring, it converted its wish list into Government cuts. How deceitful, dishonest and cruel.

I believe that my hon. Friend has done some research into what other counties propose for the forthcoming year. Can he name another county that has proposed such deep cuts as Kent is proposing?

On the evidence available to me, Kent's behaviour is worse, in that it has failed to cut bureaucracy and administration and to honour its commitment to maintaining front-line services.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, just two years ago, we had the spectacle of £4.5 million being taken out of the schools budget when some schools, such as my children's primary school in Kent, were short of chairs? In that very same year, the council spent £3.5 million on fixtures and fittings for education administration offices.

The list is endless. One of my favourite items of Kent county council expenditure is the £700,000 it spends each year on magazines and periodicals for the use of administrative officers.

I shall return to my point about the alleged £79 million cut. The House will appreciate that the council cannot cut what it never had: it was always speculation and deception. Kent county council's plan to spend 10 per cent. more flies in the face of political reality. No Government in the western world, local or national, are planning a 10 per cent. spending increase.

It is my perception that, of all the counties in the country, Kent has the largest percentage of grant-maintained schools—schools taken out of the local education authority. Can my hon. Friend assure me that county council administration has been cut pro rata to take account of that extraordinary devolution?

No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, because it is not there to give. The council has lost control of many services, but it has failed to cut bureaucracy. Administration has increased in the past four years, rather than reduced to reflect the position to which my hon. Friend referred.

In my constituency, we are faced with the prospect of the closure of fire stations, dramatic cuts in library services, cuts in desperately important youth services and a dramatic cut in adult education. Severe pain is being inflicted on the people who need those services, whereas administration is not being cut. The county council has lost control of administration of the police and further education colleges, and secondary schools administration has been reduced by 50 per cent. Why should my constituents be faced with cuts when no comparable effort has been made by the county council to cut bureaucracy and administration?

My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and he is right.

What I find most disconcerting about this sorry episode in the history of our county is the failure of the parties that control Kent's destiny to be honest. I dislike the deception that is being practised. In recent weeks, we have seen the use of the county's propaganda machine for party political purposes.

What does that cost?

I dare say we shall find that out in the fulness of time.

rose—

What the authority's officials are doing is quite wrong. I have a letter from a constituent: he is a resident of Dartford, to whom I wrote on 23 January. He says:

"I am still confused as to why KCC has had to reduce its services to those who need and depend on them. On the evening of the 27 January 1997, I attended a meeting of a local charity. A Spokesperson from Social Services outlined how the cuts in KCC's budget will affect the many services used in the local area. Again Central Government is blamed! I informed the meeting that you had informed me that Central Government had not cut the funding to KCC but had given a 2.2 per cent. increase on the previous year. The Spokesperson told the meeting that this is not correct and the cuts that KCC had to make are as a direct result of Central Government spending targets."

Is it not a fact that the lie machine at county hall has been so misrepresenting the facts that Mr. Keith Ferrin, one of our Conservative colleagues on the county council, found it necessary to write to Conservative candidates and sitting Members to ask whether they could please try to explain to the press that the situation is actually a result of the county council's mismanagement rather than a Government cut—something that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) will, I suspect, try to produce like a rabbit out of a hat later today? Is it not also a fact that the same team sought to rig the Kent Today opinion poll? Is not that yet another example of its members trying to rig the facts?

My experience as a long-serving Member of Parliament has shown me that the Labour party and the truth have long been strangers.

I am very grateful to Keith Ferrin, who is a well-respected member of the county council, for the information that every household's share of Kent county council's debt has risen by £216.89, to the massive sum of £762.83. We should get that message across.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his splendid recitation of the high economic crimes and misdemeanours that the Lib-Lab county council leadership have inflicted on the people of Kent.

My hon. Friend has mentioned borrowing. May I point out, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that there has been mismanagement not only by Lib-Lab councillors but by Lib-Lab financial alcoholics. They have increased Kent's borrowing by 40 per cent.—£140 million—up to a record-breaking £496 million. That means that a debt burden of £9 million or £10 million per year has been inflicted on the people of Kent in the form of extra interest charges.

Perhaps the most bitter drink of all in this financial alcoholism is the way in which salaries have risen. Is my hon. Friend aware that Kent's director of education, who is presiding over the unkindest and harshest cuts of all, is now drawing a salary of £99,000 a year? That is more than many permanent secretaries receive for much bigger responsibilities. Surely it is time to halt this wicked mismanagement at all levels.

My right hon. Friend has put his point effectively and well. That is the point of this debate. All Conservative Members are conscious of the massive disinformation campaign that has taken place by means of Kent county council's publicity and propaganda machine, aided and abetted—indeed pushed—by the Labour and Liberal Democrat leadership at county hall.

What I find so inexcusable is the use of fear in the campaign. Residents are told that their fire cover may not be guaranteed, and that retraining and adult education services may be curbed.

It is an indescribable insult to Medway residents that the list of proposed cuts includes two retained fire stations and another fairly large station in Stroud—three fire stations in one area. We are talking about the largest conurbation and, indeed, the largest industrial area in Kent, which is about to become a unitary authority. It is disgraceful to do that to three fire stations.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am sure that she will waste no time in telling her constituents of the commitment given by the Conservative leadership in Maidstone. Indeed, the message that emerges from this debate is that those who wish to guarantee their services must vote Conservative on 1 May.

It was suggested at one stage that fire cover at Dartford fire station might be reduced by one pump, and that the retained fire station at Horton Kirby might disappear entirely, but those proposals have been withdrawn—for the time being. Given the huge development that is taking place in north Dartford, in the Thames gateway area, is it not extreme lunacy to speculate for a moment about reducing fire cover when the population is set to increase by thousands, and many millions of people will be coming into our county at Bluewater and Ebbsfleet—an interest that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham?

This is lunacy of the knee-jerk kind, but it is not actually a knee jerk. Four years ago, when the county council passed into the hands of the evil empire. I predicted that, come the county elections, it would do precisely what it is doing now: attack the elderly, the young, the disabled, voluntary groups and those who enjoy cultural and leisure pursuits through our library services. Why? Because that is the only way in which the council can hang on to its administration at county hall—by the use of fear.

My hon. Friend is making his points about a matter on which we all feel strongly with characteristic understatement. Will he emphasise the extraordinary divide between Labour and Liberal politicians at local level, and the Opposition Front Bench? We have heard from the shadow Chancellor that no extra money from the centre will be provided in the form of revenue support grant. Indeed, if the Labour party phases out the area cost adjustment, as it proposes to do, Kent will have £10 million or £15 million a year less. Is there not a certain discrepancy here?

I entirely agree. The loss of the area cost adjustment would affect Kent to the tune of at least £10 million. That may please members of the Opposition parties, who never understand such matters.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, no, no, a thousand times no.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was exactly what I was waiting for. You will be aware that 10 Conservative Members representing Kent have either spoken or intervened in the debate, and you will have heard that denial of the right of a Labour Member to intervene. Would you say that that—

Order. Hon. Members know that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide to whom he does, or does not, give way. I call the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), and ask him to address the Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member—the hereditary Member—for North-West Durham; I have no desire to stop her from speaking. Would that I could. I believe that, when she is put in her coffin, she will still be talking when they nail the lid on.

During the past four years of socialist rule at Maidstone, there has been a ballooning of staff. Staff numbers have risen by more than 1,000. That is profligacy in the extreme, and takes no account of the auditor's recommendation that the council should restructure itself and redress the staffing imbalance to reflect the moving out of the county of the police service, further education colleges and the career service, and the fact that many primary and secondary schools are to become grant-maintained.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the direct connection between the maintenance of good-quality services in Kent and the Conservatives' winning back control of the county council. Only yesterday, I received a copy of a letter from the chairman of the governors of the outstanding Judd grammar school in my constituency—one of many outstanding grammar schools in our county—to those who style themselves the "co-chairpersons" of the education committee.

The letter complains bitterly about the draconian cuts that the Labour and Liberal-controlled county council is seeking to impose on the school. In his letter, the chairman of the governors describes the cuts as "nothing less than scandalous" and "totally irresponsible." Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone in Kent with a child at a grammar school, and every person who has the prospect of having his child at a grammar school, knows that, as long as Kent county council remains in Labour and Liberal Democrat control, he can have no confidence in his child's future grammar school education?

I agree with my right hon. Friend and declare an interest, because my son is a pupil at the Judd school, as is the son of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gravesham. My right hon. Friend's point applies not just to grammar schools, but to high schools, the city technology colleges and all primary and secondary schools that become grant-maintained. They would lose all the freedoms that they currently enjoy as a result of Conservative legislation, because Labour and the Stalinists at county hall wish to take back into local authority control all the schools that dared, as a result of parental ballots, to go outside local education authority control.

My hon. Friend has spoken about the wasteful use of staff in Kent. At a recent constituency surgery, I met two parents and their disabled son. They were almost in tears because they were being asked by Kent county council to pay higher social services charges. The council plans to increase staffing in social services by 80 people, but it is hitting disabled people and their parents.

That is a wicked example of precisely what is taking place. I use the word "wicked" in the old sense and not in the fashionable modern sense. It is also unforgivable that senior county council officers—well-respected professional men and women—are being forced to act politically in the public domain because of the inadequacy and incompetence of the Lib-Lab regime at county hall.

In the past four years, there has been tremendous dereliction of duty. A left-wing, old Labour party has been trying to work alongside a weak Liberal Democrat party, and they want to be all things to all persons—I think that that is the politically correct way to say it. Instead, there is chaos, anarchy and incompetence. I might be accused of using strong words, but they express what my constituents feel.

The Opposition parties have misjudged the mood of Kent people, who better understand the problems and the debates than they are given allowance for. They know that the county council has pulled the roof upon its own head by failing to deal with the rising damp in the foundations. That is a lovely metaphor which I might use again in another speech. We are debating the future of our county. The present administration has lost police, further education colleges and the careers service, and many schools have become grant-maintained.

Will my hon. Friend add to his list the fact that the Labour-Liberal coalition is targeting the most vulnerable people in Kent—the elderly and the disabled?

As I have said in the context of all the other services that I have mentioned, it is cruel and wicked to focus on people who are least able to defend themselves and who need essential services to preserve their quality of life. For us, that is unforgivable.

It is not just that such measures are wrong, but that there is a hopeless distortion of priorities. It is extraordinary that the council proposes to close some fire stations, not on the justification that fire cover can be reduced, but simply to save about £200,000 to £300,000. The saving is less than the council is spending on conferences for its officers and leaders at county hall. It is a muddled approach to administration. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a taste of what the country might get if a Labour Government were ever inflicted upon us?

My hon. Friend is right. If people want to see the Labour party and its minor allies, the Liberal Democrats, in action, and anticipate what they may be like in government if they get the chance—which they will not—they are welcome to come to Kent county council, where we shall give them individually guided tours around the philosophy of the present administration. In Kent, we see Lambeth below the Thames. It holds not to responsibility and decency and the application of services in the name of the people; rather to narrow, petty, political garnering of points. That could have been avoided, and in the name of the people whom we represent it must be avoided.

For some years, the Conservative group on Kent county council has pointed out the error of the ways of the present administration and offered ideas, programmes and solutions for restructuring and slimming bureaucracy in the light of the services that have left the county. Have those Conservative been listened to? No, they have been ignored, and the problem faced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in Kent is now our problem—but there is a solution; the election of a majority of Conservative county council candidates across the county on 1 May. That will bring back responsibility, decency and honest application in the name of the people. That is why I felt it right to initiate this debate.

Kent has had 100 years of relative stability under the Conservatives. Incredibly, Kent survived one economic crisis after another under Labour Governments and services were maintained. In the past four years, as a result of a Labour-Liberal pact, there has been ever-increasing disaster and chaos. A budgeting system that needs an increase of £101 million has been based on a pie-in-the-sky figure. On expenditure of £1,000 million, Kent is demanding an increase of 10 per cent. What Government in Europe or what county council or shire council in this country plans an increase of that size? I have looked at the statistics, but I cannot find any shire county that is planning an increase in expenditure at the level that Kent county council under Labour-Liberal control claims to need.

Kent council has introduced a political budget and is trying to put the blame on the Government. Its priority is not to look after the disabled, those who need adult education or those who need the fire services, but to have a political budget in election year. I hope that it reaps the reward for that, which is to be thrown out of office on 1 May.

Under a Conservative Government, the council has had an increase of £22 million. It is interesting that all the councils of the Opposition spokesmen who are present for the debate have had less of an increase than Kent. The Opposition have shot themselves in the foot by offering spokesmen from areas that have had lower increases than Kent. Kent has had allocated to it one of the largest increases in resources of any county in the United Kingdom, but still the Lib-Lab coalition on the council has got itself into a mess and bleats its complaints.

The council needs to get going with some decent budgeting procedures. I say as an accountant that it could have used zero-based budgeting. It could have returned to core essentials and asked itself, "Do we need to spend at the current level on some services or could we increase our efficiency and look at overheads?" It dismissed zero-based budgeting.

It could have opted for priority-based budgeting by looking at priority expenditure. It could have examined the way in which it looks after the elderly and cares for those who need education and for disabled people, but it dismissed that. It went for an Alice-in-Wonderland budgeting system—a politically based system—instead of looking at the priorities, concerns and needs of real people. No wonder Price Waterhouse and Co., the independent auditor, has said that the county council must increase its efficiency, do better, get something out of the £20 million a year that it spends on information technology, and cut central overheads.

A constituent came to see me who works within the Kent county council orbit. That constituent, who obviously does not want his name to be mentioned, complained that, a few years back, when the county council was under Conservative control, he had only two tiers of management to go through before he could report to the director. Now he has five. That is what four years of Lib-Lab control have done. They have converted two tiers of management into five.

My hon. Friend has considerable experience in this sector. Is it usual to introduce a major capital investment in technology with the aim of increasing staff?

As my hon. Friend points out, it is incredible that, after all the new technology investment, Kent has failed to reduce its central overheads significantly. That is why I am delighted that we have had pledges from Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the Conservative leader, that any cuts in libraries, adult education or the fire service will be reinstated and that efficiency savings will be found elsewhere in the budgetary system.

May I turn to something of great interest to me and to my constituents? Last Friday, I visited St. Margaret' s-at-Cliffe fire station. I am delighted that today there are seven retained firemen here from my constituency, who are concerned about the fire station's future. They are not full time, but give their services in their spare time. They have other jobs, but, in their spare time, they look after my constituents and people in the village where I live. I know that many colleagues have the same situation in their constituencies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has asked me to say that he would like to be associated with these comments, as two retained fire stations in his constituency are also threatened with closure.

It is a disgrace that the county council could contemplate cutting a fire service when the cost of individual retained fire stations is so minor in relation to the total budget. We are talking about individual fire stations that perhaps cost £40,000 a year and a total Kent budget of £1,000 million a year. It is simply not necessary to go for cuts in that sector.

Is there not something truly sad about the idea that these absurd cuts in the fire service should be proposed only a few weeks after the county council set up yet another expensive bureaucratic committee to consider public safety?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There are far too many committees in Kent county council. There is far too much bureaucracy and far too much paperwork moving around, and there is not enough action or service delivery. That is what we are interested in as Conservatives: action, service delivery and increased efficiency. That is why there are threats of cuts in Kent's fire service. It is ludicrous.

With my hon. Friend's usual delicacy, he has refrained from commenting on the point made earlier about one county councillor—I have forgotten his name—who has made a large number of trips abroad. I cannot remember the precise number—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen."] I cannot believe that one member could make 14 trips in such a short time, but is it not likely that even a small part of the expenditure on those trips—that, presumably, is just the tip of the iceberg—would keep all our fire stations open?

My hon. Friend makes a point. As that councillor is my Labour opponent, I am slightly embarrassed to have to refer to his 14 trips. My hon. Friend may feel that, in due course, the electorate in Dover and Deal will be interested in those 14 trips abroad, including to Hungary and Philadelphia in the United States of America, and in their relevance to the needs of Dover and of fire stations in our region.

When the channel tunnel fire occurred recently, people at St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe fire station had to give extra cover. I understand that London and Sussex fire services were on alert to give support if necessary. We have major transport operations in Kent and we must maintain the ability to have a retained fire service as well as a full-time fire service. Many arguments support the retention of the St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe fire station.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a letter that I have received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration shows that the Government's local government settlement provides for

"a £50 million or 4.2 per cent. increase in provision for the fire service"?

Against that background of an increase that is well in excess of inflation, is it not intolerable that the Liberal and Labour-controlled county council should be contemplating any reduction in fire service cover?

My right hon. Friend makes the valid point that, if anyone needs adult education in Kent, it is the Liberal-Labour county councillors, because they cannot tell when a positive figure—an increase in expenditure—is an increase and not a reduction. At public meetings, they cannot tell the truth—that an increase in expenditure is extra money that is available. They insist that it is a reduction. That shows the fraudulent nature of their mathematics, accounting and budgeting.

The St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe fire service is called out some 100 times a year. In a busy year, it has been called out 170 times. That is what Kent county council under Liberal-Labour control wants to take away from us in St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe and Dover: a service that is regularly used and regularly needed by the community, and an emergency back-up service for the wider Kent community. The service is necessary. It shows the hypocrisy of setting up safety committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has said, when they do nothing but talk and produce paper. What we are talking about is real action to save people's lives.

There is a clear message from the budgetary exercise that Kent county council is undertaking: the Labour and Liberal parties in Kent have done a repeat of the Labour-Liberal pact in the 1974 to 1979 period. They have brought Kent to the point of chaos, to the point where there are demonstrations at Maidstone and to a winter of discontent, just like there was under the Labour Government in 1978–79; but we have pledges from the Conservative group leader that, if the Conservatives are elected to control Kent county council on 1 May, those cuts will not take place. There is therefore a clear message: "Vote Conservative if you want services, a sensible council and sensible budgeting."

When I hear Conservative Members attacking Kent councillors for visiting countries, I am minded to say only that those Members should be careful because people in glasshouses should not throw stones. The people of Kent should know that the great majority of Members of Parliament for Kent, all of whom are Conservative, have on many occasions over the years been abroad at public expense, on travel paid for by the British taxpayer.

I rise on behalf of the many hundreds of thousands of people in Kent who are denied a Labour voice in the House of Commons. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all 16 Members of Parliament for Kent are Conservative. The voice of Kent Labour has not been heard in the House of Commons for 18 years. Conservative misrepresentations in Kent's affairs have repeatedly gone unchallenged. Their endless stream of untruths, party propaganda and distortion of facts is a travesty of justice. [Interruption.] I seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In terms of its Members of Parliament, Kent is a one-party state—it has no Labour Members—in which there is no place for the truth.

It has become increasingly clear to my hon. Friends that there is a co-ordinated attempt by Kent Conservative Members of Parliament to orchestrate a campaign of disinformation in the media. Those same Members use the Chamber of the House of Commons to launch their—thus far unchallenged—attacks. Today, Parliament will hear the truth—the other side of the story: the counter-case. It is the story of a council valiantly striving to defend its ratepayers from cuts in public services. It is the story of a council desperately trying to avoid imposing hardship—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in the House for 14 years and I have always been under the impression that it is not customary for Members to read out speeches—particularly speeches prepared for them by other people.

The hon. Gentleman is correct about the custom. The copious use of notes, however, is unfortunately allowed.

I am using notes for reasons of clinical accuracy. It is important that the people of Kent know the truth—as opposed to the statistics bandied about the Chamber for the past few years. My accurate figures were produced for me, at my request, by Kent county council. I asked for the figures so that I could use them in this debate.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although the hon. Gentleman claims to be using notes for clinical accuracy, he has in effect just admitted that he is reading his closely typed speech. Surely that is contrary to the rules of order?

We shall see how we go. References to facts are entirely in order, but reading a speech would be wrong.

Hon. Members from most other counties, including many Conservative Members, have in recent years spoken for the people they represent, and have even joined in deputations to Ministers. Not one of Kent's 16 Conservative Members of Parliament, however, has stood up for local services or represented the county authority.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am afraid that I cannot give way. There have been 16 Conservative interventions in this debate. I am the first to put the other side of the argument.

Most Conservative Members from Kent have taken every opportunity to make cheap political capital out of the problems that the county council faces—problems that result from policies for which they themselves have voted in the House of Commons.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I do not intend to give way. There have now been 17 Conservative interventions.

These Conservative Members have misrepresented the financial settlement year after year; and this year is no exception.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that this is a point of order for the Chair.

It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is of course entirely for you to judge whether, in the interests of clinical accuracy, the hon. Gentleman should read his speech; but it seems to me that reading a speech that makes assertions about things that, when the speech was written, could not have been known is stretching the rules rather far.

The Chair makes no comment on the contents of speeches—although this morning I have already had to stress that it is the occupant of the Chair who must be addressed. Meanwhile, I shall make my judgment as the speech progresses.

Two years ago, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) tried to claim on local radio that Kent had received a spending increase of £26 million, when the real figure was £6 million. He did so by misrepresenting the money for community care that had been ring-fenced to cover responsibilities transferred from central Government—

rose—

This year on 23 January, at column 1077 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) accused Kent county council of demanding a real-terms 10 per cent. increase just to stand still. He repeated his accusations during Prime Minister's Questions yesterday. In fact, the council has stated that it needed that sum in cash terms to meet its pay and price commitments and to finance extra commitments imposed on it by demography and new legislation.

Both those allegations reveal that neither hon. Member understands the interests—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is making inaccurate claims about what I have said. Should he not give way to allow me to correct those claims?

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is technically in order, but it is a custom of the House, when an hon. Member refers to another by name, that the former should give way to the latter at a suitable point. I am sure that that custom will be observed this morning.

As I was saying, what both contributions reveal is that the intricacies of local government are not understood by the two hon. Members to whom I have referred. The more they protest, the more they demonstrate either their ignorance or perhaps their malevolence.

Let us examine the facts. Kent is effectively capped at 1 per cent. above standard spending assessment. That compares with the shire county average of 1.8 per cent., and with some counties that are capped at more than 5 per cent. Over the four years to 1997–98, Kent will have been allowed to increase its spending by only 8.7 per cent.—a figure that may surprise the House. That is far less than was needed to cover pay and price increases, let alone increased demand for services.

Between 1993–94 and 1997–98, Kent's capital financing costs—its debt charges—rose by £14 million, and its allocation of SSA for that element fell by £2 million, leaving a gap of £16 million. That is almost entirely attributable to capital projects, especially road projects embarked on by the former Conservative administration.

In 1997–98, the county council will face a superannuation payments bill of £3 million more than the bill three years ago. That will result from the decision of the former Conservative administration to cut its contribution, and from new Government regulations forcing higher contributions on the council.

Next year, the county council will have to spend £7.8 million more than SSA allocation to provide fire cover in line with Home Office standards. For the same period, its fire services SSA element will rise by £1.6 million. Despite savings of £500,000—the figure given earlier in the debate was wrong—involving the closure of some retained stations, the county council will need to increase spending by £2 million to cover pay and prices and service pressures. Those three items alone are costing the council a total of £37 million.

Representatives of the local authority have made representations on the three items to the Minister of State concerned. Perhaps today the Under-Secretary will give Kent some response to the representations which it has made and which I repeat here today. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham is trying to shout me down. For five years, we have heard the case put by Kent Tories. When, finally, a Labour Member finds a slot to raise these issues in the House, the Tories shout me down because they do not want the truth to come out.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on rattling the cage of Conservative Members from Kent. Facing defeat, rather like a hanging, concentrates the mind. They come here protesting their innocence, but they have presided over real cuts in services in Kent and throughout the south-east of England. I am the only Labour Member of Parliament outside Greater London representing a seat in the south-east: I represent 13 million people today.

My hon. Friend puts his point most forcefully, as ever.

rose—

I am not prepared to give way. The hon. Gentleman's party has had more than its share of the debate.

The £100 million figure to which several hon. Members have referred, and which has been much trumpeted in the press in Kent, has been portrayed by Conservative Members as the "demand" of the county council—but it is no such thing at all. The leaders of Kent county council are realists. They would not expect such a sum to be made available, especially from the Government—[Interruption.] Do I need to repeat that for the benefit of Conservative Members, in case they have had trouble hearing what I said?

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned about whether the relevant papers are available in the Vote Office showing that Kent has had the largest SSA increase of any shire county in the United Kingdom. It is important that those papers should be available in the Vote Office, so that Opposition Members can talk about the truth.

I am quite sure that the papers are available.

Let us return to the famous £100 million, which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was on about yesterday. For Kent county council, that sum is an honest and, so far, unchallenged estimate of what would be required to protect all existing services, to meet inescapable financial commitments, to meet pay and price increases and to provide for demographic changes and the cost of new responsibilities placed on local authorities by central Government. That is the explanation for which Conservative Members have been waiting.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I have received figures from the co-chairperson of the social services committee in Kent, showing that extra statutory duties imposed on Kent—but not properly funded—by the Government amount to more than £4 million? That figure takes into account the extra costs incurred because of a 2.5 per cent. increase in the number of people aged over 75 and because of disabled access, asylum and criminal justice legislation, which have not been properly reflected in grant levels.

Those matters do not surprise me. What does surprise me is that, over the past few years, they have never been drawn to Parliament's attention by Conservative Members. At no stage have they raised those issues.

If there is one body that is unrealistic, it is the Government—who continually impose additional responsibilities on local authorities without providing funding, and then demand cuts. In the famous £100 million, Kent is simply flagging up, in plain language, the implications of Government cuts.

Briefly, Kent's £100 million estimate is composed of £40 million of financing pressures; a £25 million estimate of pay and price increases, which makes provision only for unavoidable price increases; £30 million for service pressures, which is led by demographic and legislative demand; and £5 million for redundancy costs forced on it by the financial settlement and by local government reorganisation. None of those costs is within the control of the county council. Most of the sum results from Government action and from decisions of the previous Conservative county council. To try to meet those pressures and remain within the £22 million capping limit increase, the county council is being forced to make extremely painful choices between services.

Initially, the council's policy and resources committee asked committees to consider savings of 10.7 per cent. in all budgets. To protect the most vulnerable, special educational needs were exempted, and increases made. Unfortunately, however, to balance the budget, that meant that extra cuts—more than 10.7 per cent.—were necessary in adult education and youth and community services.

Current figures are likely to be 1 per cent. for fire services and 9.5 per cent. for social services—[Interruption.] Those are matters of which Conservative Members should be aware. It may well be that, today, I bring them news from Kent. They have not been following developments in their own local authority.

rose—

The likely figures are 9.5 per cent. for social services and 7.2 per cent. for the non-delegated education budget. Those figures should enable the council to avoid closure of its adult education service, its youth and community service and its residential homes. They would also avoid reducing fire cover below minimum standards, although the budget will still require the closure of five retained fire stations and the removal of four retained engines from other stations. However, even that has been made possible only by not fully protecting school budgets from the effects of higher numbers and increased costs. Schools will face a real-terms reduction of 4 per cent.

Kent's services still face horrendous cuts, and all the councillors know it. However, they know who to blame: they blame the Government. Conservative Members from Kent try to pretend that the cuts are the fault of the county council, yet none of the pressures that the council faces is of its own making. They are the result of Government decisions or, in some cases, the legacy of Conservative control.

Many of the decisions stem from legislation pushed through Parliament by Conservative Whips. Kent's Conservative Members have never rebelled. They have always supported piling on the pressure. Those poodles have lain on their backs and obediently allowed their constituents to take the punishment meted out by an insensitive Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would not wish to malign me. I am a Kent Member, and have been, with a very short break, since 1970. Would the hon. Gentleman care to repeat the point that Kent Members have never rebelled? Was he in the House when the Government of the day—

Order. That is not a point of order. However, the hon. Lady has made her point.

As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not a point of order. It was also not an accepted intervention, or I would have produced material showing that, on many hundreds of occasions in recent years, the hon. Lady has obediently trooped into Conservative Lobbies to support legislation and financial measures that have damaged the interests of the people of Kent.

The hon. Gentleman and I are adding a Cumbrian element—from the other end of the country—to this debate, and are perhaps adding a degree of realism. Does he agree that it is unfortunate when the Government prevent a local authority from innovating? Are not community care direct payments a case in which local authorities have been prevented from extending benefits to those over 65? Has not the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) strongly advanced that case? I am sure that he would share the disappointment of Opposition Members that the Government have prevented such an excellent measure from being used by Kent council and others to provide benefits to over-65s.

I defer to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in those matters, as he is an expert in many issues of community care. It may well be that some Conservative Members from Kent have on occasion raised those issues in the House; but the critical question is how they have voted when Parliament has allocated money for those types of expenditure. The truth is that the people of Kent are being taken for granted by those who are supposed to be representing their interests in Westminster.

Claims that Kent county council is inefficient and badly run—which we have heard before, from the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—are ludicrous. Price Waterhouse, the independent auditor whom the hon. Gentleman quoted, said exactly the opposite. It said in its report:

"The truth is the County Council has reduced its management and administration costs by"—

hold your breath—

"£23m … over 3 years and cut budgets of its central departments by 13.5 per cent. It is continuing such savings in 97/98 but these cannot cover the shortfall."

Local Conservatives say that no cuts are necessary, so why have they ducked Labour county councillors' challenge to submit an alternative budget? Perhaps the Minister will tell us why today.

Conservative Members of Parliament have attacked the county council for failing to increase education spending by the increase in the SSA. The House knows that the Government's claim to be providing extra money for education was a fraud. It was described in the Local Government Chronicle as a budget scam, because the resources were not made available.

In Kent, the education SSA increased by £20.4 million. If the whole SSA increase had been passported to education, the effect on other services would have been devastating. To meet its share of financing commitments, pay rises and unavoidable service pressures, the council would have had to make savings of 16 per cent. If social services had been exempted, cuts would have been 27 per cent., which would have meant the end of effective services in many areas.

Since taking over the administration of the council, the present controlling groups have increased resources for education, social services and other vital services by far more than the increases in the SSA. They have done so in spite of tight budgets and the appalling backlog of neglect that they inherited in, for example, school building repairs. Throughout this time, they have been subject to sniping attacks from Conservative Members who are more concerned with making cheap political capital than with defending the services on which their constituents depend.

While other local authorities have seen their Members of Parliament fighting for them, Kent has seen its Conservative Members of Parliament campaign against the county council and encourage the Government to inflict still harsher treatment on local services. It is interesting to note that these Members of Parliament never attacked the extravagance of the former Conservative administration in Kent—not a single Conservative Member uttered a word of protest when the former Conservative-controlled county council decided in 1991 to spend £7 million on the county hall. There was a wall of silence at Westminster. Perhaps we shall have an explanation of that when the Under-Secretary winds up the debate.

If Kent county council this year faces bigger cuts than some other authorities, it is for one reason alone—it refused to cut services and jobs last year as the Conservatives urged. The council used every resource at its disposal to protect public services for as long as possible, and it should be congratulated, not condemned I certainly congratulate it.

The people of Kent are not deceived by the propaganda campaign of their Conservative Members of Parliament In a recent telephone poll, readers of the Kent Messenger voted four to one on the statement that Kent's cuts were the fault of central Government. No amount of propaganda or misleading attacks on Labour and Liberal councillors for alleged extravagant spending can disguise the simple truth Conservative Members of Parliaments are prepared to use Kent county council as a political football to be kicked around the Chamber in a squalid attempt to pick up votes. As a Member of Parliament I have always rejected that approach—[Interruption.] Let me be tested by my words. I have always operated by the simple maxim that knocking one's local council is cheap and easy copy.

My constituency is in Cumbria. During my 17 years at Westminster, both my district and my county council have for periods been Conservative-controlled, but I have never attacked them at Westminster. For me, that is forbidden fruit, because they cannot answer back Sadly, that is not the practice in Kent.

I shall be brief. In many senses, this has been a rather sad debate Every authority faces difficult choices I know that none of the Conservatives here today was able to be present for Monday's debate, but everyone who spoke—including Ministers—acknowledged that this year's local government settlement is very tight. The Government acknowledge that the burden is being shifted on to local councils to the extent that they expect the average rise in council tax to be about 6 per cent. and that, in the next three years, some £4 billion is likely to be required from local government and the council tax.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that Kent received an increase in its grant and its SSA? Would a theoretical Labour Government increase the grant to Kent and allow it to spend more—yes or no?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not here for Monday's debate. Had he been here, he would have heard what we have to say on that. We recognise that this year's settlement is very difficult, but I pointed out on Monday that the level of public debt is completely out of control and that, as a consequence, the next Labour Government will not be able to promise more money to anyone. We did promise, and we shall continue to promise, a fairer distribution of the grant and a more open system for distributing the SSA.

Let us deal quickly with the SSA for education. Like many people, we are concerned to ensure that education is protected and that we give our children and young people the very best opportunities. What has been happening in Kent over the past six years? When the Conservatives were in charge of county hall in Kent in 1991–92, the council spent £53.2 million less than the SSA—that is £53.2 million less than the Government said was necessary for education. Last year, the present local authority spent £10 million more than the SSA allocation, or 0.9 per cent. above the SSA.

Rather than being spent on refurbishing county hall—Conservative Members were not bothered about that £7 million of expenditure—money has been used for front-line services, and it is because the authority tried to protect those services that there is a real problem this year. Obviously, Kent Conservative Members were not worried that the former Conservative administration in Kent was spending so many millions of pounds below the SSA, which is the Government's assessment of what is needed.

Although Kent's community care provision has been praised by both the county's health authorities, the Department of Health's figures show a 10 per cent. shortfall in community care funding for Kent. Should we not be debating those facts, rather than making political points as Conservative Members have done?

I wish that we had had a proper debate this morning about the problems facing Kent and the way forward. The tragedy is that not one suggestion has come from the Conservative group at county hall, other than merging the posts of the chief officers. That has been the Conservatives' only suggestion for budget cuts for next year. They have not produced figures on how to pay for retaining services without putting up council tax. [Interruption.]

Order. A debate seems to be going on from a sedentary position on both sides. That must cease. The hon. Lady must be allowed to make her case.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I read the letter from the Conservative chairman of finance, I wondered whether we were back in the 1980s. It pledged no cuts in services—we have heard that today—and no increase in council tax. It is reminiscent of Lambeth and Liverpool in the early 1980s.

Who ran those?

They were run by the Labour party, and the Labour party tackled the problems and sorted them out. Today we have seen Conservative Members colluding with the Tory Trot tendency in Kent.

Labour cannot run local government.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must control himself.

Ministers acknowledge that the settlement is difficult for all authorities. Difficult choices are being made. Those choices will have to affect central administration as well as front-line services, but such cuts will not be sufficient. The authority is already spending substantially above the standard spending assessment on the fire service. It is in difficulty because the Government do not acknowledge what hon. Members have said today about the needs of the fire service. The money needed to meet the commitments is not there. Incredibly difficult choices have to be made. It is our responsibility to work with all the councillors in Kent to ensure that they are able both to protect as much of the service provision as possible and to come within the spending limits.

Efficiency savings of £23 million a year have been made. The Government have admitted that the situation is difficult. It is difficult for Kent; it is difficult for all authorities. I wish that many more Members present today were prepared to get down to sorting out the problem instead of making desperate pleas to keep their marginal seats. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) knows, I visited his area last week and had discussions with councillors about the problems that they face. They are trying to address those problems honestly. I wish that that were true of some of Conservative Members.

I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and every Conservative Member from Kent.

And me.

Interestingly, one or two strays from Lancashire and Cumbria have also been present.

An authority has to be really bad to get such a united reaction from the local Members of Parliament. Kent had 100 years of relative calm and stability under the Conservatives. It was a good authority, judging the quality of service by its outputs rather than, as the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) suggested, by the amount of other people's money spent on it. We should also recognise that this is a matter of private grief for the people of Kent. That is why hon. Members from Kent constituencies are here, pushing the point solidly.

I am astonished that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is here. He wished to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but could not because of the time. I remember some of his past statements on similar issues. Supporting the unsupportable behaviour of the Liberal Democrats in the Lib-Lab pact in Kent would contradict many of those statements.

The hon. Member for North-West Durham talked about finding a different method of distribution. One is tempted to suggest that it would be a distribution favouring friends rather than an objective approach. Independent experts accept that the standard spending assessment is an objective approach.

What about Westminster?

Including Westminster, although the hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate that.

It is worth noting that Kent's difficulties have been recognised. It has the highest standard spending assessment of all shire counties. Its SSA for 1997–98 is more than £1 billion. Admittedly, it also has one of the highest populations. Even so, its SSA per head is still the second highest of all shire counties. The overall SSA has increased by 2.2 per cent. on the 1996–97 figure. Within that, the education element has gone up by 3.5 per cent. and the fire service element by 5 per cent.—twice the rate of inflation.

The Lib-Lab pact councillors presented their case on a piece of paper last month to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Their technique was fascinating. They should learn from some of the contributors to today's debate about how to approach budgeting. The normal procedure for setting a budget is to look a year ahead. They are looking at the last minute.

On their piece of paper, they rolled forward everything that they had spent in 1996–97 and then added a long list of all the expenditure that they would like for the coming year. They compared the result with their provisional cap limit. The difference, they explained, was a shortfall. They then said that they wanted to list certain items as service cuts to meet their wish list or shortfall. Nowhere in any of the documents was there any mention of how priorities might be reordered. Nowhere was there mention of efficiency savings in a budget of more than £1 billion. They could not find savings in that—they could only produce a wish list.

It is not for me to tell Kent county council how to find savings, although I am tempted to do so on occasions, but it is worth reminding hon. Members that the Audit Commission has given it ample scope for considerable savings. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—Workington is in Cumbria, 400 miles from Kent—mentioned the district auditor's comments. Every district auditor's report is a curate's egg, and the hon. Gentleman has been selective. The auditor has pointed out opportunities for savings. For example, it is possible for authorities to recognise the millions of pounds being wasted on maintaining surplus places in schools. Kent's record on that is far from perfect. In 1994–95, the most recent year for which audited figures are available, more than one fifth of the secondary school places in Kent were unfilled.

That might sound depressingly familiar. Kent's council tax payers have a right to expect a little more imagination from their elected representatives on the council. I was not allowed to interrupt when my hon. Friends from Kent were criticised and I must defend them, because they are well known for placing considerable pressure on the Government on behalf of the people of Kent. They are successful because they put a good case. That is shown by the size of the SSA, the amount of funding that has been provided, and the efforts made on the single regeneration budget and on some of the roads. They continually make their case to the Government through letters, questions, general meetings and specific meetings. Time and again, they have put the case for Kent, but they recognise that times are difficult, money is tight and savings need to be made. Conservative councillors have made it quite clear that they intend to do that.

Members on both sides of the House will agree that a 10 per cent. increase in Kent's budget is not the only solution. It is high time that some people involved in Kent local government learned to face up to their responsibilities. There is a saying that under Labour it will all end in tears. That may happen if we allow Kent to remain under Labour control.

I begin by saying something about the title of the debate. I have chosen to debate Scottish poverty simply because I am a Scot and I represent a Scottish constituency. I am only too well aware that poverty has no respect for national origins; nor does one nationality inflict it on another.

Last year I attended the national poverty hearings in London, where I heard poor people from Liverpool, Belfast, Preston, Glasgow, Coventry, Dundee and many other places testifying that poverty is endemic across national and ethnic lines. It was made painfully clear that, for far too many millions of people, whatever their origins, poverty is a shared experience that has been inflicted on them by a combination of market forces operating on a global scale and Government policies of deregulation and privatisation which have taken from the poor and given to the rich. Someone once famously said that there is no such thing as the poverty gene. The poor are not born to be poor; they are made poor by the unjust actions of others.

Let me now address the poverty in my own country. The statistics of Scottish poverty are stark enough. The latest unemployment figures show that Scotland's official rate of unemployment is 10 per cent. above the United Kingdom average and more than 50 per cent. above the rate in the south-east of England. In 1996, official unemployment fell far more slowly in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

The official unemployment figures are only the tip of the iceberg. The Government claim that there are 1.8 million unemployed people. In reality, 4 million people are out of work. That point was raised by one of my hon. Friends at Question Time yesterday. The Prime Minister and the Conservative party showed by their dismissive attitude that they could not care less; they showed why the Tories are rightly seen by most people as the party of mass unemployment.

Other relevant statistics reveal that more than 217,000 Scots earn less than £3 an hour—a top line well below £120 for a 40-hour week, when the average income in the rest of the country is £282 a week. Let us be absolutely clear. Those poverty wages have been imposed by the Government's drive for deregulation and what they cynically describe as a flexible labour market. At one end of the scale are the fat cats raking in huge astronomical earnings. The chairman of privatised BT earns £644,000 a year. At the other end of the scale, casualised and de-unionised workers are forced to survive on less than £2 an hour.

A recent article in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy showed that wage inequality in the United Kingdom is now greater than it was 100 years ago. It really is forward to the past under the Tory Government.

The latest Convention of Scottish Local Authority figures highlight our poor health record in Scotland, where there are 30 per cent. more deaths among working people than in England and Wales. In Scotland, more children are in lone-parent families, rented accommodation, families on income support and homeless families. We may have fewer very elderly people, but in general they are in poor health. They are more likely to live alone, to be on income support and to live in rented accommodation.

COSLA estimates that those facts of deprivation in Scotland require Scottish education and social work departments to spend between £160 million and £270 million more each year compared with their counterparts in England and Wales. Those facts of deprivation are ignored by Scottish Office Ministers, who repeatedly threaten to reduce council spending in Scotland to England and Welsh levels.

If this morning's debate descends into a barren exchange of contradictory statistics across the Floor of the House, it will have failed miserably. I want to try to put a human face on the statistics of Scottish poverty. If nothing else, at least the record will show that Parliament knew the nature of the suffering and chose to do nothing.

Let us take the example of David from Glasgow, who told his story to the national poverty hearings last year. He is 45 years old, with a grown-up family, and he lives in temporary accommodation with the Simon Community. He is officially classified as homeless.

David never had many breaks. His wife had a severe schizophrenic illness, and he had been left to raise three children on his own. Because he was on his own, he became isolated and turned to drink. Because he was in arrears, he lost his council house and eventually ended up in prison where he reformed; but when he came out, he could not get a council house because of his previous arrears. The homeless single persons unit placed him in the Simon Community, at a cost of £300 a week. One week's money would have cleared his previous arrears and allowed him to have a council house, but the rules did not allow for that. Nor did they allow him to apply for a course at the local college. If he did that, his place in the Simon Community could no longer be funded by the single persons unit, and he would be out on the street again.

In other words, David is in a poverty trap created by a social security system that ensnares the poor in its mean-minded, penny-pinching bureaucracy—which excludes the poor instead of accepting them into society.

I wonder whether the Minister really understands the deep hurt that is caused when Ministers and Tory Members denounce the poor as a disgrace and scum, accuse them of begging through choice and call for them to be hosed out of shop doorways and moved on. That is precisely what a Minister and a Tory Back Bencher said a few weeks ago.

David's story is not unique. Millions of people are trapped in poverty. One of my constituents had been on a training-for-work programme funded through benefit plus. He was getting £62 a week and was entitled to full housing benefit. He is single, lives alone and is 57 years old. He saw a course at the local college that would have given him a qualification that might have got him back to work. He applied and was accepted.

The course was for 22 weeks and was funded by a bursary of £64 a week. Because it was a bursary, he lost his entitlement to housing benefit. He could not afford his rent, and was forced to quit the course and sign on for income support. Like David, he was trapped by the Government's petty regulations.

The Government have plans for the likes of David, who is described as a single claimant under 60 years of age. They plan to deny him the right to a home of his own. He will be allowed only housing benefit for what is described as a single, non-self-contained room in what is euphemistically described as a house of multiple occupation. Like all under-25s, single claimants under 60 will now not be allowed the exclusive use of a bathroom, a toilet or kitchen. In the Government's view, those basic decencies are too good for the likes of David and too good for the poor.

Recently I spoke to a senior council officer with 30 years' experience working in different communities in Dundee. He said that he was receiving reports from his field officers of levels of poverty that he had never encountered before. They described children being sent to school with no breakfast, families being unable to carpet or furnish their homes, and genuine hardship on a scale that those of us who came of age in the 1960s never dreamed could happen again in our society.

What was the Government's response? They chose to attack the poor. The jobseeker's allowance takes away entitlement to benefit. It puts the onus of proof on claimants, who have to prove their entitlement to benefit. If they cannot do so within a three-month period, their benefit is withdrawn.

Moves are afoot to privatise the entire social security system. Lone parent benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit are being cut. Council services are being cut to the bone. The poor look to councils for housing, but the housing budget in Scotland is being slashed again this year by a staggering 30 per cent. The poor look to councils to school their youngsters, but across Scotland council schools are closing, and council teachers are being made redundant. The poor turn to council social work departments for help, but they too have all been cut by a Government who have turned their back on the poor in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

We all have to live with the consequences of the Government's abject failure to create a just and fair society. Crime and drug abuse are rising everywhere, crimes of violence are on the up, our prisons are filling up, suicides in prisons are on the up. The Government plan to build more privatised prisons across Scotland; this House passes ever more repressive laws and ever harsher sentences; the Government seek a law-and-order solution to the problems of injustice and inequality. There is no such solution, and it is a fraud on the people to claim that there is.

From time to time in Scotland, there are major conferences on poverty. Sometimes there are even debates in this place.

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report by health visitors, which clearly shows that they have uncovered an increase in the incidence of rickets? As we know, rickets is a disease among children that is primarily caused by lack of vitamin B—through a lack of sunshine and especially a very poor diet that does not contain appropriate vitamins. When that was raised in the House, the former President of the Board of Trade admitted that he had read it but did not believe it. Such an attitude and response to a report by respectable and honest people is typical of Government Front Benchers.

My hon. Friend makes a very effective point. The right hon. Gentleman who made that insulting remark about a very good report happens to be the Deputy Prime Minister, and speaks on behalf of all Conservative Members. All of them should be ashamed of what he said. The facts of poverty are well known to those in power, but just like the Deputy Prime Minister, they simply choose to ignore them. When they are confronted with the facts of poverty they refuse to take them on board or believe them, and look the other way.

For the most part, poverty is hidden from the majority, who continue to enjoy rising living standards. Poverty is mainly contained in particular areas in parts of vast housing schemes, well away from the more prosperous suburbs; but it is undeniably there. The poor may be cut off, not unlike the black townships in apartheid South Africa, but they still have a voice and it must be heard, even in this place.

The problem is not that the country cannot afford to end poverty. In the final four decades of this century, world economic activity has quintupled. There has never been more material wealth than there is now. In relative terms, Scotland and Britain may have less of a share of that wealth, but they are both undeniably more wealthy than they have ever been.

In 1948, the country was immeasurably poorer than it is today, yet in 1948 the country found the political will to build a national health service and a welfare state that guaranteed the eradication of poverty, ignorance and illness among all peoples. Yet now, when we are far wealthier than ever before, we hear in the House the repeated cry that we cannot afford the social security system, the NHS or to treat the poor as equal citizens in an equal society. I for one simply do not believe that.

Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1948 hot school dinners of good nutritional value were available everywhere? Today, local authorities are having to consider removing proper school meals from their spending plans.

My hon. Friend directs my attention and that of other hon. Members present to today's reality. I understand that, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was confronted by demonstrators outside the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Selkirk on Monday, he said that there were no cuts in local government services. He was treated with the contempt that that sentence deserves by the demonstrators in Selkirk, and, indeed, by the vast majority of Scottish people. Those who depend on hot school dinners are the poor. Those with means have an alternative. The poor will suffer if hot school dinners are cut by councils across Scotland, which is what is happening.

The problem is not that there is not enough wealth—we have more than enough for everyone—but how we distribute it. For almost 20 years, the Government have been taking from the poor to give to the rich. It is time to reverse that process. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) laughs, but he should look at the latest analysis of households below average income, which says that, in 1979, the top 10 per cent. of earners took 20 per cent. of this country's wealth, but they now take 26 per cent. What has happened to the bottom 10 per cent. is the exact opposite. They have less of a share of the wealth than they did in 1979.

It is time that we reversed the Government's process of taking from the poor to give to the rich, through progressive and fair taxes linked to expanded programmes of public expenditure and investment. No one can achieve such a breakthrough until we get rid of the Tory Government. The first step will be taken in the general election when they are removed. With a new Government, further steps will follow to help the poor. Only then will their day come.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on securing this debate. I have listened very carefully to all that he has said, and will attempt to deal with some of the points in the time remaining.

The Government's policies have always been directed towards promoting overall prosperity and economic growth, which have produced benefits for all of the people In a rapidly changing and increasingly competitive world economy, living standards in Scotland in terms of real gross domestic product a head rose by 28 per cent. between 1985 and 1995, and are higher than in all parts of northern England and Wales. The benefits of that have been spread across all sections of our population.

Our policies of promoting sustained growth have meant that the United Kingdom recovery since 1992 has been the strongest of any of our major European competitors. Our underlying inflation performance is the best for almost half a century. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen by more than 70,000 since its previous peak in 1992, and is below the European average.

We have secured record levels of inward investment. The companies that we have been able to attract are creating jobs, resulting in increased prosperity for Scotland and its people. Research has shown that the vast majority of people are better off as a result of the Government's policies. Average income has risen by more than a third—37 per cent.—between 1979 and 1993–94, and all family types have benefited, not just top earners.

Listening to the hon. Member for Dundee, East recite his catalogue of doom and gloom, one realises the Labour party's difficulties in Scotland. He and his colleagues cannot recognise the Government's remarkable success in bringing wealth to the nation.

We are nevertheless determined to ensure that specific groups who need it are supported through the social security benefits system, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has responsibility. The main aim of the social security system is to focus resources on specific vulnerable groups such as low-income families, poorer pensioners and sick and disabled people on low incomes.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I shall not give way, because I want to try to get through as much as I can in this very short debate.

Following the implementation of key Department of Social Security reforms to the benefits system in 1988, extra help has been made available to low-income families, which is now worth approximately £1.5 billion a year The value of improvements to income-related benefits for pensioners since 1989 is now £1.2 billion a year.

The Government are committed to creating a better social security system that protects the most vulnerable, is adapted to modern needs and does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay. It is clear that changes to benefits can play a crucial role in helping people into work, which is the most effective way of raising their living standards.

Concentrating on attacking the causes of dependency and creating ladders of opportunity and incentives helps to increase individuals' chances to prosper. People are being helped to take up employment by ensuring that they are better off in work, and are not discouraged from increasing their earnings.

Those initiatives and incentives include the introduction and extension of family credit, which now averages £56 a week on top of family incomes in addition to child benefit, the introduction of disability working allowance, the fact that up to £60 a week in child care charges is ignored when calculating in-work benefits, and the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance.

However, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the benefit system should not be regarded as the mechanism for eliminating poverty. The Government have a range of policies and programmes with the aim of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from economic prosperity. In addition to the help given to unemployed people, significant assistance is also given to those who have a job but require additional help.

I referred to the extensions to family credit and the other schemes aimed at ensuring that people find that they are better off with a job. Through its pilot earnings top-up scheme, which started last October, the Department of Social Security is now testing whether in-work benefit assistance is effective in getting the single and those without dependent children back to work. One of the eight pilot schemes is in Scotland, covering Perth, Dumbarton and Stirling, and it has the potential to increase the income of low-paid workers there by more than £50 a week. That is a practical measure, which will be especially beneficial for young people under 25.

As our economic measures continue to bear fruit, and unemployment in Scotland continues to fall, we remain alert to the needs of those who are still unemployed. In addition to our economic measures, we have put in place a wide range of programmes and services to combat unemployment and assist people back to work. They include programmes such as training for work, the main training programme for unemployed adults who have been out of work for longer than six months, Employment Service measures such as 1-2-1, worklink, and jobplan for the minority who remain unemployed for 12 months or longer, and restart courses and jobfinder grants for those still unemployed after two years.

The Government have also launched Project Work, an innovative programme offering job search help and practical work experience to people unemployed for two years or more. In response to encouraging results from two current pilots in Hull and in Medway and Maidstone, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced an extension. The four Scottish pilots, to be located in Lanarkshire, Edinburgh, Dunfermline and Dundee—the hon. Gentleman's own area—will help 9,000 long-term unemployed people to find jobs.

No, they will not.

The hon. Gentleman provides a classic illustration of the Labour party in Scotland, especially his wing of it, which is intent on selling Scotland down the river, and on refusing to recognise the significant improvements that the Government's policies have achieved in Scotland and the help given to those unfortunate enough not to be in employment. All he can do is carp. I suggest—I may have time to enlarge on this later—that his policies would do nothing to help the situation. In fact, they would have the reverse effect.

As I have said, we have a range of policies that have the effect of reducing poverty. Our housing policies have done much to improve living standards for all of Scotland's people. Since 1979, we have issued more than £8 billion in gross capital allocations to local housing authorities. Since it was established, Scottish Homes has invested more than £2.5 billion in housing. Those resources have led to real progress in addressing issues such as homelessness and housing that is below tolerable standard.

Another of the important successes of the Government's housing policies has been the dramatic shift in tenure. The proportion of housing accounted for by the public sector has fallen from more than 50 per cent. in 1979 to less than one third now. Levels of owner-occupation have risen from 35 per cent. in 1979 to almost 60 per cent. now. In the city of Dundee, between 1979 and 1995 the proportion of local authority stock was reduced from 53 to 32 per cent.

Private sector investment in housing has been crucial, especially when there are ever-increasing pressures on the finite public resources available. Scottish Homes has already attracted private investment of more than £900 million, and there is scope for the private sector to play an even greater role. Scottish Homes continues to have substantial resources at its disposal, and will invest more than £500 million in Scottish housing this year and next, which in turn will generate over £300 million of private sector funding. As a result, 10,000 people in Scotland will be better housed.

In the local authority housing sector, we have maintained the net provision for local authority capital expenditure at planned levels of £180 million each year for the next three years. That means more than £0.5 billion-worth of investment in council housing in the next three years, on top of the £2 billion that councils have been able to invest since 1992.

The total net allocations for 1997–98 amount to £171.9 million, slightly higher than those issued to authorities in 1996–97. In addition, next year councils will be expected to generate usable receipts of between £50 million and £60 million to augment their investment.

We firmly believe that considerable scope exists for authorities to increase investment levels by involving the private sector to a greater degree than at present. Authorities should be considering the potential for transferring stock to other landlords. Such transfers benefit tenants, by enabling investment to be made in their homes earlier than would have been possible through conventional means, and gives them an assurance about future rent levels, along with improved services.

In some parts of Scotland, people face a combination of low incomes, poor housing and a degrading environment. Tackling either the economic or the social causes of deprivation in isolation cannot bring a sustainable renewal of such areas. We need to focus instead on developing a comprehensive approach, encompassing social, economic and physical regeneration, if we are to achieve a lasting solution for the most needy areas in our country.

In 1988, we published our ground-breaking urban regeneration policy statement, "New Life for Urban Scotland", which acknowledged the importance of taking a comprehensive, strategic approach, involving all partners with an interest in regenerating our deprived urban communities.

At the same time, we established four pilot Scottish Office-led urban partnerships at Castlemilk in Glasgow, Ferguslie Park in Paisley, Wester Hailes in Edinburgh and Whitfield in Dundee. Each of those partnerships has shown the way forward in urban regeneration, winning awards and admiration not only in Scotland but beyond. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) joined me when I recently visited the Whitfield partnership in Dundee, and the project under way there was most impressive.

On 11 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced the designation of 12 priority partnership areas and support for 11 regeneration programmes, with resources amounting to £60 million over the first three years. Included in the list of successful PPAs and regeneration programmes was Dundee, which will receive urban programme funding of £3.3 million for its PPA and £727,000 for the regeneration programme over the same period. Much has been done, and is still being done, by the Government to help develop a prosperous and successful economy that is benefiting Scotland and all of our people.

The hon. Member for Dundee. East and his party believe firmly in introducing a national minimum wage and in signing up to the social chapter. Labour believes in the application of a tartan tax in Scotland, and a teenage tax. It believes in policies that will hit all Scotland, but particularly the poor. Rather than benefiting those on low incomes, the introduction of a national minimum wage and the social chapter would have quite the opposite effect.

In a market economy, wages reflect the productive contribution of employees, and a minimum wage would prevent some people from gaining productive employment. The Government believe in allowing the market to generate jobs, and a national minimum wage would not help families on low incomes—rather, it would cause many people to lose their jobs. The figures for the UK show that, if a national minimum wage was set at around £4 and if only 50 per cent. of the differentials were restored thereafter, 1 million jobs would go.

The attitude of the Labour party has been typical, as has that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. He, at least, is an honest member of the Labour party, who believes in saying what he thinks. He called for increased funding for local government, and I felt from his speech that perhaps he was seeking to justify that to his own party as much as to anyone else.

In conclusion, I believe that the Government's policies have been good for the people of Scotland, whatever their economic circumstances. We have created sustained economic growth, increased average incomes—

Order. We now move to the debate on the second Severn crossing.

The second Severn crossing—in spite of having an uninspired name—is a wonderful engineering achievement that has rightly won prizes. It is also valuable to those of us to the east of the river, as well as to south Wales and west Gloucestershire. However, the gains have been at the expense of residents, particularly in the parish of Pilning and Severn Beach in my constituency. The villages have been cut in three by the new approach roads, with a large motorway junction in the middle.

We have known for some years that that would happen. The routes of the roads are determined by the siting of the bridge, which itself was dictated by engineering considerations and by the position of the rocks in this most difficult river. When the private Bill went through the House, it was recognised that there would be great damage to life in those quiet rural villages. This damage was recognised by colleagues who served on the Committee, and by the Government and their agencies.

An undertaking was given that, in making decisions, the spirit as well as the letter of the law would be followed in dealing with the residents. I am here to tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads that it is time to honour that undertaking. The motorway is built and has been opened. The road users are benefiting, and the impact on residents is now apparent.

I asked for this debate because too many detailed matters are still outstanding, which affect residents of the area. There was a tremendous push to get the road open, but since it opened last summer, I have had the impression that the Highways Agency has rather pushed the remaining work to the back of the shelf and told its people to concede as little as possible, as slowly as possible.

There are a variety of detailed matters that I could mention, but I want to illustrate my point with three. They are separate issues, but what they have in common is that they were all left over from the end of the building process. The first issue is noise mitigation. We all know that we cannot have a motorway without noise, but where—as in this case—the road inevitably passes close to the houses because of considerations such as the siting of the bridge, we should do the maximum to mitigate that noise.

To give one example—it is the best, but there are others—the residents of New Passage are insufficiently protected from the noise of the new motorway and the M4-M49 junction, which is near them. New Passage is a hamlet with a number of houses, mainly dating from the days of the railway ferry before the Great Western railway tunnel was built under the river 120 years ago. They are downwind of the prevailing winds off the river and some houses are less than 100 yd from the motorway, which at that point is raised level with the eaves of the houses.

Some protection was supposed to have been provided by an earth bund, which was to be constructed opposite the eastbound entry and exit slip roads of the interchange. I discussed the proposals with the Highways Agency after the motorway opened in July, and I was eventually told in November that the bund is to be continuous instead of having a gap in the middle and is to be 2 m higher than the original proposal. I welcome those improvements.

However, I must point out that I was told in November that the bund was supposed to be completed by the spring or summer of this year. It will take some months to build, including a three-month pause in the middle of building to allow for settlement. So far, nothing has been done, so it will be late spring—if not late summer—when we can expect even that, by which time the motorway will have been open for more than a year.

In any case, the bund will do nothing at all to shield the houses at the eastern end of New Passage road, which are near the exit from the motorway and the interchange, and where there is nothing between them and the motorway and the interchange. An acoustic fence along the motorway has been refused on value-for-money grounds. Many of the houses are solid Victorian buildings, but the noise inside them—even with double glazing—is continuous. The residents used to live in a peaceful rural backwater, but they are now supposed to live with their windows shut. One needs to shout to hold a conversation in the garden when the wind is blowing. That is a big change in the residents' life style.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take a personal interest in the matter, and not just in New Passage. He must ensure that the Highways Agency, which is responsible to him, acts with sympathy towards local citizens. They did not oppose the road, nor did they dig tunnels where it was to be built—as we have seen in other recent cases. They relied upon the promises given to the Committee by the Government and the agency, and they are entitled to fair treatment.

There is also the wider question of why low-noise porous asphalt is not used where motorways are close to residents. Information from the Refined Bitumen Association suggests that modern porous asphalt—at an extra cost of about 2 per cent. for a new road—will reduce noise by about 50 per cent. I am told that some of it has been laid on the M4 near Cardiff and has been successfully used on the continent for a number of years. I am concerned that it was not used near Pilning and Severn Beach, as it would have been a great help. I am told locally that a top dressing of that type, Safepave, has been laid on the A38 between the M5 and Filton, and—although I cannot be sure whether it is responsible—noise seems to be at a lower level there than before.

I realise that the Treasury—one of my old Departments—will be looking over the Minister's shoulder as he replies, ever present, like Long John Silver's parrot, except, of course, the parrot said, "Pieces of eight, pieces of eight," whereas the Treasury—not being a parrot—says, "Pieces of eight, pieces of seven, pieces of six," and so on. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), is the parrot because he gives an official "Hear, hear" to everything that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says. But that is another matter.

The next important date is the first anniversary of the opening of the bridge next June. It is important because that is when compensation claims can be submitted. The fact that every successful act of noise mitigation will reduce those claims should be some encouragement to the Treasury. Indeed, at one point, New Passage residents collectively offered to forgo their rights to compensation if the noise was reduced. Whether they were wise to do so is a matter for them, but it certainly shows that they would prefer less noise to more compensation.

The second case is different. It is that of an individual—my constituent, Mr. Philip Jones. He owns salmon fishing rights on the Severn, which he has fished under Government licence for many years by the traditional method of lave net fishing—highly skilled and potentially dangerous work. It was his livelihood and that of his father and grandfather before him and it is an ancient method of fishing for salmon, much used on the Severn in years gone by.

Two things are clear. Building the bridge, with its many piers, has inevitably altered permanently the currents and, therefore, the sandbanks on the river, although I accept that it is extremely difficult to know exactly how they have altered. It is also clear that, in the same period, Mr. Jones's fishery at Oldbury has become impossible to work because of movements in the sandbanks. His problem is to prove that the one was a consequence of the other, although to the layman the coincidence of timing makes it look highly likely, as far as I can see.

Mr. Jones has spent more than three years arguing the case and has been forced to commission several expert reports because of the refusal of the authorities to decide the matter. It has already cost him and, latterly, the Legal Aid Board a great deal. If the case goes to court after all this time, it will cost even more.

As there are practically no lave net fishermen left, very few people are likely to be able to claim the case as a precedent. Why not pay Mr. Jones a reasonable amount now, rather than paying it to lawyers and consultants and in court fees?

The third matter concerns the attempt of South Gloucestershire council, supported by others, to protect the public rights of way that have been affected by the building of the approach roads. Like me, the council thinks that the Highways Agency is trying to do the minimum, so the public are losing amenity and being encouraged to use their cars. For example, the agency has resisted for months a cycleway between Redwick road and Northwick road, which is an essential link for the national cycleway. It has also failed to provide alternative bridleways at a time when everyone else is trying to encourage horse riders to use off-the-road routes. An example is that it will not provide suitable parapets and fencing on the M4 bridge near Holm farm, and expects the council to provide an alternative bridleway.

The British Horse Society, whose golden jubilee some of us had the honour to celebrate this morning, is rightly concerned about that, and I pay tribute to the society's work in that area and generally. The Countryside Commission is also concerned about the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that it is the Government's policy to encourage the off-road riding of bicycles and horses and that the Highways Agency should provide alternatives when road construction closes or affects footpaths, bridleways or cycleways. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will back the provision of cycleways. As we all know, he is a keen cyclist. I, too, think that they are important. The excellent Sustrans is based in Bristol. It has done so much and is doing excellent work with the backing of the Millennium Commission, particularly on the national cycleway. I am sure that the Minister will want to support Sustrans.

Those are three different aspects of the same thing—the consequences of the building of the approach roads. I welcome the bridge, but residents in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has joined the debate and represents those on the other side of the river—the other half of the bridge and the approach roads on that side are his concern—are paying the price of the building of that valuable facility.

I have sketched in a few cases. There is a lot more detail and there are other cases. My constituency probably has more motorways than any other—20 miles of the M4, 17 miles of the M5, plus the M48, M49, a bit of the M32 and half of both Severn bridges. When new motorways are built or old ones altered, the Government, through the Highways Agency, must do their best to mitigate the harm for those affected. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will help to achieve that in this instance.

rose—

Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) or of the Minister to speak?

indicated assent.

I wanted to endorse the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) about noise levels. I represent an area on the Welsh side of the crossing that was formerly very quiet and secluded. The way of life has changed quite a lot since the opening of the new bridge. Apparently, the prevailing wind is from the west and residents in the Rogiet and Caldicot areas get the worst of all worlds, so to speak.

The main environmental problem that arises from the opening of the new bridge is caused by the fact that tolls are collected only on one side, so people tend to drive down the A40 through Monmouth and on to the A449, do whatever business they have to do and travel back across the bridge toll free. That seems detrimental on environmental grounds, besides being most unfair. I hope that the Minister will be able to consider those two matters.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) on his diligence and persistence in pursuing the cause of his constituents and bringing these matters before the House today.

As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, the new Severn crossing is a magnificent structure, but he rightly expressed concern about the impact that the opening of the second Severn crossing and the Avon approach roads have had on his constituents. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) also referred to the impact on his constituents in Wales. I am not sure whether I am permitted to reply on behalf of the Welsh Office, but if I do not have the opportunity to do so during this brief debate, I shall ensure that he receives a written reply.

The roads were constructed in pursuance of the Severn Bridges Act 1992. During the planning and design stages, great care was taken, in decision making, to maintain the sensitivity of the local environment. The environmental statement that was published in 1990 identified and limited construction access routes. It also required separate drainage networks and outfalls, as well as environmental protection and landscape planting.

Extensive consultations were held with local authorities, landowners and representatives of others with key interests, including environmental bodies, prior to and during the planning and construction stages of the scheme to ensure that local views were taken into account. Regular liaison meetings continue to be held to discuss any outstanding matters.

The choice of motorway alignment was made carefully to balance its impact on local communities. As a result, environmental bunds have been constructed at several places adjacent to properties along the M4 and M49, to provide visual and noise mitigation. Where the M49 joins the M5, environmental noise fencing has been erected. As the construction contract has progressed, the bunds have been increased in height where possible to improve visual screening and further to reduce traffic noise.

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have been able to accommodate the request for screening from the majority of residents of New Passage by the provision of a new earth bund to the north of Pilning interchange, up to 5.5 yd high, which will replace the temporary topsoil bund left over from the construction works for the second Severn crossing. The replacement bund is an additional measure. Preparatory work for its construction is under way, and it should be completed by this summer. My right hon. Friend referred to the agreed timetable, and I believe that the bund will be completed on time.

Landscape planting of the area is programmed for later this year and will help to screen the motorway from properties. Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend said, we have not been able to accommodate his constituents in New Passage with an extension to the bund, because the motorway rises as it approaches the second Severn bridge, and any extension to the bund would be below the level of the motorway and therefore would not provide any further protection for the residents. There is also a lack of available land to produce a bund that would be wide enough to support a height above the level of the motorway and provide protection.

Following representations from my right hon. Friend and from residents in the Redwick road area, we propose to erect a fence to fill the gap in screening over the River Pill. A planting programme to screen local views and integrate the roads into the surrounding landscape was started this winter, and eventually about 250,000 to 300,000 trees will be planted both off and on site along the motorways.

Among the many indigenous species to be planted will be oak, ash, field maple, hawthorn and blackthorn. Evergreen species and species tolerant of pollution will be used in strategic locations to provide visual screening for properties along the route. Owners of 138 properties identified as eligible under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 have received offers of noise insulation, and about 70 have already accepted. A public notice will be issued early this month giving advice on the appeals procedure for insulation against traffic noise to anyone who has not received an offer but considers himself to be entitled to one.

Following representations from my right hon. Friend, and complaints from residents, including two petitions, a study to examine the benefits of noise fencing in the vicinity of Pilning interchange was undertaken. It showed that fencing would not provide a noticeable improvement in noise levels, and would be visually intrusive to properties in New Passage and the Redwick road area, so the estimated cost of about £300,000 could not be justified. Properties in the eastern part of New Passage are shielded by an earth bund provided as part of the environmental mitigation, varying in height from 1.3 yd to 3 yd high above the motorway adjacent to properties.

My right hon. Friend referred to porous asphalt. He will recall that the approach roads construction contract began in March 1993; porous asphalt, which can reduce traffic noise by an average of 3 to 5 dB(A), was not approved for use on motorways and trunk roads until 1994. It was therefore not possible to specify its use in the contract, and to incorporate it would have required extensive modifications to the water drainage system, leading to delays and disruption to the completion of the contract.

In addition, porous asphalt is considerably more expensive than conventional surfacing materials, as well as being less durable, so it is doubtful whether value-for-money considerations would have permitted its use. Although it can be extremely valuable in the appropriate circumstances, it cannot be used everywhere and will not always provide good value.

I give my right hon. Friend the assurance, however, that when we resurface the road, as must inevitably be done, we shall consider using whatever quieter appropriate surfacing materials are available, which can be used without completely rebuilding the road. Porous asphalt was laid on the M4 west of Cardiff in 1996 to reduce surface water spray and ameliorate a poor wet weather accident record.

Some new proprietary products for renewing existing road surfaces can help to reduce surface water spray and traffic noise, but many of them are not yet approved for general use on trunk roads and motorways, and could not have been employed in place of the conventional materials used in the contract. All available materials will be considered when the road needs to be resurfaced at some time in the future.

As well as trying to offset the effects of the scheme by both physical and financial means, we have examined the safety issues. At the Church lane footbridge, timber fencing will be provided to the path on the eastern approach embankment. On the western side, both the steps and the alternative ramp approach have pedestrian guard railings and there is considered to be sufficient ambient lighting for use during the hours of darkness.

South Gloucestershire council has expressed concerns about a pedestrian crossing on the A403 at Church road. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that a revised location has been identified for the crossing, north of the Church road junction, and that discussions will shortly be held with the council. The site chosen should allay the concerns about poor visibility of approaching vehicles for pedestrians trying to cross the A403. Clearly, we want to provide the safest facilities that we can for pedestrians.

Pilning and Severn Beach parish council has sought changes to directional signs on existing roads, for fear that otherwise heavy goods vehicles will continue to use unsuitable local roads. The signs are the responsibility of South Gloucestershire council and Bristol city council, but we have already agreed to reimburse the reasonable costs of necessary consequential signing undertaken by those authorities, and we await their proposals.

A request has been received from South Gloucestershire council to provide a cycle track at the south side of the M4 between Redwick road and Northwick road. Although it is not part of our remit, as it would fall outside the motorway boundary, we have made provision within the works on the A403 overbridge, and by modifications to earthworks, for a future cycleway to be provided by South Gloucestershire council and local transportation groups. As my right hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be very much in favour of such a development of cycling facilities.

We have recently discussed the issue with South Gloucestershire council, and have agreed to allow the proposed route to cross over part of the adjacent land that we acquired for the schemes. During construction of the approach roads, one bridleway was diverted over the new M4, and an equestrian bridge parapet was provided. Replacement routes have been provided for all bridleways stopped up as a result of the scheme.

In accordance with national policy, we have not provided those higher equestrian parapets on the other overbridges, which are frequented by horse riders but are not part of the bridleway network. We have, however, provided mounting blocks to assist riders. Discussions are taking place with South Gloucestershire council on its proposed alterations to a bridleway route at Awkley hill, to move it further away from the motorway, and on an addition to the bridleway route between Holm lane and Greenditch street, to provide a continuous route for horse riders in the area.

My right hon. Friend spoke about the effects of the second Severn crossing on salmon fishing in an area known as Oldbury lake, about six miles upstream from the new bridge. The Government carried out several studies prior to the construction of the second Severn crossing to determine any effects on siltation in the Severn estuary, including hydraulic model studies and bathymetric surveys, which have continued after construction.

The earlier studies predicted that the bridge would have only a local effect on flow, and that was confirmed by recent surveys. It is also considered that any effects caused by the bridge would be insignificant when compared with natural changes occurring in the estuary.

Oldbury lake is not covered by any of the studies, but it is not considered possible for the bridge to have had an effect there without having a discernible effect on the waters nearer the bridge. Oldbury lake is very close to Oldbury nuclear power station, which outfalls into the estuary, and that may be of some significance.

I am happy to say that completion of the outstanding works is progressing well, and it is expected that they will be substantially completed by Easter. Progress has been somewhat delayed by additional works resulting from the safety audit process and by extra works requested by local councils. Remedial works will continue from time to time until the end of the contract maintenance period in January 1998.

Responsibility for the side roads was formally transferred to South Gloucestershire council on 24 October 1996 for the M4 and on 11 November 1996 for the M49. There are, however, some outstanding matters to be resolved. Inevitably, a scheme on that scale creates disruptions, although we do our best to keep them to a minimum. I hope that the major problems for my right hon. Friend's constituents are at an end. I ask him to thank them for their patience and forbearance during construction—

Order. Time is up.

There is a crisis in the fire service in Essex. Before this debate, a local journalist asked me who I was going to blame. He misunderstood the motive for the debate. It is not to apportion blame but to identify that there is an acute problem with fire cover in Essex, and to try to point the way forward. If I make measured criticism, it is only to demonstrate that the county council's consultation process on the fire service review is deficient.

The public's expectation of what should be considered in assessing the adequacy of fire cover is not the same as that of the Home Office. Government resources are generally inadequate for England and Wales. The distribution formula needs to be revised. I believe that the Home Office is considering how it assesses fire cover and risk category. I hope that that process will be completed with greater expedition.

The existing criteria by which the Home Office judge the efficiency and adequacy of fire cover take account of property but not of lives, which are of paramount importance to all hon. Members. They assume that call-outs for fire appliances occur at convenient times. In practice, call-outs often happen simultaneously. In Essex last summer, on several occasions all fire appliances were out on call at the same time, leaving no cover for further emergencies. Fire incidents are, by nature, not routine.

The Home Office's criteria disadvantage Essex, and especially those of us in the south of Essex. Essex has a high number of road traffic accidents. It has many A roads, on which, unhappily, many accidents occur. We have a high inspection rate, which is critical in saving lives but which is not reflected in the Home Office criteria. The Lakeside shopping centre alone requires 360 inspections a year. That would be doubled if we included the whole West Thurrock retail park.

In addition to major traffic infrastructure, we have petrochemical industries all along the river. My constituency includes the QE II Dartford-Thurrock crossing. There is a major airport at Stansted, and soon the channel tunnel route will enter Essex in my constituency. The river requires extra fire cover because of riverside industries and the docks. The river also means that fire engines cannot come across the river to Southend from Kent. The borders of counties such as Sussex and Surrey allow reciprocity between counties.

I regret that Essex county council did not appeal against its standard spending assessment this year. That was a mistake. It did ask to meet the Home Office Minister, Baroness Blatch, but that request was turned down. I hope that that decision will be reviewed. I was told that the council had approached the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to seek a meeting with Essex Members but had had no response. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, but he said that that was not correct. That is between him and the county.

In the autumn, I was approached by the county's chief executive for a meeting to discuss the crisis in the fire service. I offered him some 20 occasions for such a meeting. I followed up the offer of those dates with telephone calls and correspondence, but he was unable to arrange a meeting. Getting the fire service review documents that I have with me from the chief fire officer's representative a few weeks ago was like extracting teeth from a whale. The county council's consultation and powers of persuasion have been deficient.

In my constituency, the public consultation meeting on the fire service review was held at 5 pm. The county said that that was the borough council's choice. In response, I said that, while it should meet the borough council, the public consultation should be in addition to, not merged with, proper consultation with the borough council.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

The Fire Brigades Union has taken the initiative in protecting and promoting the fire service in Essex. We should acknowledge that it is a representative body of dedicated, skilled public servants who must deal every day with the harrowing trauma of road traffic accidents and domestic fires.

The revised SSA that the Government have awarded Essex provides sufficient cover only to meet fire service wages and pensions. That applies also to other counties, much of whose budgets go on wages and pensions. The county council's triennial review is happening at the same time as the budgetary process. I accept that the county council faces difficult choices. We were told yesterday that it was likely that there would be a further £1.5 million reduction in the fire service budget, in addition to the matters under consideration in the review. That fills me with alarm.

The review explores the possibility of closing fire stations at Rochford, Leigh—with its population of 80,000—and Canvey Island. I recognise that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is in his place. Corringham could lose one appliance.

Corringham fire station is in my constituency and I take a special interest. It covers the petrochemical areas of Shell Haven and Mobil on Coryton peninsula, two of the largest processing areas in Britain, which service many big oil tankers every day.

The hon. Lady is correct. The nearest whole-time fire station that will have to meet the deficiencies if the closures and service reductions are enacted will be Basildon, which deals already with 3,000 call-outs a year.

I am concerned about the Purfleet Garrison estate area of my constituency. As long as 20 years ago, and certainly in the 1986 review, it was identified as an area of great concern. The Essex fire service cannot meet the attendance time recommended by the Home Office for Purfleet, being a B risk category area. The attendance time for B risk is one appliance in five minutes and two appliances in eight minutes. That time cannot be met for that critical part of my constituency. The problem cannot be abated by fire appliances from Greater London. The old reciprocity principle has long gone; local authorities decided to charge for fire services provided across county boundaries. I regret that. That means less fire cover for Purfleet and Aveley in my constituency.

The Southend conurbation, which has 20 per cent. of the county's population, has seven fire stations, three whole-time and four retained. Under the review, two stations would be closed. That would leave five stations to deal with a quarter of the county's calls. Some 44 stations will remain to deal with the rest of the county—a perverse distribution of fire cover. I do not, however, dismiss the needs of other areas of the county and I know that rural districts have special problems. I appreciate the attendance of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) in the Chamber for today's debate. In an ideal world, there should be full-time stations at Braintree, Stansted and Witham. We should be expanding our services, not contemplating their reduction.

I have already mentioned my constituency and the special categories and risks that exist there and elsewhere along the river front. Another cause for great concern in our county is the significant growth in the so-called modern sandwich-panel buildings that are prevalent in the food storage industry and among factories, offices and warehouses. They present unforeseen opportunities for fire spread, with its attendant loss of life.

The review documents—to which, as I said, it was difficult to gain access—show areas of residential property in my constituency that are category D. One such area in my constituency is Stifford Clays and I know there are other examples in other constituencies. In category D areas, a pump has to arrive in 20 minutes. I am worried about the situation, not just in Essex, but nationally. We put property before people. Unhappily, the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by fire occur in residential properties, not factories and offices. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge the fact that standards need to be re-examined.

What needs to be done? I have acknowledged—I reiterate—that Essex county council has enormous resource problems. I could have reduced the debate to a party political slanging match—the temptation is there, as we are now in an election period—but it would not be productive or useful for the people of Essex; nor would it advance the matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the House: the immediate crisis in fire cover in Essex.

I recognise that there is a problem with resources and that the county council has to weigh the fire services against other services such as social services and education. However, the council needs to reflect. The review—the consultation process—has been deficient; the council has been conducting it at the same time as it has been considering its budget. We have been told that there is likely to be a significant reduction in moneys for fire services as a result of the budget. As a consequence, there should be a moratorium in the review; the council must stop and consider the matter more critically.

The Home Office should recognise that Essex is an unusual county of great diversity, with a growing population. In the period up to 2001, my borough alone will have increased its population by 10,000 in 10 years. It is part of the Thames gateway—a welcome Government initiative, supported by the Opposition, designed to bring new industries, employment and residential properties to that part of south-east England. The river itself presents enormous difficulties in terms of fire cover. I hope that the Home Office will be prepared to reconsider those matters.

If my pleadings this morning do not bring a halt to the threatened cuts and if either the budget cuts or the review result in the county council making an application to the Home Secretary under section 19 to permit a reduction in personnel, appliances or the closure of stations, I ask the Minister to hold a public inquiry. He is entitled to do so under section 19(8), and if a public inquiry is held, many of the matters that I have mentioned can be amplified and those issues that I have been unable to raise owing to lack of time can be explored in full.

That would allow the county council to have a fair day in court; it would also allow everyone interested in this important public service, as well as the representative organisations, particularly the Fire Brigades Union, to state their case. It would enable the Home Office to understand the special nature of the county of Essex, which is not reflected in its standard spending assessments or in the resources available for its important public services.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who made a most responsible speech, for allowing me two minutes to speak in his debate. I shall offer him the same facility next week when I have an Adjournment debate.

The Government should appreciate that, while local Members of Parliament are always shouting about local problems, in this case there is a widespread belief among hon. Members of all parties in south Essex that the closures proposed in the document presented to Essex county council are unacceptable on safety grounds. They are based on the principle of vehicles moving at 30 miles an hour. As a local resident in Southend, I know that, when travelling from Southend to Rochford—where it is proposed to close a fire station—it is impossible to move at 30 miles an hour in the busy period. In fact, it is difficult to travel at two miles an hour. All our stations face more calls and have more, not fewer, buildings to cover. We have special problems in the Southend area, with a number of houses in multiple occupation, a hospital and an airport.

We must also accept that Essex faces major problems. The report identified the need for extra facilities at Stansted national airport. The council is already overstretched as it already spends £5 million more per year than it should on its fire service. Despite that, the efficiency review showed it to be extremely efficient.

As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, it is vital not to apportion blame. It would be possible to blame each party in different ways, but the crucial point is to find a solution. I hope that Essex county council will formally declare that it is withdrawing its proposals so that Members of Parliament can, on its behalf, seek meetings with Ministers to discuss a number of issues. I hope that the Minister will accept that, if Essex were to withdraw its proposals and make it clear that it will not proceed, we could have discussions on a number of matters.

Is not the amount of money in question barely £1.5 million? As that compares with Essex council's current reserves of £21 million, should it not be well within its capacity to find that money? Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Most certainly. Those are issues that we could discuss. On Monday, the Minister of State made it clear that, as long as the county could prove that it had a good case for overspending its capping limits, it would be considered.

National airports are more than a responsibility for a local council. I hope that that issue will be considered.

Another question is whether, despite the generous settlements that the Government have given counties over the country as a whole, there is a need for additional provision to be made for fire services.

I hope that the Government will accept that Members of Parliament in south Essex are genuinely concerned about safety. They hope that a solution can be found in commonsense negotiations and consultations. They hope that the Government will accept that hon. Members from all parties have a genuine desire to find a solution to this serious and urgent problem.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing the Adjournment debate, and I welcome other hon. Members to a debate of great concern to Essex Members. I particularly welcome the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton).

We have good reason to be proud of the fire service in this country. Surveys have consistently shown that the service is held in great esteem by both the general public and individuals who need its assistance. It was commended in 1995 by the Audit Commission in a major value-for-money study on its very high levels of skill and assistance.

In a report last April, the commission noted that, in respect of the performance of fire brigades in the year 1994–95,

"the fire service maintained its outstanding performance in meeting national standards for attending fire calls on 95 per cent. of occasions".

In that respect, Essex is one of the best performing brigades. In the year 1994–95, it performed better than average in meeting required response times to fire calls—its response rate was 96 per cent. The Audit Commission will soon produce audited figures for 1995–96, and it will be interesting to see whether Essex has managed to maintain that high standard.

Statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with individual fire authorities. Those authorities necessarily review their fire cover arrangements periodically to keep them up to date. The Essex fire brigade recently had an extensive review of fire cover, the results of which were recently circulated for public comment. As several hon. Members have already said, the report proposes a major redistribution of resources, including the closure of two stations, a change in the status of others, and an improvement in the fire cover in other parts of the county. I fully appreciate that those changes will cause concern to some hon. Members.

Under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's approval is required if a fire authority wants to reduce the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts. He has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19. He grants approval when certain conditions are satisfied.

First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail, and with adequate time to enable any interested party to make representations. Secondly, the representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.

In the event of a section 19 application being made, my right hon. and learned Friend will also take into account any representations made direct to him, including those from hon. Members, firefighters and the communities affected. To date, we have not received a section 19 application from Essex county council following its fire cover review. I assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my right hon. and hon. Friends that should the county council make such an application, my right hon. and learned Friend will, in reaching his decision, take account of the representations that he receives, including those made in the debate.

Will my hon. Friend revisit the debate that I secured on 18 December, when I asked that the Home Office deal with those problems? He will see from reading the report of that debate that Canvey Island is a special case. Although I am sure that all hon. Members would claim that for their patch, I am sure that they would agree that that is true for Canvey Island.

Despite the fact that the public consultation undertaken by Essex county council was totally against the cuts, and despite requests from me and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for the council to reconsider this matter using a more appropriate set of assumptions, including average speed of vehicles, it has extended the consultation period by two months, which will put this decision beyond the 1 May elections. Does not the Minister find that curious? Does it not show that Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors are running scared on this issue?

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but this should not be a matter for party political debate. We are discussing whether, on advice from the inspectorate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that fire cover is being maintained. I hope that the county council will hear what my hon. Friend said, and will take his remarks seriously. There should not be a delay, but there should be cool and detailed consideration of where best to use the resources to ensure that every part of the county is properly covered.

I should say something about the national recommended standards of fire cover, about which the hon. Member for Thurrock has doubts. The Fire Services Act 1947 does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service that a fire authority must provide. However, it is long-standing practice to interpret that by reference to the national standards, which dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category in which an area has been placed. That system of risk is based on the characteristics of the buildings and property in an area, and assumes for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time.

The standards are not just nationally recommended: they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. They were extensively reviewed in 1985 by the joint committee on standards of fire cover for the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. The standards enable all concerned to know where they stand as regards the minimum level of service that they should deliver. We believe that those standards have served the country well.

The standards have served us well, but they do not take account of modern shopping malls, such as Lakeside. Things have moved on, and it is time for those standards to be reviewed.

I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later.

We believe that the standards have served us well, but that is not to say that we regard them as entirely unchangeable. The Audit Commission's report recommended that there should be another fundamental review of the levels of fire cover, but recognised that no fundamental change could be considered without the most careful research. A review of fire cover standards is being taken forward by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but these issues are complex and much work will be required. In the meantime, any section 19 application will be judged according to existing standards.

Many people are concerned about the level of resources available for the fire service. We still expect the fire service to make efficiency savings, as in every other public service: it is vital that the taxpayer receives best value for money. However, the Government have shown their commitment to the fire service by confirming that we shall increase the fire service element of the standard spending assessment in England for the coming financial year by £50 million, which is more than 4 per cent. I believe that that is a satisfactory settlement. I also point out that Essex will receive an uplift of 4.7 per cent. in its SSA.

I appreciate that Essex spends over the SSA, which is its right. In case anyone is under any illusions, I point out that the cost of the fire service in Essex represents about 4 per cent. of its total base budget. The fire budget in the current year is £39.35 million, against an overall budget of £976.7 million. It is within the county council's gift to review its priorities and to make further funds available if it has doubts about whether the fire cover is being maintained.

I assure the House that everything that has been said today about the particular problems of Essex—whether they relate to Canvey Island, the extent of river industrial frontage, the number of A roads or cover for an airport with international flights—will be heard by the county council, the chief fire officer and the inspectorate. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be taken fully into account in any future decisions.