Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this debate. It is the first debate on steel since I was elected Member of Parliament for Rotherham four years ago to represent that great steel-producing centre in Europe. May I quickly declare an interest? I have 25 shares in British Steel, the dividends from which hardly pay for a "happy meal" for one of my children. I also have a close continuing relationship with the lion and Steel Trades Confederation, both locally and nationally, which I value.

Before I begin, I wish to make a point that is relevant to the debate. An extraordinary report appears in today's Yorkshire Post, which says:

"The Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, said that northern job cuts may be necessary. 'I suppose', he said, `that unemployment in the north was an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the south.'"

That statement exposes the fallacy of having our economy controlled and determined by the values of the City. Mr. George may have been misquoted. If so, he must clarify what he said, but if he sticks by that statement, he should apologise. If he continues to say that the people of the north of England are ready to be sacrificed to guard his interests, he should join them and resign.

Let me return to the subject of this debate. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members in their seats. I am delighted that, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), was named to head that great Department, he said that he wanted to be known as the Secretary of State for Industry. Today he will get the chance to prove that he is a friend of industry, because I am sure that my very good friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, will respond positively to the propositions that I and others will put to him in this debate.

Steel is now asking for the same interdepartmental attention that coal has received in the past 18 months. Despite its problems, the UK steel industry is a success. It earns £4 billion a year in exports, which have risen fivefold in the past 15 years. It earns far more than the film or music industries. Much as I welcome the new jobs in culture and leisure, we ignore the mega-money made by steel at our peril. The industry's record of industrial relations is second to none—except at the unhappy Co Steel plant in Sheerness, where the treatment of workers is a disgrace by international, let alone British, standards. The giant mastodon of British Steel, which controls more than four fifths of UK output, operates alongside relative newcomers like Ispat and Caparo, which work fruitfully with the unions.

Times are hard now, but since 1996 British Steel has made nearly £2 billion in profit. Thus, if, as the Secretary of State said in America last week, he wants to invest in clusters of economic success, and wants to back British-based and British-managed companies, and the entrepreneurship that we see in newcomers on the scene, which together earn far more for the UK than the "Full Monty" or the Spice Girls, I appeal to him to give the UK steel industry his full backing. It needs it, because it faces problems that are not, for the most part, of its OWN making. The problems at Longbridge announced today will exacerbate those difficulties. A rod mill has just closed in my constituency, and the highly successful, flexible and profitable Avesta stainless steel mill faces closure next door in Sheffield.

In the first eight months of this year, crude steel production rose by 5 per cent. in Germany and France, 4 per cent. in Italy, and 15 per cent. in Spain, but went down by 2 per cent. in Britain. Blast furnaces are being shut down; rotas are being changed; and men are being asked to work family-destroying hours and shifts to avoid employing new people. Not a steel worker in Britain, from chief executive to newly appointed apprentice, can feel 100 per cent. secure for his future.

Nearly all those problems are directly inherited from the previous Government. The Conservative party left time bombs ticking in the manufacturing economy, and it is Labour's job to seek to defuse them before long-lasting damage is done. The first time bomb is the anti-manufacturing culture, which permeated Britain throughout the 1980s and this decade. The second is the yo-yoing pound sterling—high under Lords Lawson and Lamont; low for a while under the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It went up again in 1996 and 1997, steadily rising higher and higher to cause the damage that is now being wrought on the steel industry, as he refused to take action to control his pointless pre-election boom. Now the pound is coming down again, but who knows what the value of yo-yo sterling will be in three, six, 12 or 24 months?

The third time bomb is Conservative isolationist hostility to Europe at the cost of any influence that the United Kingdom needs to have over decisions taken jointly with our European partners which impact on our steel industry. The fourth is an anti-manufacturing system of electricity pricing so perverse that Conservative Ministers could not have done a better job had they deliberately designed it to damage the steel industry. The fifth time bomb is the blind worship of unmanaged trade flows, whether in capital or goods, which has led to the present crisis of the world economy.

The sixth time bomb is the view that privatisation plus deregulation plus globalisation was a new magic formula that would solve all economic problems. If someone called a firm a plc and had it quote on Wall street or the stock exchange in London, that alone was thought to be sufficient to ensure success.

Let us take these Tory follies one by one, and consider what needs to be done. The most important change is to put into reverse the anti-manufacturing culture of the Conservative era. Steel has been, is and always will be cyclical. It requires long lead times for investment and production and for securing markets and sales. The chronic instability of the pound sterling is one root cause of the industry's problems.

The United States, Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries with successful steel industries all operate with interest rates set by independent central banks. The pound yo-yoed even more violently before May 1997 than it does today. Steel will continue to suffer until we form a linkage with the euro.

I am listening with great interest and considerable sympathy to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, but much of his argument in fraudulent. He refers to the fluctuating rate of sterling and compares the industry's performance with that of the United States and of Germany. Over that period, the deutschmark and the US dollar had even higher levels of fluctuation than the pound sterling.

If the right hon. Gentleman examines the flows of the dollar, up and down, since the 1986 Plaza accord, he will find that it has been relatively stable. The deutschmark, certainly in the past 10 years, has been a well-managed currency. I do not want to enter into pro and anti-economic and monetary union arguments, but simply want to place on record my view that, until we have currency stability, and until we are a full economic player in Europe, we should not expect steel to do well.

I appeal to the industry to use its resources to give a kick up the pants of British business, so that it drops its vestal virgin blushes and campaigns publicly, loudly, forcefully and cheerfully for the view that our isolation from EMU cannot last much longer if manufacturing is to survive and thrive. On that point, I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).

Although I obviously support my hon. Friend's demand for the sacking of Eddie George, what is far more important is the fact that, on almost our first day in power, we handed power over interest rates to a group of unelected and unaccountable bankers. All this morning's rhetoric and all the words of the Chancellor cannot alter the level of interest rates. If we learn something from this, surely it must be that interest rates must go back under political control. Democratically elected Governments could then take decisions affecting the industry and the community, which depend on them.

My hon. Friend makes his point forcibly. There is no suggestion that deciding interest rates politically in the Treasury, before May 1997, was of any help to the United Kingdom economy. Interest rates do not become a political football in the countries where steel operates successfully.

I welcome the new Labour Government extending the hand of friendship to our European partners, which is paying off in terms of the directive on end-of-life vehicles. That is not a reference to former Conservative Members of Parliament. Concerted efforts by the Minister, to whom I pay tribute, his officials, Members of the European Parliament such as David Bowe and Linda McAvan, and the industry's experts are producing a good result for Britain's engineering steel makers. What a contrast that is to the anti-European antics of the main opposition party, which ensured that the United Kingdom steel industry had no voice or friends in Europe.

The Minister has been helpful on Europe, but I want him to be helpful on the cost of energy, which is so loaded against steel makers in Britain.

Before my hon. Friend moves on to energy prices, and while he is praising the special engineering steel sector, does he recognise what is not often said in the Chamber and elsewhere—that that sector is one of the most environmentally pure of all manufacturing sectors? Recycling is total: without the special engineering steel sector, this country would have to dispose of all its scrap elsewhere. That must be balanced when we talk about the energy and environmental costs of the steel industry.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on these matters. I sometimes wish that Britain's steel factories were painted bright green to send out a message that, despite the smokestack image, they constitute one of the most eco-friendly industries in our economy.

I ask the Minister to be helpful on energy. It is often said that electricity prices in Britain are a bit like the 19th century Schleswig-Holstein question, of which, hon. Members will recall, Lord Palmerston said only three people in the world understood it: one was dead, one was mad, and he himself had forgotten. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister is dead, he has not yet been driven mad by the burden of office, and I hope that he has not forgotten the importance of the problem, but understands that the corrupt, fixed, rigged electricity market that we inherited from the Tories does such damage to steel, and why it needs reform.

The facts are hardly known to the general public. Although it now takes 40 per cent. less energy to produce a tonne of steel than in 1970, which backs up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), British steel firms pay far more for electricity—often 25 to 30 per cent. More—than their competitors in mainland Europe.

Remember: although the United Kingdom has more natural energy resources than any other European Union country, our prices are the highest. In 1997–98, the price of electricity charged to the industry rose by 20 per cent., despite fuel costs falling on the world and local markets. That meant that the revenues of the dominant generators—National Power, PowerGen and Eastern—rose by about £590 million, which is more than the £576 million that they paid in windfall tax.

I cannot believe that the Chancellor intended that, in effect, steel and other industrial customers would pay for his windfall tax because of the excessively high prices that the regulator lets the generators charge. I stress that this is not a free-market operation; nor do the rules of competition come into play. This is another anti-manufacturing racket inherited from the previous Government.

The Minister has announced a review, but its outcome is unlikely to be known much before the millennium, by which time steel will have suffered further cuts and job losses. If the regulator continues to allow the electricity generators their profiteering on the backs of steel, there will be a much smaller customer base when the review is finished.

I urge the Minister to take steps to institute a temporary cap on the electricity oligopoly's price racket.

I do not want to disturb the flow of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he think that the current moratorium on gas-fired power station consent is contributing to a rise in, or the sustaining of, the electricity price level, or helping to reduce it in the way that he wants?

I firmly believe that the Government can take action to institute a temporary cap. Rather than waiting for the millennium dome to open its doors and the electricity price review to be published, I urge the Minister to respond to that. To refer and defer to the regulator is not enough. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown leadership on the matter of the rail regulator, and on rail travel prices. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should this week do no less to ensure fair play for the steel industry.

The Department could also take steps to prevent the unfair dumping of steel products in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries. At the moment, we have the absurd sight of a significant surge in steel imports—which are up by 81 per cent. this year—into the UK and the EU from Serbia. In the morning, Slobodan Milosevic's steel factories produce steel for his tanks and guns to oppress the people of Kosovo; in the afternoon, they produce steel to put British steel workers out of their jobs, and earn hard currency in this country.

That is an EU-wide problem. Steel imports from third countries into the European Union have gone up from 40,000 tonnes a month in the first half of 1997 to almost 300,000 tonnes a month so far this year. We cannot have a 700 per cent. increase in steel imports in under 12 months and call that fair or free trade.

Hon. Members with whom I have debated will know that I am, by conviction, a free trader. I have stood my ground on that policy against many in my party whose first instincts are more protectionist. Such a surge is not due to the temporary flow of a newly fashionable toy—yo-yos from China, garments or electronic games—but will permanently damage the United Kingdom. We must join our partners in Europe and insist that dumping and unfair trade practices are swiftly investigated, and that quick action is taken.

The United States has already shown a lead. We should not increase our dole queues for the sake of an ideology that only the UK believes in, while the rest of the world moves on, or the dumpers move in and take over our markets.

There are problems in the steel industry in Wales. My constituents at Shotton steel works face redundancies. They have asked me to emphasise that they want help on energy prices and on the dumping of steel in Britain.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose work on behalf of steel workers not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom is well known. His points are well made, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

We need action on dumping. If we are tough enough to say "no entry" to a score or so of Slovakian gipsies fleeing hard and cruel times in their own country, we should be manly enough to say "whoa" or "slow down" to the scores of thousands of tonnes of steel that are causing hard and cruel times for steel workers in South Yorkshire.

That leads me to what is, in some ways, the worst of the Conservative inheritance: the slavish view that the only model is that based on shareholder value, in which consumers, employees and communities take second, third or no place at all. The tyranny of quarterly outturns and half-yearly dividend payments is a straitjacket from which British Steel should liberate itself. When the company can spend—as it did last year—£140 million buying its own shares in a fruitless stock market manoeuvre, something is wrong with its priorities. That is almost half as much as the entire UK steel industry invests in a good year.

Investment in Indonesia has melted away, as anyone who knew about the lack of democracy and the corruption in that country could have told British Steel. All that money would have been better spent on investment in the United Kingdom, or on securing a footprint in Euroland, because the proposed investment in Katowice in Poland cannot replace a serious engagement with the main markets in Europe.

Perhaps some in the steel industry believe that privatisation plus share options has meant the end of a relationship with Government. However, every day, every hour and every minute, we receive briefings from British Steel and other companies and the UK Steel Association—for which we are grateful, because we work as a team with the industry—requesting us to knock on the door of Government to ask for help on trade, energy prices, sterling, dumping and the other factors that no steel company can control but which control steel's fate. The steel industry is asking for a new partnership with Government, and I hope that they, through the Minister, will respond positively.

That requires a new approach to partnership right throughout the industry. Partnership means the full and timely sharing of information, which was not the case in Avesta in Sheffield, where the employees and their unions of the British Steel subsidiary company in Sweden were treated more equally, in the Orwellian sense, than those in South Yorkshire.

I hear too many stories in the industry of agreements not being fully honoured and of threats rather than co-operation. I do not believe that they are merely grumpy anecdotes of the dissatisfied. I urge all in the UK steel industry, and British Steel in particular, to ask themselves whether the time has not come to place trust and full information sharing from top to bottom as a priority in the industry in the hard times ahead.

Unfortunately, Corby no longer makes steel, thanks to the efforts of the Conservative party. We still manufacture high-quality tubes in Corby, for home and export. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that British Steel owes much of its success to the skills and motivation of the work force, despite the travails of the Conservative Government? Given the partnership between the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, employers and the Government, we should look forward to investment in the industry, in people and in training as the key to the success of the steel industry in the future.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that it is taken on board.

The steel industry faces a rocky period. Orders are down, and prices are 20 per cent. lower than a year ago and falling. Jobs will go. I appeal to the Minister to release funds under his control, or under his guidance through the RESIDER programme, to Steel Partnership, one of the training bodies in Rotherham, which seeks to ensure that, when people lose their jobs, they do not lose their skills, their aptitude for work and their self-confidence.

I do not want to be over-gloomy. Since the days of Vulcan, steel making has involved the more awesome alchemy of transforming raw materials through the crafts and skills of the men to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) referred.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own points. I am taking up quite a lot of time.

In any steel plant today, the heat, light and raw power are the same as they were 2,000 years ago. Steel is a continuing part of the manufacturing base of any civilised country. We allow our steel industry to decline further at our peril. The managers, technologists and workers of Britain's steel industry can and will survive. I have outlined how Government can help, but both sides of industry and the steel communities have a part to play.

I suggest that the time is right for a national round table on steel, to allow all those with a stake in the industry to meet and to put their cards on the table. I am not talking about negotiations, corporatist encounters, tripartism or any of the ancient formulas. Instead, I propose a new way—my hon. Friends may call it a third way, and Opposition Members may call it the British way if they have read the Chancellor's recent speeches. It is a new way that allows us all to see what needs to be done, what needs to be changed, what needs to be offered and what needs to be conceded to secure a bright future for an industry that I firmly believe is part of tomorrow's Britain.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for raising this subject. I firmly agree with his initial comments. Jobs in the north are vital, and if we tilt the economy any further towards the south-east, we shall be heading for disaster. That will affect people not only in the north, but in the south-east as the pressures there become unbearable.

Sheffield now produces more steel than it has ever produced. We have had great success in projecting a new image through entertainment and the service industry. "The Full Monty" and other forms of entertainment have been tremendously successful—so much so that, when I make an after-dinner speech, rather than expecting me to talk about industry, people want me to take my clothes off, as they think that that is what men from Sheffield do these days. This august Chamber is safe from any such Sheffield-like behaviour.

With our friends in Rotherham, we remain a world-class centre of excellence in the manufacturing and processing of steel, despite our shiny new image as a city of fun. It is essential that we get the European context right, particularly the impact of European monetary union. From next year, the euro will propagate through the supply chain. Businesses such as steel, which trade heavily in other European countries, will, whether they like it or not, find that the euro is an essential fact of their business life. The Government's attitude to the euro, and to economic and monetary union, will be vital in securing the interests of all businesses that trade heavily with Europe. Whatever the politics involved, there is a strong business case for close engagement with Europe in this context.

That is particularly relevant in areas such as mine, where many companies are Anglo-Swedish. We are likely to have one component of a company in the Euro-zone, and another outside it. That will mean some complex economics, and, again, the Government's attitude will give the management of those Swedish companies a strong signal as to how Britain intends to proceed. It will make a significant difference to their investment decisions, determining whether they buy new plant in Sweden or—as I hope—in Sheffield and other British cities.

The second issue that I want to raise is that of electricity prices, which the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly mentioned. As he pointed out, the pool system is an oligopoly for three large generators. The signs are not good for reform. The gas market has moved on—gas prices at the wholesale level have fallen—but legislative time is not being given for the establishment of a new electricity structure that would allow the abolition of the pool system.

Having dedicated about a third of my life to reforming the pool system, I must point out that we said in opposition that we would challenge it, when others said that it was too arcane even to be looked at. One of the first tasks that I undertook in government was that of asking the regulator to present proposals, which he did. Only two weeks ago, we announced that we would take the regulator's recommendations as the basis for a full and radical overhaul of the pool.

We are talking about the wholesale market for electricity. We cannot simply abolish the system, as some have suggested; if we did, no power stations would operate, and there would be no electricity at all. The project is well under way—there is no holding back—but there is no doubt that it is complex.

I am pleased to note the Minister's passion, which suggests that we may see changes in the near future. I hear voices saying that the pool system urgently needs reform, and I am glad to learn that reform is on its way.

A third issue is investment in research and technology. Sheffield contains two fine universities, the university of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam university. Both are able to supply our industry, including the steel industry, with a competitive edge by providing the skills and research that are needed for the development of new products that will set us ahead of our competitors. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are committed, on a cross-departmental level, to ensuring that our educational institutions can link with industry and provide it with the support it needs.

I believe that I heard on the radio this morning—it may have been a fantasy, as I was lying in bed at the time—confirmation that the university for industry would be in Sheffield. I know that it is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, but if that is so, it is very encouraging. The university for industry and similar initiatives are vital to the achievement of a competitive steel industry, without which—however much we invest—we are unlikely to succeed.

I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are committed to investing in excellence in manufacturing, because that is what we have in Sheffield and Rotherham. I hope that my constituents, and all the people of Sheffield, will be able to feel some confidence that progress is being made, and that the importance of the issues that we have discussed today has been recognised. I know that the Minister feels passionately about those issues, and I look forward to hearing him announce initiatives similar to the university for industry, such as the reform of pool prices that we so desperately need.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent speech, and thank him for the opportunity to speak—especially as I, too, had made a bid for an Adjournment debate.

I want to talk about Co Steel, a Canadian-owned company in Sheerness, in my constituency, and to describe the way in which decent men are being bullied and harassed by its management. I want to know from the Minister, and from the Department of Trade and Industry, about the current thinking in relation to our fairness at work strategies, and whether any of those proposals will alter the scenario that I am about to relate.

First, let me make a confession. My mother, Peggy, is a proud Canadian, as is my sister, and as was my late brother. They would not be best pleased by the tale that I am about to tell. The Canadian high commissioner took it on himself to visit the plant last week, and gave all the wrong signals. He let his country down.

Co Steel in Sheerness is for sale. The Toronto-based company is having problems of its own, stretching back to a bond issue that was withdrawn a couple of years ago, and a joint venture in a new mill whose price has escalated. Some 550 jobs are at risk: the community will be devastated.

Two years ago, Joe Davey, who had worked at Co Steel for 25 years, was sacked a few days before Christmas. Joe had been an active trade unionist for all his time at the company. In 1992, Co Steel became a union-free shop. Although substantial union work is being undertaken at Co Steel through the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, unions are banned.

Joe Davey—with the admirable support of his union, the ISTC—took Co Steel to the industrial tribunal at Ashford. Here are some of its findings. On senior management at Co Steel, it stated:

"We find some witnesses we regarded as essentially unreliable."

On the personnel manager, Dr. Hugh Billot, it stated:

"Having heard the lengthy evidence in this case, it seems to us that Dr. Billot is being disingenuous. The company may not have been collectively hostile to trade unions, but there is no doubt that Dr. Billot himself was hostile, and that his view of the unions informed the company's approach."

To make the sale of Co Steel more attractive, over the last month there have been 45 so-called voluntary redundancies and—surprise, surprise—19 wholesale redundancies. Let me read some of the letters that are being sent to me over the past few weeks. One correspondent wrote:

"I had an industrial accident at Co Steel. I used holidays so as not to penalise on the existing points scheme that is enforced at Co Steel. I eventually had an operation on my back. I was made redundant."

I have had other letters, from decent citizens in my constituency. One reads:

"I am one of those made redundant. Co Steel has given the excuse of work behaviour and performance for my redundancy. What I should like to know is, after 20 or so years of loyal service, why they have decided that my behaviour and performance is not up to standard. It is possible that it is because I am a union member. If it is so that Co Steel needed to lose 60 members of staff, why were only 21 accepted for early retirement, and of those why were so many union members?"

Another letter reads:

"As you know, the company derecognised the unions in April 1992, so why is it that we have been made redundant? Why have we been refused union recognition?"

Another reads:

"You may already be aware of the despicable treatment of a number of men made redundant by the personnel director at Co Steel. As an active trade unionist, it is no surprise to find myself on the list."

And so on, and so on.

My concerns are these. Some of the Co Steel management is a disgrace. Two of its senior staff were economical with the truth at a tribunal, but they were neither fined nor fired. Good working practices are important for all staff, not just the men and women on the shop floor. How will "fairness at work" ensure that, when management misbehaves, it is fined? I await the Minister's comments with interest.

Co Steel may find a new owner. I am reliably informed by one of the potential buyers that the sale document has more holes than the average colander. We need a buyer, but they are thin on the ground. I hope that, when the white knight arrives, he will make a charge against Co Steel's senior management.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will know that I worked for British Steel during much of the 1980s. I must say that I found many of his comments utterly misleading.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House in what capacity he worked at British Steel? I do not recall meeting him on the shop floor.

My last job at British Steel was that of commercial director.

In 1979, British Steel was completely uncompetitive. It had rotten industrial relations, and its products were of poor quality. By the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, it had been transformed into the most competitive steel company in the world. The hon. Gentleman ought to pay tribute to those who worked at British Steel, and to remember that that success was achieved under three successive Conservative Governments.

I am going to be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. There are three areas where the Government could do something tangible to help British Steel. The first is interest rates. I heard the hon. Member for Rotherham talking about the damage that exchange rate volatility can do to a company such as British Steel. I share some of those concerns, but, by pursuing high interest rates and giving independence to the Bank of England, his Government have increased the value of our currency above it should be. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not good enough for his Government to disclaim responsibility for interest rates.

The second area where the Government can help is in a review of the pool. The pool works quite well for individual consumers, but clearly does not give the benefits it should to high energy users. British Steel is paying 15 or 20 per cent. more for its energy than its competitors in Europe. I hope that the Minister will introduce more competition into the pool. His policy of having a moratorium on gas-fired stations is wrong. We need more competition in energy generation.

The third way in which the Government can do something tangible is anti-dumping. As the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, imports into Europe as a whole are some seven times what they were last year. That is having a damaging impact not just on British Steel, but on other European users. I hope that the Minister will take urgent, quick action to bring in anti-dumping measures.

There was a period during the 1980s when it became fashionable to say that manufacturing did not matter. That was a very short period, but it did become fashionable. It is particularly sad that, under this Government, that attitude seems to be getting out again—that services matter, that somehow manufacturing does not matter, and to hell with British manufacturing.

The hon. Gentleman might check how many times we have campaigned for, mentioned and highlighted the importance and vitality of manufacturing, compared with Lord Young, who said that manufacturing did not matter: let people in the manufacturing city of Leeds, my city, eat out, he suggested. We have changed that culture already.

It is wrong for a Minister to say that, when manufacturing industry faces a severe recession. This is a recession that we cannot blame just on world markets and overseas events. This is largely a recession that has been manufactured by economic incompetence in your Government.

Order. It is not my Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use correct parliamentary language.

Yes.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I worked for British Steel in the 1970s and 1980s. In fact, I was still there in 1991, and I have to say that I never met him on the shop floor when I was in the melting shop working on the ladles. However, I am glad to hear him say that the Government were saying, "To hell with manufacturing." What would he have told my constituents when they were told in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s by his Government, "To hell with manufacturing and the steel industry in the Motherwell area"?

I should like to conclude by saying that British Steel is a fine business. It is very competitive. It can hold its head up high throughout the world. It depends totally on a successful manufacturing base in this country, with a strong customer base. Manufacturing needs some help, and the Government are not giving it.

We have had a colourful, powerful, upbeat and far-ranging speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I congratulate him on securing the debate, but it is important that all of us who have steel capacity in our localities be part of the new deal that he is now asking the Government to enter with British Steel. I speak just to put the case that, in north Staffordshire, we want to be part of that new deal for steel.

I think it was four years ago—time flies so quickly in this place—that we had a real problem about increased capacity in Ireland, which had an extra subsidy. That issue was fought over in the House. It was crucial at that stage that we did everything we could to safeguard the capacity of British Steel to carry on manufacturing.

Members of Parliament in north Staffordshire played a leading role in that. We got the overall capacity from elsewhere reduced. In that process, we maintained a part of British capacity. That was crucial. My reason for speaking now is to say that there have been huge improvements in British Steel manufacturing since then, but we do not want to lose it.

In relation to the global economy, we are in a particularly vulnerable position. That is why it is so important that all of us here who care about steel in our constituencies give that message to the Minister with responsibility for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), so that he knows that he has the support of all of us in the new deal that I hope he will be able to secure for steel.

This is not just about the economy or industry, but about the environment, the negotiations that are about to start post-Kyoto, the changes that are taking place to utility regulation and the price of energy for intensive users of energy; therefore, through this debate, I want us to put all those issues on the table, so that we can continue to make the case for manufacturing in our constituencies.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about job losses at the Templeborough rolling mills. Every time we hear about job losses in British Steel, or are told that there are going to be more job losses because of the particular stage of the cycle that we are in, I get worried about potential job losses in north Staffordshire.

I want the Government and British Steel to know that, between us, we will do everything to safeguard one of the best producing sites we have. I am talking, of course, about the British Steel Shelton site. It is producing 400,000 tonnes of steel per year. It has been doing that for the past five years, and is on target to produce the same amount this year.

British Steel contributes 39,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom. Obviously, the Shelton site is crucial to that. We have had investment from British Steel in Shelton. We have a new operating pulpit investment of £600,000. We are commissioning new marking and labelling machines to give the edge on customer service and control systems. There is also in progress an overall refurbishment of £1 million.

Five years ago, we had a work force of around 400. Two years ago, we had a work force of 350, and currently we have a work force of 330. We want to keep that work force on that site.

I pay tribute to the huge effort by the work force at Shelton in terms of team working, multi-skilling and work flexibility, all done with trade union agreement. The output in Shelton is second to none. As I hear hon. Members warning about the chill winds of the global recession and everything else, I want to safeguard those jobs in north Staffordshire, so that we can reward the enormous efforts by the team of dedicated workers there, bearing it in mind that we are an island site and, as a result, are particularly vulnerable to any additional pressures; such as the extra costs of transport are so great.

I use this debate to remind British Steel and the government of all that. People in north Staffordshire are important. I use it to remind them of the part that we placed in the last battle, if you like, to maintain British Ste capacity.

I ch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotheam said about the Governor of the Bank of England. The Minister will know, because he came to north Staffordshire only last month, how much the pottery industry in north Staffordshire relies on exports, and how important it is that we are innovative and make an upbeat contribution, but the same applies to steel production.

If we bear it in mind that about 50 per cent. of British Steel production is exported and, of the remaining 50 per cent., a further 50 per cent. is exported, and we see what has happened to the Asian market and the collapse there, it is clear that there are difficulties and bumpy rides ahead. For that reason, I say to Eddie George, Governor of the Bank of England, "You cannot sacrifice manufacturing industry just for the service economy." Manufacturing is important. We make things in north Staffordshire, and we are proud of those things. The crucial point is that we do not want to be sacrificed for the wider economy.

We are now at a critical stage, and I wanted to emphasise the importance of our manufactured goods, and of developing the partnership necessary to deal not only with environmental issues but with the international economy, so that we can ensure that British Steel workers in north Staffordshire, at the Shelton site, have a real future.

This debate has provided a very good demonstration of the importance of our Wednesday morning Adjournment debates—which allow hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), to cite and bring to the House's attention monstrous cases of victimisation. It is an excellent thing that such issues should be raised in the Chamber.

Today's debate has also allowed the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) to deal with an absolutely fundamental dilemma of economic policy that we find ourselves at liberty to digress upon all too seldom. In much of what he said, powerful argument was heavily interspersed with obligatory party political points and a good deal of confusion and hot air.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with some expertise on that.

Although many of us pride ourselves on that gift, hon. Members—Labour Members, too—have to try to cut through it.

The hon. Member for Rotherham rightly drew attention to the scandal of the Governor of the Bank of England saying that we must tolerate unemployment in the manufacturing sector in order to control or moderate overheating in the service sector. I have foreshortened the Governor's argument, which is a familiar one—he was not the first person to articulate it. Greatly to the shame of the Conservative party, Conservative Members have in the past made the same case. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Young, under whom I worked as a junior Minister. I drove that Department's officials mad by arguing the unfashionable case of protectionism, against the views of my own Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also drew the House's attention to the fact that, although the Government have been in power for more than 18 months, they are, if anything, more in thrall now to the multinationals, the supranationals and the supermarkets, and to their friends in industry who are buying titles and subscribing to funds, than they were at the outset. They are certainly far more in thrall to them now than they were when they published the Labour party manifesto before the general election.

It is no good saying that many of the seeds of damage were sown by the previous Government. The Labour party has been in power for more than 18 months, and it has intensified the close allegiance between the rip-off corporations and the Government, whose paymasters they are slowly becoming.

The hon. Member for Rotherham dodged the main point. Although he made his case, which sounded fine, he would not arrive at his conclusion. He would not admit that no economy, least of all ours, is strong enough to pay both unemployment benefit to its own workers and the wages of manufacturing work forces in other countries that are dumping their products in the United Kingdom. Although he said that we have to be strong enough to resist dumping, he dodged the matters of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and our associations within the Community. Although he argues—his argument was veiled, but not very closely veiled—that some of our steel industry's problems would be cured if we were in the euro and worked closer with Europe, he knows perfectly well that that argument is utterly fraudulent. If anything, such actions would intensify the problems.

The hon. Gentleman cited the example of Serbian steel being dumped in the United Kingdom. Such dumping provides the House with a classic example of the fact that, because of the damage that they have suffered, many sectors of our manufacturing industry need to be protected. I am one of the few hon. Members on either side of the House who is still not ashamed to argue the archaic but traditional Tory case that we should protect our manufacturing industry by using the various devices of Government—such as subsidy, taxation and import control—that we have used traditionally, and that many of our competitors still use. For some reason, we have had to discard such devices.

I tell Labour Members that we must now realise what is at stake in the argument. Hon. Members, especially Labour Members—with their roots in constituencies that contain what is left of our manufacturing industry—must realise that a major choice will have to be made if, as all judges believe will happen, there is a major contraction in the world economy. The choice will be between the welfare of our constituents as producers and their welfare as consumers.

For too long—for reasons of loyalty, doctrine or laziness—the House has swallowed arguments from Front Benchers on both sides of the House that we must now subscribe to the consumerist ethic, and that the service industries and the ephemeral earnings of show business, with all its shallowness and triviality, will support a major economy of 55 million people. How can such industries support our economy? Although we know that it is impossible for them to support our economy, we allow ourselves time and again to be sold the doctrine that they can.

The choice will have to be made, and the impulse to make it will have to come from within the party in government. I tell Labour Members that I came into the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham, whom I respect, and that my speech is entirely unprepared and extempore. Nevertheless, I hope very much that, in the course of time, within the next two years, there will be a real debate on the subject, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to give it their attention with proper and fully prepared speeches.

Before I speak to the subject of this debate, I should like briefly to mention one example of the steel industry's success in my constituency. Vauxhall Motors has not only just taken on 1,000 new employees but is producing the best selling car in Britain—the new Astra. Vauxhall's success is a credit to the partnership between industry and Government. The situation is therefore not entirely one of doom and gloom, as has been suggested by some hon. Members in this debate.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I should like to deal with one specific point. I also realise that I shall receive support from various Departments in dealing with some specific problems facing H. H. Robertsons, which closed just before the general election. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was then the Department of Trade and Industry Minister with responsibility for competition, under whom an investigation was started by the Department's insolvency service, which subsequently involved the serious fraud squad and police.

The background to the investigation was a £5 million deficit in the work force pension fund and a series of business actions resulting in moneys dripping out of the company, to the detriment of all creditors, especially the pension fund. Regrettably, because of the complexities of the matter and the way in which the Companies Acts are structured, the Serious Fraud Office has been unable to produce a case that it believes would stand up in a fraud trial. I believe that a case has not been made, not because the SFO is happy with events, but because of the very clever way in which the money was used.

The matter is currently being dealt with by the pensions ombudsman. Earlier this week, I had an exchange with the Secretary of State for Social Security on that point.

I should put in context the closure of H. H. Robertsons, which was a very important steel works. Ellesmere Port was a steel manufacturing town, and subsequently has become a petrochemical town. It began producing steel at the turn the century, when the work force of the then Wolverhampton Iron Works walked up the canals to gain jobs at the new plant. The plant survived for the best part of 100 years, but then, after some very interesting financial manoeuvres, it disappeared. That was a tragedy, not only for the town and the people who worked at the plant, but for the credibility of an important part of British industry.

I want to put three points to the Government in the context of the inquiries that must continue. I appreciate that the first is not within the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, but I make a general plea to the Government to work with me and with all the parties involved to find a rescue package for the pension fund of the plant. The state is paying a significant sum in benefits, so it would be helpful if we could find a way to rescue the fund.

Secondly, I should like the Government to examine carefully the way in which the Companies Acts have been used in this particular case, and the effects of their structure on the ability of the work force to get a clear picture of what has happened. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), cannot get hold of the full report from the Serious Fraud Office, which is a bizarre state of affairs.

Finally, when the company was taken over—something on which the pension fund members were not consulted—the pension fund was in deficit. Because of the refinancing of the company, pension fund members automatically became lower-ranking creditors than the people who allegedly invested in the company. The exposure of the pension fund increased as a result of the vehicle that was used to refinance the company. That is a ludicrous state of affairs, which can no longer be allowed to occur under British law.

There needs to be a great deal of close co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would reaffirm the Government's commitment to work with me and the ex-employees of the company in an attempt to get justice for them.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing the debate, and on arguing his case so powerfully. He brings a worldwide view to the subject. I cannot compete with that, so I shall not try. Instead, I want to examine the local scene and make a plea to the Minister for practical help in dealing with some of the fallout of the problems that my hon. Friend outlined.

The British Steel Engineering Steels plant in Alwarke is in my constituency, as is the Thrybergh rolling mill. Many constituents also work at Kvaerner and Avesta and in other small steel plants throughout Rotherham and Sheffield. They feel a growing sense of dismay and desperation. They are doing all they can, often led by their union, to help their companies succeed and to become internationally competitive, but the firms are then hit by forces well beyond their control.

Steve Shaw is typical. He lives in Rawmarsh in my constituency, and works at Avesta in Sheffield. He, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation branch secretary and other colleagues have been heavily involved in work force and management partnerships in the past five years to introduce new shift patterns, new working teams and new levels of productivity and profitability. However, in the summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, the firm announced plans to close the mill and move the Sheffield order book to Sweden with the loss of 100 jobs and 100 family incomes.

I regret to say that Avesta is only one of a string of steel companies instituting closures and cuts. Even BSES, a world-class and internationally competitive company, is reducing capacity. However, it is still holding on to its work force, still investing and still looking to the upturn, but the danger lies with downstream companies in South Yorkshire. It lies with the damage that is already in the system but which is still to work through. Supply chains are long, especially in engineering steels.

The local challenge is to do what we can to help people living with the threat of redundancy. In Rotherham, we have pragmatism and resilience, and a proud track record of partnership involving organisations responding to such problems. That has been the root of our recent regeneration efforts, and it is the reason that we want pathfinder area status for Rotherham and the pilot scheme for the new deal for the over-25s.

Although I welcome the efforts of the Minister and his colleagues to set up a rapid response team in the Department of Trade and Industry, and while I applaud the efforts of similar rapid response teams in the borders and in the north-east to deal with large-scale company closures, Rotherham already has such an operation in place. It has an effective partnership to tackle the immediate problems of retraining and resettlement for steel workers who are losing their jobs. It is called Steel Partnership Training, and is based on co-operation nationally between the ISTC, SteelAction and Most Training. With support from the Rotherham ChamberTec and Rotherham council and, crucially, the Employment Service, it has secured RESIDER funding to pay for training for 100 redundant steel workers and those threatened with redundancy.

We are now looking for a further £45,000 to double the number of people with whom we can deal. That money lies in the RESIDER programme funds, and I urge the Minister to help to fast track our bid to secure that cash because we can then match it from other sources. If we can fast release these funds, action can be taken while workers are still on notice rather than on the dole. If we can secure the funds, in the midst of the maelstrom that is today's global economy, the Government can help individuals whose lives have been overturned by events that are well beyond their control and that of their company.

I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on bringing this subject to the House on a Wednesday morning, but, having spent my whole life in manufacturing, I must deplore some of his comments about the previous Government.

After I left university and before I entered the House, I spent my time in industry, making things and selling them abroad. There was a revolution in Britain during that time, led by British Steel in particular. It was sad that, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said that he had worked for British Steel, he was laughed at. It was a team effort; surely the old class warfare has gone. We need people with skills on the shop floor, and we need people with my hon. Friend's skills in management—that was why the privatised British Steel was such a success.

The revolution liberated the country from the burdens of a rigged labour market that had the law behind it. Corporate taxation was dramatically reduced, which is a lesson that this Government should not forget, to levels that made it worth while staying in this country and investing here, and which brought the extraordinary tide of inward investment that has led to an extra 1 million firms being created. However, I have only three minutes left, so I shall be brief.

It was extraordinary that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) led an attack on Eddie George, who is in charge of the Bank of England, when he wants to join the euro. If the Chancellor wants to get rid of Eddie George, it is at least in his power to do so. If we joined the euro, we could never get rid of Mr. Duisenberg. We should be just one little voice, one of a dozen.

I find it extraordinary that, after the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism, for which our party has apologised but for which the Labour and Liberal parties have not, the Labour party wishes to put itself in a concrete box when it comes to exchange rates, so that a small, unelected group of people whom we can never remove will decide interest rates and exchange rates that will hit the work force of Rotherham.

The hon. Member for Rotherham cast some aspersions on the framework of shareholder capitalism which has proved successful in the western world, but he did not come up with an alternative.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a Government partnership, but, as far as I could tell, that boiled down to an exchange of information and a plea for funds to help with redundancies. Was he hinting that the Government should take back shareholdings in companies such as British Steel, or that a Government bank should be set up to provide soft loans? What is the Government partnership that the hon. Gentleman was talking about? There was also some knockabout stuff criticising shareholder capitalism, which brought so much prosperity to the western world and whose absence caused so much catastrophe in eastern Europe.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also mentioned unmanaged trade flows, and made some dangerous comments about dumping. Having spent much of my career exporting and importing, I am extremely alarmed by some of the noises being made here today. I include in that the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who I know believes in trade blocs.

In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a catastrophic shrinking of world trade by the raising of import barriers. I have spent much of my life battling to open up foreign markets to goods in my industry, with the help of European partners. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will be looking to open up another GATT round? The previous Government played a heroic role in getting important duties reduced around the world, and the Uruguay round was crowned by the establishment of the World Trade Organisation.

The hon. Member for Rotherham was absolutely right to mention Serbian steel, which I expect receives huge Government subsidies. Will the Minister tell us today that Britain will be leading the way in demanding another GATT round?

Finally, on energy, in the relaxed atmosphere of today's Adjournment debate, will the Minister answer the question that I have asked him twice before at Question Time? What leads Government energy policy? Is it the cheapest possible energy which will give the workers of Rotherham a chance to compete in the world, is it his own old commitment to the producer interests and protecting jobs, or is it Kyoto and keeping the world clean? Will the Minister think carefully, and give me a straight answer?

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing today's Adjournment debate. We have had a serious and sombre discussion of an important topic, in which hon. Members have brought their particular concerns about the current position of the steel industry to the attention of the House. Behind it, however, stalks the wider agenda of what the Victorians would have called political economy, and those points were interestingly rehearsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who takes a very clear view, which I do not share, but which we should consider.

The steel industry is an excellent industry, which has reformed itself out of all recognition, but it is in real difficulties. Despite those difficulties, there is a positive undertow, and a wish on all sides that it should succeed. Although nobody talks now about the commanding heights of the economy, steel remains extremely important. British Steel alone employs nearly 40,000 people, and, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said, there is a huge downstream, which reaches even into constituencies such as mine, in fabrication, processing and stockholding. So there is a very large multiplier, and the industry remains central to our economy, just as—as I have always believed—manufacturing is a vital part of our economy.

The investment programme is exemplary, representing some £350 million a year for the industry as a whole. It has enabled us to move from commodity steel to specialist steel, while supplying across the range. It has resulted in a much better productivity record than the British average on manufacturing industry. It shows, for example, that the cost of making steel in 1998 is the same as it was in 1990, which is pretty good considering the lapse of time. It shows that exports have increased from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. of output and that we are a world player. British Steel is arguably second, third or fourth in the world, depending on the particular year.

Yet, despite what I readily acknowledge has been achieved by the industry, its employees and its unions, there is a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), with his direct experience of the industry, said, had we not privatised the industry, its circumstances would not have enabled it to put its house in order. It continues to do that, as it cannot be a one-off but requires a continuing programme, yet the breakthrough to continuing success eludes it for some other reason embedded in what we have been saying about political economy.

I would quarrel with one or two remarks by the hon. Member for Rotherham. In particular, for new Labour he took an uncharacteristically churlish view of the role of profits and the importance of the share price. Despite the market operation to which he referred, the share price of British Steel has reduced by something like 80 per cent. reducing market capitalisation. If the share price is not buoyant, it will be more difficult to raise capital in future.

So there is an underlying problem, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. I have a fellow feeling with one or two hon. Members on both sides in relation to exchange rate policies, particularly monetary policy. As the hon. Member for Rotherham was speaking—and I did not have the facility to check—I wondered whether he had voted against the Bank of England Act 1998, as I did. I know that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who are in their places, also voted against it.

Frankly, Labour Members have wished the problem on themselves. They opted for a strict monetary policy, possibly to restrain themselves from the temptations of inflation. That has had direct effects on the exchange rate, which in turn have had direct effects on manufacturing industry, particularly the steel sector. British Steel's briefing, prepared some months ago, said rather eloquently:

"No-one disputes that the control of UK inflation by the blunt instrument of six interest rate increases since May 1997"—

one of those has since been rescinded—

"has continued to impact with disproportionate severity on Britain's manufacturing sector (where inflationary pressures are, in contrast to much of the services sector, negligible)."

There we have it. It has made a huge difference, and has been accompanied by the Chancellor's increases in taxation, his attacks on savings and the impact on company pension plans that has yet to be fully realised. British Steel spends about £60 million a year on its pension fund. It will not have its new actuarial valuation until next year, but that will impact directly on what has to be provided.

Although the industry is doing well, the exchange rate is fighting and frustrating improvement, making it difficult for the steel industry to trade. When Labour Members say, sometimes from the Front Bench, that some of the exchange rate appreciation took place under the previous Conservative Government, one has to make the point that the bid at the margin has run back in the past couple of months, yet the prospect for manufacturing industry continues to deteriorate. For example, three mills shut recently.

It may not all be the fault of the Government. They cannot be held to blame for the problems in the Korean economy and the flood of steel from Asia. Whether or not it is dumped is a matter for the European authorities to examine. However, we can blame the Government not only for their failures in macroeconomic policy, but for their determination to ratchet up the cost of British industry at a difficult time, making it even less competitive, despite the problems that hon. Members have identified.

Let me single out two issues within my remit and responsibility. The first relates to employment costs, where there is a whole package of measures, including the working time directive, the minimum wage and the fairness at work proposals. One could fairly say that the Government used the engineering industry almost as a template for the introduction of the minimum wage. As they said, not many people pay that little in engineering, but, as we now know, with outsourcing, many other industries feed into the steel sector, both as customers and as suppliers and sources of services to the industry.

The costs that will come through such packages will have an impact not just on the service industries—once memorably called, in another forgotten phrase, the "candy-floss economy"—but on the real world of manufacturing industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that none of the measures introduced by the Government has made the customers of British Steel in this country more competitive, and that there should be a ban on any further moves that would increase the costs of small businesses?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.

The energy sector is important. It is no good saying, "We have got to do Kyoto," without considering the gas industry. The Government have shown that they are not prepared to encourage gas-fired power to help us to meet the Kyoto targets, so further strain will be put on the rest of manufacturing industry, which will be required to cut its emissions. There is a cost and an environmental impact.

As shown by this morning's news about Rover—a major steel user—the alarm bells in manufacturing industry are ringing. The Minister must reassure us that he is not heading straight for the iceberg.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for introducing the debate. For anyone who says that economic debate has left the Chamber, today's example of the use of parliamentary time has been superlative. We have started a debate here. I am delighted that manufacturing is again being debated in the Chamber. I say "again", because I led a debate on manufacturing. One of the commentators on "Question Time" the other night said that my town of Leeds was an old textile town. It is not. Leeds has been in engineering for the whole of the 20th century. That is the key to my constituency and my city.

The Government are committed to manufacturing, engineering and technology. I was asked whether we were committed to investing in excellence in manufacturing. For most of my life, I have been fed up with hearing manufacturing referred to as if it were a 19th-century practice. The technology, innovation, imagination and creativity in British manufacturing belong in the 21st century. We will champion those industries.

I should like to say a positive word about the importance of steel as an economic force in its own right. We have to confront economic pressures and issues related to skills, training, unfair dumping and the reform of the pool to deal with artificially high electricity prices. I want to respond as positively as I can to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham's proposal for a round table.

I do not have time to respond to all the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to H. H. Robertsons. I know that he has had meetings with Ministers. I shall take that forward in the light of his comments this morning. I shall also look into the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) about "Fairness at Work".

In the past year, I have attended meetings of the group of steel Members of Parliament, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and visited steel companies. Those meetings, in which the ISTC and Steel Action are often involved, have been positive and helpful in difficult circumstances, and serve as a model of how to proceed.

I should like to keep emphasising that we attach great importance to our manufacturing industry. Some 4 million people work in manufacturing. It is important also because of its innovation, its generation of new technologies and the fact that its output is still one fifth of gross domestic product. Manufacturing is how we will make our future.

I do not want the north to be set against the south—manufacturing against services. We should be looking for integration, accepting that both sectors are vital. I recognise the major role of the steel industry and its products in underpinning almost all manufacturing. Steel is not just a material—it is an economic force.

I should like to mention briefly the development of world-class, lightweight, stronger materials for the automotive industry, including new products such as the ultra-light steel auto body project. Later today, I shall be at the motor show in Birmingham, where I shall visit the British Steel stand to see its contribution to technology, industry and the economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham talked about clusters of economic success. We should focus on them more readily. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and others praised those who work in the industry, who are the reason why it is one of the cleanest, most innovative and efficient steel industries in the world. In the past 20 years, productivity has risen more than fourfold, while the amount of energy needed to produce a tonne of steel has been reduced by about one third. Our productivity compares favourably with that of Japan and the United States. The steel industry's export performance is still remarkable by any standards.

However, as has rightly been stressed during the debate, we must face economic realities, and recognise that current economic conditions are difficult. The current difficulties in the world economy show the importance of pursuing policies that help us to steer a course of domestic economic stability. The Government are taking action to build a stable economy capable of sustained and steady growth, allowing businesses to move ahead with confidence, in contrast to the boom-and-bust, stop-go economics of the 1980s and early 1990s, when interest rates reached 15 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. It is worth reminding ourselves of that occasionally. We are working hard to sort out the mess that we inherited.

I recognise that the strength of sterling and the financial difficulties in Asia and Russia are causing particular difficulties for manufacturers and exporters, particularly the steel industries. We have to take the long-term view, not let short-term pressures lead us back to the policies that produced the boom and bust of the past. The short-term fixes of the previous Administration did not work. We are laying the foundations for economic growth by putting economic management on to a more stable, long-term footing. We are encouraging investment and productivity growth and helping people from welfare to work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said.

Global forecasts are being revised down across the world. One quarter of the world, including Japan, is in recession, and no country is immune from the current instability in the world economy. We must ensure that we do not go back to protectionism, and that world markets are kept open. We need openness and transparency in financial transactions, with proper supervision and regulation.

More positively, we are also addressing the fundamental structural weaknesses that have held the economy back. It is appropriate that the university for industry, which focuses on re-skilling during a person's working life, is to be located in Sheffield. I think that that was announced this morning, and I can confirm it. I also praise the steel industry's excellent training record. One of the keys to competitiveness is skills training. Intensive investment in training has played a major part in the success of the steel industry. British Steel continues to invest heavily, providing significant amounts of training to ensure that all staff have the necessary skills. The industry was one of the first to have its national training organisation recognised by the Department for Education and Employment when NTOs were introduced in 1997.

British Steel has understood the need for training in a way that other industries have not. It is a model of how to proceed. British Steel has also understood that exporting is not simply a matter of selling products cheaply. Success requires investment in innovation, efficiency and training.

We have to get the framework right. We are working on building partnerships with the steel industry, as with other manufacturers. The agenda includes science, engineering and technology, the spread of innovation, new processes and new ways of doing things, the availability of finance for investment in research and development and the creation of a culture that builds on and uses the new knowledge-driven economies, integrating new technologies and telecommunications as a means of revitalising our manufacturing base.

Our commitment to that partnership includes taking an active part in defending the steel industry from illegal trade practices, unfair competition and illegal subsidies to its competitors. Where such practices are shown to exist, we shall campaign rigorously on behalf of the industry, and will represent it.

As I said in an intervention, we are tackling the wholesale market, which is a complex business. Electricity prices are determined by a pool. We have got on with tackling the matter; we asked the regulator to look at it. He has reported and we have accepted the broad shape of his response. We are pressing the regulator and a team of people on the issue. The regulator has appointed a person radically to overhaul the pool mechanism, to ensure that electricity prices for industry are brought down and it is not priced out by artificially high prices. The industry is, of course, regulated, so capping is a matter for the regulator, whom the Government do not tell directly what to do.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that the regulator—the director general—is closely monitoring developments. If it appears that prices are rising without good reason, arrangements can be reconsidered. We shall keep an eye on that. On average—I know that it is not fair on the steel industry to say this—price pressure will be downwards.

Order. We must turn to the next debate.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I recall that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who opened the previous debate, secured a debate on the BBC's obligations to Parliament on 11 March. It is largely in that context that I shall draw attention to yet another development in the relationship between the BBC and the House.

I suspect that, regardless of whatever else appears on BBC television and radio reports this evening, there will be no report of this debate. The corporation is extremely embarrassed by its failure to fulfil its public service broadcasting commitments to give proper emphasis to Parliament's role in the political life of the nation. In the past few days, I have been subjected to a stream of letters and memoranda—I suspect that other hon. Members have, too—which betray the BBC's embarrassment and defensive posture.

Hon. Members will recall the dumbing down of Radio 4, including the exile of "Today in Parliament", "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" to relatively inaccessible times and wavelengths. That was the theme of the debate secured by the hon. Member for Rotherham on 11 March.

I feel that I cannot take part in a second Adjournment debate today, so I beg hon. Members to excuse my absence from a debate on an issue that is dear to me. I support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Has he seen the remarkable quotation from Miss Polly Toynbee, who said when "Yesterday in Parliament" was booted off "Today" that it was a jolly good thing because everyone was fed up with hearing Members of Parliament on that programme? Now she has recanted and said that "Today" after 8.30 am has become incredibly boring and that please could the voices of distinguished Back Benchers, such as those present—excluding myself—be heard once again. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his debate.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is present. I hope that hon. Members have seen his early-day motion on the subject.

The fears that were expressed in March about the treatment of parliamentary proceedings by Radio 4 have been entirely justified. We have already been forewarned that audience figures, which are coming out this week, will show that not only we, but much more importantly, the listeners, think that the BBC was wrong to replace a debate between parliamentarians with some insipid discussion in the studio. That has proved a disaster.

I note with interest that, in pointing out the hits and misses of Radio 4's changes, yesterday's edition of The Independent identified specifically such final-section debates on "Today" between 8.30 and 9 am—when we used to attract a very good audience. Those ratings appear to have collapsed. We shall no doubt hear from Mr. James Boyle later this week about how disastrous his changes have been. If they are as disastrous as has been widely forecast, I hope that, in the best traditions of the corporation, his resignation offer will shortly be on the director general's desk.

Since such events, there has been a further slaughter of the BBC's coverage of the House. At the very end of July, when there were but two days before the summer recess, it announced some further major cuts. Until July, in addition to the political teams located in each distinct part of the United Kingdom, a dedicated journalist worked full time at the Millbank studios to ensure that every relevance of Parliament to each region was identified, reported and explained. Members of all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—benefited from their special knowledge, professionalism and close liaison with our work in this place. Most importantly, listeners and viewers received the service for which they were paying.

On 29 July—immediately before the summer recess—Members of Parliament received a letter from the BBC outlining the proposed changes. The letter stated that the BBC was recruiting

"ten political editors, one for each region in England … able to lead the way in person across all our outlets—regional television, local radio and regional text services.

Regional Political Editors will split their time between their regional centres and London, working out of the BBC offices in Millbank, when Parliament is sitting.

We will maintain a team of political journalists to back them up, based full time at Millbank as now, as well as our current local radio political staff in London."

Since my hon. Friend is referring to regions in England, I should like to draw his attention to what is happening in Scotland—which is not, of course, a region. Does he agree that the BBC's reported reluctance to allow Scotland to carry its own 6 o'clock news is contrary to the spirit of devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament next year? Does he agree that that will be seen as a slap in the face for BBC Scotland and its well-produced programmes and quality staff, and will paint the British Broadcasting Corporation as yet another London-based, domineering control machine?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I come from another Celtic country—although we in Cornwall do not aspire to nationhood in quite the same way—and can tell her that we feel exactly the same. The steps that have been taken not only cut costs but are an attempt to metropolitanise the BBC, which is completely contrary to its charter responsibilities.

I return to the explanation given to Members of Parliament in July and the letter that was sent to us. The letter purported to suggest that there would be an improvement in regional coverage of Parliament. It said, for example:

"This important development can only be for the good. It will put in place a more effective system of political coverage and one with which you … will find easier to liaise.

It will ensure major political regional developments are covered more comprehensively, with greater authority, and that the information reaches our regional and local centres quickly, and from there to our listeners and viewers".

That is wishful thinking. The new arrangements, as they have been set out, can only be to the detriment of the BBC's regional coverage and will not offer viewers and listeners the quality of output to which we have become accustomed.

The timing of the announcement was exceptionally reminiscent of the worst media management of successive Ministers. The BBC set out plans for parliamentary coverage just as the House was rising for the summer and, indeed, as its staff were leaving Millbank to do jobs in other parts of the country, or to go on holiday. In a letter to Ariel, the BBC's in-house magazine, members of the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—BECTU—wrote:

"The announcement that the regional political editor's post and that of the regional Westminster correspondent were to be scrapped and replaced by a new post seems to have been timed deliberately to forestall discussion by both staff and MPs, coming as it did three days before the summer recess, just as all concerned were leaving for their summer holidays."

Those very astute political observers have spotted that their own bosses have been playing the games of media manipulation that we are used to from Ministers.

The claim that those cuts will strengthen political coverage is, in my view, deliberately misleading. I can imagine what Lord Reith would say about it. The 10 dedicated political correspondents based full-time at Westminster are to be replaced by four hard-pressed journalists trying to cover the whole United Kingdom. How does that strengthen the BBC's coverage of Parliament and politics?

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) went to Millbank for an interview, only to be confronted by utter chaos. If other hon. Members have been over there in the past two or three days, they will know that the place is rundown, and depressed and dispirited as a result. No one seemed to know what was going on, and no one had any knowledge of the area.

BBC journalists themselves—we must assume that they are of the highest possible calibre, because the BBC management keeps telling us that they are—have today issued Members with a National Union of Journalists brief from its chapel about the debate:

"The BBC is representing this change as an 'enhancement' of regional political coverage. This is not the case. What the BBC failed to point out, in its letter to MPs last July, is that the 10 existing posts of Westminster Correspondents, based at 4, Millbank have been abolished. They will be replaced, eventually, by a team of four journalists at Millbank, working in support of the Regional Editors. They will not represent any particular region, and therefore will not be able to maintain individual contact with the region's MPs.

The BBC sought to give the impression that the new Political Editors would be working from Westminster during Parliamentary term time. This is not the case. With their commitments in their regions, and taking into account travelling time, it is unlikely that they will be able to pay more than occasional visits to Westminster. Also, the facilities available to them at Westminster will be cut back. Coverage of Parliament is therefore bound to suffer.

The BBC says it wants to base coverage of politics in the regions themselves. We feel, with one person expected to cover politics from both ends of the country simultaneously, coverage will inevitably suffer. The NUJ believes this to be a cost-cutting exercise".

As a former member of the NUJ, I regard that as an accurate and level-headed account that in no way exaggerates the situation.

As for the claim that the appointment of political journalists in each region will offer us all a one-stop shop for contact—

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene now. I apologise for the fact that I have to be somewhere else shortly, but I am pleased to be here for his speech. Does he agree—the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting may or may not agree, but even if she does she is hardly likely to say so—that the chaos at the BBC has reached such a state that the director general and the chairman should consider their position?

Do not the developments in regional reporting that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing, stem largely from the way in which the BBC has done its best to undermine the national reporting of Parliament? "Yesterday in Parliament", which we have debated several times, provides an example. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC is treating Parliament with utter contempt?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience of such matters, and I think that he will agree that the present situation is unprecedented. Indeed, the appearance of BBC representatives before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport yesterday confirmed that there has been a major breakdown in Parliament's confidence in the way in which the corporation is run. I should add that I spoke to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), yesterday, and he wished to be here for the debate but cannot attend. I think that he too would endorse our views.

I shall use my region, the south-west, to illustrate the way in which the rundown of our service is likely to affect the quality of the output of the BBC. We already have in the region an excellent and experienced political editor. There is no change in that respect, no improvement. How can that man be expected to be in Plymouth and Westminster at the same time, and to cover late-breaking stories—a familiar experience in both places? Indeed, late-breaking stories are an experience with which every hon. Member will be familiar, because they happen in all parts of the country. It is beyond me that such an arrangement should be even contemplated, let alone attempted.

It takes about four and a half hours for the political editor to travel from the studio in Plymouth to the studio in Westminster. Within that time, even with modern communications—especially as Great Western Trains seems to be conspiring to try to make the time even longer, and most of the line seems to be out of contact for mobile telephones—he cannot keep abreast of developments in this place day by day and hour by hour, let alone minute by minute.

Stories break suddenly, as we all know, and events take place that are of great significance to our constituents. Such is life in politics. I fear that all too often, when something is happening in the south-west, the editor will be on a train, or here, and that when something is happening here, he will be on a train, or in the region. That is inevitable. Even when he appears at Westminster, he will have to compete at the Millbank studios with nine other editors, and the resident journalists, for three or four desks and a limited number of camera crews.

The whole operation is being run down to danger point, and starved of the necessary resources. Even if we are lucky and the political editor is at Westminster and available for an interview, there is no guarantee that he will have the facilities and the support crew that he needs.

Such practical concerns have not been thoroughly thought through by management, despite the long time for which they have been gestated. No one has explained convincingly to me or to anyone else in this place, or to the staff of the BBC, how the logistics of the new operation will work.

It is by no means clear what the four full-time journalists—the quartet who are left of the original 10—will do. So few people cannot be expected to keep in contact with all 659 Members of Parliament, let alone people in the other place, and their own regional political editors. There will be no specialisation, and no geographical or regional expertise available either to the regional editors or to ourselves.

Both radio and television coverage of Parliament will undoubtedly suffer as a result. I am especially concerned about the effects on Back Benchers. The parties, and certainly the Government, have access to a huge number of opportunities to ensure that their views are broadcast—and don't we all know it. For Back Benchers, however, making connections and forming a continuing professional relationship with a journalist who knows something about our constituencies and our regions is crucial.

I suspect that the BBC is once again, perhaps unconsciously, playing into the hands of the Government. It is the official view from Downing street and Whitehall that is most likely to be heard, rather than the views of Members, in all parts of the House, who may take a differing view.

Under the old regime, until the end of July, all Back Benchers had to do was contact somebody whom we already knew in Millbank to organise a discussion of the issues of the day. We could feel confident that he or she would know the background and something about our area, our constituencies and our special interests. He or she would also be aware of what was happening here, and its relevance to what was happening in the region. The connections would be made; one did not have to give a long explanation of where Cornwall is, or why Scotland is important. The journalist would already know; that would be part of the job. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives discovered yesterday, if one goes to the studios now, there is no guarantee that there will be anyone there who knows anything about our activities either here or in the region.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) first heard about the proposals, independently of my own representations he wrote to the BBC as follows:

"We also have a dedicated political correspondent at Westminster … This person is the one that we would deal with on a daily basis. I regularly see him about the House of Commons, we exchange political information in that form, he is always available on the 'phone when stories are breaking, he can be relied on to see what is going on in The Gallery so I do not have to inform him every time I make an intervention or a speech, and most important he is well aware of the developing stories in the South West, their origin and the way in which they look like developing for the future."

Every hon. Member here will have a similar experience, and will be able to say that in the past the BBC has been able to take the temperature in the House in a reasonably effective way.

Most important of all, the BBC has failed to consult the House, either through individual Members of Parliament or through the House authorities. I know that Madam Speaker has made direct representations to the chairman of the BBC in the past about the lack of consultation, and I believe that the timing of the announcement at the end of July showed what the BBC thinks of her, of the House and of us as Members of it.

In my role shadowing the Leader of the House for my party, I have come across no one who shares the view that this move will—in the words of the BBC—

"put in place a more effective system of political coverage."

I find no one who thinks that Members of Parliament will find it easier to liaise. I find no one who thinks that it will ensure that major political and regional developments are covered more comprehensively. Quite the contrary; everyone to whom I have spoken, in all parties, regards the proposals—on top of the other earlier reductions in the quality and accessibility of our coverage this year—as yet more dumbing down of Parliament and politics.

This morning, a publication entitled "Our Commitment to You: The BBC's Statement of Promises to Viewers and Listeners" arrived on my desk. Other Members may have seen it. I have looked through it quickly, and the word "Parliament" does not appear in the publication's 24 pages. Indeed, I can find no reference to politics or political activity. It is as though the BBC is saying that this place does not matter, and it is an insult that it should send such material at this time.

If the hon. Gentleman were to look carefully in the section detailing the specific promises for this year, he would find that under No. 5—this may be the nearest we get to politics—the BBC promises to

"devise programmes which respond to devolution and political change in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has examined the document with even more care than me. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the word "Parliament" does not appear—not even in the context of the Scottish Parliament.

Quite apart from the BBC's intention, there is continuing confusion about the planned level of staffing. Since the original letter to which I have referred—sent on 28 July to Members of Parliament—the BBC has clearly panicked. Even after the limited response that the BBC received during the parliamentary recess from Members of Parliament, it panicked in the face of the immediate and unanimous concerns that were voiced. The latest briefing that I have been sent claims:

"there is the option—still the subject of negotiation—of having up to nine full-time regional correspondents, albeit on a lower grade."

That has just popped out of the air in the past few days. It may be that, for once, someone is listening to Members of Parliament. I hope so, because this is a serious issue.

We do not know whether this move is all part of a ratings war with ITV, satellite and cable, or just a cost-cutting exercise to feed the voracious appetite of the coming digital revolution. Journalists believe it is the latter; I believe it may be a combination of the two.

If the BBC does not take Parliament seriously, why should we support the continuation of the licence fee? If it does not take us seriously, why should we take it seriously? Whatever else may happen, the BBC will still look to us to support it when the charter and licence arrangements are reviewed in the next few months. The chairman, governors and top management should be warned that Parliament will not take seriously their efforts to persuade us to recognise their public service role if they continue to undervalue Parliament.

The BBC's war of attrition in terms of its coverage of our affairs must end if the corporation is to continue to enjoy special privileges. If it cannot guarantee effective parliamentary and political reportage at all levels, it cannot claim to remain Britain's national broadcaster, and it must give way to someone else.

I believe, as do Members of Parliament and most members of the public, that Parliament is still the heart of our democratic system. The Speaker has warned the BBC on a number of occasions that it is out of touch with opinion here and in the country if it fails to recognise that. I hope that it heeds that warning before it is too late.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on gaining this Adjournment debate on an important subject. The hon. Gentleman referred to the early-day motion that I managed to table on the last day before the long summer recess. The subject of it was brought to my attention by someone who knew what was happening in the BBC; we were not privy to that.

I am sure that Members will understand how difficult it is on the last day before the recess—indeed, the last afternoon—to get six Members of Parliament together, explain to them what is going on, win their trust and get them to put their signatures to an early-day motion. I am delighted that I was able to do so on an all-party basis. It is important that Members of all parties in the House believe that regional input into what we do here is important.

In my view, the three most important words in terms of the BBC are "public service obligation". The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the licence fee. We must justify why we tax every household in the land—I assume most have television sets—to the tune of £100 for the licence fee for the BBC, which will go up.

In her previous exalted position on the Opposition Back Benches, the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting said that the BBC ought to do a lot more to offer pensioners a reduced licence fee. Since she has got into a position to do something about it, she has changed her position somewhat. Perhaps we will hear something from her about that matter later. However, we thought that the licence fee bore heavily upon certain licence payers.

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is our intention to set up a panel next year to review the BBC licence fee. We have made it plain in correspondence with hon. Members from all parties that that review will include a detailed consideration of the current arrangements for licence fee concessions.

I am delighted to learn that—it may be breaking news. All Members of Parliament get constituents at our surgeries who find it difficult to understand why some obtain a concession down to being charged £5 for the licence fee while others in similar circumstances do not. The BBC will be listening carefully to what the Minister has said.

Since the early-day motion was tabled, we have been privy to information from the BBC. I have read carefully what the BBC's Michael Hastings has had to say. He is a great man but he is trying to justify the unjustifiable, although I am sure that the matter has just landed on his plate. I suspect that he had as little consultation on the re-arrangement of regional reporting as we had—which, of course, was little to none. However, his justification is pretty thin.

The BBC has already tried to marginalise the House of Commons through the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". We were all told what a great thing that would be—we would have a much longer programme. However, the reality is that fewer people are able to listen to it. We were told that people did not want to listen because we were all boring and that they were switching off. I could imagine that some people may think us boring, but it could also have had something to do with the time of the programme. People were going to work and doing other things, and they were not able to sit and listen to it. Therefore, fewer people were able to our listen directly to our quotes on "Yesterday in Parliament."

People could argue that a wide choice is now available, with more channels and digital television. Yesterday saw the launch of BBC Parliament, the running channel made available on cable, satellite and digital on which people will be able to see non-stop coverage of the House of Commons. Few are able to see what is going on in the House of Commons currently, and the change is taking place now.

The suspicion might be that all the changes at the BBC—such as the enormous investment in the internet, which has produced some superb pages, and all the extra channels going on to digital—are costing a lot of money. The BBC is cash-limited by the licence fee, and it cannot take advertising. It is limited in terms of how it can raise revenue. One way it can do so is by chopping back and by saving money elsewhere. The BBC is saving money at the expense of the reporting of regional aspects of what is happening at Westminster.

As has been said, Front-Bench Members have enormous opportunities to be on the news at 1 o'clock and 9 o'clock and to be on various other radio stations throughout the day. They get a good hit at such broadcasting. Also, all our front players have the opportunity to appear on "On the Record". Regional reporting is completely different and it gives us an opportunity to air what we are doing here on behalf of our constituents back home. Sending journalists from London to our areas will not help us much.

The trust that is built up between regional journalists and Members of Parliament has been mentioned. In six years, I have got to know regional journalists from all the channels well, including the BBC. That trust cannot be fathomed or weighed. One cannot say, "This is what it is worth," but we know that it is worth a lot. One can pick up the telephone, talk to the regional journalist and know that what one is saying will be heard in confidence. Suggestions may be made and the journalist may be able to assist by getting a programme together or doing a piece on the issue concerned and on what the Member of Parliament is saying about it in the House. If the number of regional journalists working in the House is reduced to a mere handful, with all the others working in the regions, it will be difficult to build up the same sort of rapport with such a small group. The journalists will be snowed under, given our extra work load and all the extra issues with which we seem to be involved. Members of Parliament are already snowed under and the case load seems to increase every Session. The same must apply to journalists.

I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to see "News 24", the new 24-hour rolling news programme from the BBC. It is good in parts, but not good enough. I have argued that the programme could use much of the regional reporting from here, so that all the United Kingdom has a better understanding of what is going on in our country. It is all very well having good-quality programming for the regions, but why not share it out more and put some of it on "News 24", thereby making the cost of some of the reports on it more economic. As we know, news reporting is expensive. I hope that the BBC will reconsider that suggestion.

The regions have already suffered. In my area, we receive BBC's "North Westminster", on which the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting has appeared from time to time, and very good she is, too. A few years ago her wonderful appearances on that programme used to be aired twice, on the Sunday edition, which went out live, and again on the mid-week repeat. The latter had more viewers than the Sunday edition, but it was chopped. There again, a smaller audience will be left to see what we are doing at Westminster and find out what issues we are fighting for.

The BBC has made a mistake. The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that it is now rushing about, trying to plug holes and to placate us, but we are not for placating on this issue. We are fighting not for ourselves but for our constituents, who watch regional programmes and who want to know what we are doing. They write to us and from time to time they want to see us on regional television to ensure that their voices are being heard at Westminster, where it is important.

The hon. Gentleman touches on a crucial issue. Does he agree that it is not merely that our constituents want to see what we are doing, but that they are incredibly interested in highlighting the issues that they hold so dear, especially in the regions?

I agree. These are not merely the issues that interest us but those that the people in the regions feed to us—the issues about which they write to us, campaign and form lobby groups. We use regional journalists at Westminster, with whom we have built up trust, to get our constituents' views aired on the BBC on a regional basis, according to the public service obligation for which all our constituents pay their licence fee.

We want some balance. We want the BBC to reconsider. A few years ago, if the BBC was famous for anything, it was for its repeats. Let it look again at its decisions. Where it has made mistakes, let it concede that it has done so. Let the BBC concede that it has rushed this decision through without any proper consultation, that it has made mistakes about "Yesterday in Parliament" and let it change its mind. Let it ensure that there is a real improvement in the regional slant of the reporting of Westminster, so that we can air the issues and campaigns that matter most to our constituents. The only way in which we can properly do so is by consulting with regional journalists based here, with whom we build up trust and whom we see daily—not merely fleetingly every two or three weeks in the Lobby, when so many other people want to see them—so that we can get our views across on the BBC.

The Minister talked about the review of the licence fee. I ask her to use pressure to remind the BBC of its public service obligation. That is the reason why home owners and the taxpayer have to pay the licence fee in the first place—so that the BBC can cover in detail areas that would not be appropriate for commercial stations. Today, we are saying that the BBC is wrong and should think again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate, as it is vital that the matter be given a proper airing in the House, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to speak about it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), not only on his speech, with which I entirely agreed, but on his efforts and prompt action in the dark days at the end of July when any sensible person had gone back to his or her constituency to prepare for the holidays but some of us benighted souls were still here to sign the early-day motion that he pressed upon us in the corridors.

This has not been a good week for the BBC, what with the loss of the cricket coverage, the savaging by a Select Committee, the adventures of "Blue Peter" and the evidence that some presenters have an affection for more than sticky-backed plastic, and now this debate on the BBC's regional coverage. It is terribly easy for us to sound pompous on this subject and for it to be suggested that we feel passionately about it because we like hearing our own voices on the BBC. Let us be honest: there may be an element of that. We like to be able to project what we are saying to the people we represent.

However, there are far more important issues at stake for people in the regions—the service that the British Broadcasting Corporation provides for them. There are two main elements to their concern. The first is public service broadcasting, its ethos and what it means to have a BBC—something for which many of us have argued strongly and which we want protected and enhanced because it is such an important element of our national structure.

I do not like the term "dumbing down", which has been used this morning. It is an example of dumbing down to introduce that Americanism. However, we all share the feeling that the BBC is retreating from the intellectual and moral high ground that it was once able to occupy. There is a sense that it no longer aims any higher than catering for the lowest common denominator; that is not the role of the BBC, either under its charter or historically.

I also believe that the BBC has been deeply patronising in what it has suggested about parliamentary coverage and the public's interest in what happens in this place. It assumes that people are interested only in bread and circuses. I do not believe that that is so, but it is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy—if that is all that people are given access to, how can they develop an interest in politics and in the arguments in this House that will have a dramatic impact on their everyday lives?

One has only to look at other countries to see the great hunger for information about politics that is engendered where one may not expect it. Yesterday, I returned from the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where I was monitoring the elections. There, where democracy is young and the public have had little opportunity to hold their politicians to account, people are remarkably well informed and understand the nuances of political argument, as their national broadcasting corporation carries daily the debates in their Parliament, the Sobranje.

People listen and want to know the arguments. One could say that that is inevitable in a young democracy in an area of the world that is not known for its stability, but it highlights how patronising it is to say that the British people cannot be interested in politics, or that they cannot understand anything but the most simplistic voting system—it is thought too difficult to put a tick or circle in a different place. The House should condemn such patronising attitudes.

As well as the public service ethos, we should consider the BBC's commitment to our localities and regions, about which, as someone from the west country and a Somerset lad through and through, I feel strongly. I know how far it is from London to the west country, a fact which seems to have eluded those who are based at Westminster. I know that what matters down in Somerset is not the same as what matters to the metropolitan elite in London. What we believe to be important is as valid as what people in London believe to be important—the issues that we want to raise are important.

I am sure that, like many of us, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has come across people who assume that the distance between Penzance and Swindon is about five miles, that places past Slough are only a short trip away from one another and that anywhere in Somerset cannot be far from a broadcasting studio in Bristol even though it may be an hour and a quarter away. People are not aware of the geography of the area.

As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, the BBC has a duty to inform people of what we, as Members of Parliament, are doing on their behalf. We are not sent to Westminster to disappear from the map, not to be seen until the next election. Many hon. Members spend a lot of time ensuring that they are in touch with their constituents so that they can express their views in the House—but where is the feedback if not through the media? How do our constituents know what we are doing, or trying to do, and achieving, or not achieving, on their behalf? That is an important element in the democratic process.

My concern is not only political coverage; there is also a shrinkage in general coverage within the localities. My example is parochial, although I make no apology for that. Somerset Sound, which is an opt-out from Radio Bristol—we never qualified for a radio station of our own—used to provide a number of hours of local broadcasting from Taunton each day. Recently, those hours have been substantially reduced. We no longer have an afternoon programme from Taunton; it now comes from Bristol. I do not believe that that is because there is no demand. People want local news and views, and Bristol news, Bristol views and even a Bristol accent are not the same as Somerset news, Somerset views and a Somerset accent.

The link-up was made with no consultation with me or my colleagues who represent the Somerset constituencies—there was no attempt to reconcile us to the change. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took up the matter, he received a remarkably candid reply from the managing editor, for whom I have considerable respect—I know that she is strongly committed to our local services. She said that her problem was money; she had not been given the budget to provide the local services in Somerset to which the BBC is, in theory, committed and which it should provide as part of its public service.

The lack of regional coverage poses three threats. First—I do not want to be too pompous—there is a threat to democracy, as local people are being further distanced from the political process and will understand it less; they will not be able to know what we are doing on their behalf and so will find it more difficult to hold us to account. Moreover, it will be more difficult properly to discuss local issues, as what starts as a local campaign seems to evaporate into the ether, never to be mentioned again. Secondly, there is a threat to local identity, as local broadcasting—and the knowledge that people are intimately concerned with the area and want to represent its views—is at least part of that local identity.

Thirdly and most importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, there is a threat to the BBC. If the BBC cannot provide local and regional coverage and does not live up to the public service ethos for which it was created, what is it doing and why should we impose a tax to pay for it? It has a duty to provide intelligent coverage and properly researched comment for all parts of the country, not only for London, and it forgets that at its peril.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and it is right that it should be aired in the House. However, it is a pity that our debates on particular BBC issues turn into BBC-bashing sessions.

I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The BBC's job is to satisfy its audience, who pay for it through the £100 licence fee. If the BBC broadcasts a version of Macedonian television, on which he seems to be so keen, people will not sit round their sets listening to our breathless prose; they will switch to the many hundreds of digital and other channels that they will shortly be able to receive.

According to the hon. Gentleman's thesis—if I understand it correctly—the BBC should be subject to market forces and not receive the licence fee. He cannot have it both ways: either the BBC is a public resource or it is not.

The BBC has to have it both ways. If it fails to deliver substantial audiences, hon. Members and others will say that it should not receive the licence fee, as it provides bad value to those who pay that fee. The BBC walks a tightrope, and we must allow it, in fulfilling its public service obligation—which it does very well—to make sensible editorial judgments.

I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about "Yesterday in Parliament". That programme can now be found on long wave, so that many more people can listen to it—his quality prose can be heard in Belgium, Holland, northern France and the Republic of Ireland as well as in this country.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that while it is possible to listen to long wave in Belgium or wherever, that is not possible in some parts of London, let alone in Cornwall. Has the hon. Gentleman read that the BBC itself has already admitted that its listener figures have collapsed for "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster"? So on the hon. Gentleman's own definition—that all that matters is the number of people listening—the BBC has already made a major mistake.

It does not say much about our performance in the House that we are of such little interest to listeners that they cannot simply click a switch at 8.45. The fact that they cannot do that probably says more about the House than it does about the BBC. I assure the hon. Member that our constituents are not queueing up to see the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on the television. We kid ourselves if we think that the public are fighting to see us on television and to listen to us on the radio: they are not.

Having, I hope, slightly defended the BBC's right to make independent editorial judgments on what it transmits, I go on in part to agree with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about political coverage at Westminster. I am concerned not so much with what the BBC proposes to do as with how it has done it, how it has treated its staff, and to an extent, how it has misled the House in its correspondence. I agree with him entirely that, if the BBC wants to reduce political coverage, it should stand up and say why. It should come to the House and say, "You are all so boring that we don't want to cover you any more", or whatever. Let us have it in the open so that it can be properly debated.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is at least a paradox that commercial television is, as far as I know, retaining all its regional coverage? Can he explain that away?

I am trying to criticise the BBC not for its decision, but for the way in which it arrived at it. It is not my job to defend it. These are the kind of arguments that we should have had with the BBC, not this muddling and misleading correspondence that we had with it before the recess.

The BBC must stand accused of causing a tremendous amount of uncertainty and worry to its regional staff as a result of its decision. The letter that was sent just before the recess gave me the wrong impression that the political editors would be down here in Westminster during the parliamentary Session and travel back for the recess. That manifestly is not the case and not what was planned, but it is what I thought was intended. We will have four gofers in Westminster, and the political editors will have to travel down.

I represent a north-east seat. BBC staff from my area who want to come here will be faced with at least a three-and-a-half-hour train journey to get to London in order to cover a story and a three-and-a-half-hour train journey back, perhaps spending the night in London. The same would apply to the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. It is ludicrous that that should be so. We should ask the BBC—perhaps the Minister can put some pressure on it—to think again about this. If it proposes to do this—as I said, it is entitled to—it should make a proper and open case and explain its rationale. If it is done to save money in order to invest in digital television and new technology, so be it. The BBC has to compete in that world as well.

I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that BBC news 24 hours a day would not be enhanced by long periods showing our debates in the House. Something more attractive will have to be sought. I criticise the BBC for its handling of the matter, but we should not use this debate to attack its integrity and editorial independence.

It is important not to launch into the BBC and also to say that we will have to work with the new structure whatever it is. But against that background I want to make the case strongly for a regional component of the BBC, and to mention in particular the issue of honesty about the changes to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred.

There is a reality lag between large parts of the United Kingdom and Westminster. We all suffer from it when we return from the recess and the world of ordinary folk to the slightly odd world that we inhabit here. Regional correspondents had an important role to fill in bridging that reality gap between, in my case, my constituency in Sheffield and what happens in Westminster. It was that local component, that connection, which made Westminster understandable and intelligible. In some cases, correspondents are better able to explain what happens here than some of us practitioners, who often end up confused.

It is important that the people in the regions see us at work. They want to see all those whom they have elected and whose wages they pay at work, not just members of the Government and prominent parliamentarians, but the Back Benchers who represent them. That is the component most likely to suffer if we take the regional correspondents out, as the BBC has already done.

That connection is apparent when we bump into the correspondents in Central Lobby and refer to something that is happening the next day or next week and ask what is going on. That day-to-day contact is crucial. I can say that something is happening in Sheffield and know the correspondent will be aware of previous debates six months ago, or of the fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had a debate 12 months ago. They can link those up and put together a package which is about Sheffield and Yorkshire rather than simply a hook on to a national news story.

My great fear is that, particularly with the media machine that the Government have skilfully put together, which means that its members get up earlier in the morning than anyone else to get the stories out, and are often dead by midday, an ordinary Back Bencher cannot get on to the back of a national story. We have been shut out and are left with our regional stories. Adjournment debates—there is one later this morning on a crucial issue concerning South Yorkshire—on local issues will always be covered by regional correspondents because they know that the matter is important and will be keeping their eyes open for it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some talented and dedicated reporters have tragically been sacked—for example, Viv Robbins in the west country, who has given faithful service? As my hon. Friend said, such people are more expert than we are.

I agree. Our attachment to our regional correspondents is a testament to the skilful way in which they have done their jobs. I shall not mention any, because I did so in a previous debate and I understand that they currently do not have a contract, so I was obviously not helpful. However, that connection, and the warmth that we feel for them, reflect the fact that Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions on local issues will simply not receive coverage without someone being tuned into them, picking them up and putting them out. With the best will in the world, while we will all try to make the new arrangement work, it will not give staff adequate time to pick up on regional issues.

The way in which the proposals have been sold is shameful. Technology is moving on, but it is often used as an excuse for reducing coverage. Digital television is mentioned and we are told that there is coverage on the internet. I am a great technology fan, and I congratulate the members of staff who have managed to put my name up on the annunciator. There we see technology moving forward. But at the moment digital television and the internet do not have the coverage of terrestrial television. With the best will in the world, we cannot say that, just because we put a debate on the internet or on a digital or cable channel, it will achieve the same coverage as it would on mainstream terrestrial television.

Even the best technology is still dependent on human input and, since my constituency came up wrong on the annunciator, I hope that my hon. Friend, as chairman of the Select Committee on Information, will take note and see that next time it appears as North Cornwall rather than Cornwall, North.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping us with some of the teething troubles. I am sure that that will have been noted by those who are ever vigilant in the annunciator box.

Technology is moving on, but it should not be used as an excuse to take things off terrestrial television. There is an argument which, taken to its logical conclusion, would put all politics on marginal specialised channels within media such as the internet and digital television.

It could be argued that, in terms of the number of hours, coverage has increased, but in terms of real coverage to real people, that does not work. The point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) about long wave versus FM signals is another example of a reality lag. In the real world, people simply do not switch from one to the other. If they are like me, they turn on the radio in the morning and are too bleary-eyed to change a channel on a push-button radio, let alone one with a dial. Moreover, radios commonly do not have long wave. In reality, people turn on the radio and tune to FM because it has a better signal in most parts of the country. Long wave is a distraction; it is not a serious option for people to listen to FM, suddenly to switch over for "Yesterday in Parliament", and then to switch back.

Technology should not be used as an excuse. It would be much more honest to deal with things as I deal with the commercial or independent sector in my region. We have open and honest debates about the role of political coverage, the stories it likes to cover and what is interesting and what is not. It is a pity that the BBC has not been honest and said, "We think that politics is boring and we want to reduce coverage. We only want 'man bites dog' stories because 'dog bites man'—ordinary parliamentary coverage—is no longer attractive enough." If the BBC came to us and said that, we could have a debate on those terms.

Unfortunately, we have had a debate in which the BBC has been saying, "We are expanding coverage, we have many new technologies and everything will be wonderful." In fact, we all suspect that the BBC is making it much harder to achieve the coverage that we want.

We need honesty in the debate, and we need to deal with the mass market versus specialist market interests. We need to deal with the serious broadcasting role of the BBC and its relationship to the licence fee. In that way we would no longer be floundering around, all talking on different terms and pretending that everything is fine in the garden when it is not. Honesty here is essential.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall for initiating this debate. He has done us a service by communicating the views of a range of honourable Members to the BBC. Hopefully, the comments of the Minister will communicate an official viewpoint. If we can get an honest debate, we will be able to come up with the type of regional coverage that will work, rather than making life deliberately difficult for ourselves by having people shunting around on trains or just not coming here at all.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this important debate. He put his argument extremely cogently. I thank all those who participated in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who has been a champion of this cause for some time and who probably knows more about the media than anybody else in the House. I welcome the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to her new role and to the Chamber this morning.

This is a period of rapid change in the media, most notably in the BBC. We are seeing changes taking place in radio and television and we are seeing the move from terrestrial to digital. I am sure that I am not alone in having seen the new parliamentary channel in its digital form being presented by the BBC yesterday. It is impressive, but whether people will watch it in the numbers that parliamentarians may wish remains to be seen.

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a BBC funding review. The Secretary of State is keen on reviews, not all of which are entirely relevant, but we welcome this review in principle. The Secretary of State has said—I think that the House will agree—that the BBC needs to adapt and survive and needs to fulfil its public service obligations. Those are sentiments that the House can endorse as the Secretary of State looks at the funding picture for the BBC in the future.

I shall deal now with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Some months ago—I am sure that I was not alone in this—BBC journalists based at Millbank approached me with great concern about their future. They had heard rumours about the changes, but nothing had been decided at that time. I made inquiries with the BBC at senior managerial level and was given assurances that the concerns were not accurate and, in fact, were misplaced. We now know that those concerns were entirely accurate and that, while those remarks were being refuted, changes were in the pipeline. I regret that.

To echo what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), last week, in view of an impending visit to my constituency by one of the members of the shadow Cabinet, I sought to establish contact with the BBC at Millbank before Parliament resumed. It was impossible to track anybody down. I discovered that the individual with whom I usually dealt had disappeared. What transpired in practice is what we are now going to have to face, which is a reduced staff. The link mentioned by other hon. Members this morning has gone, and I regret that.

We are told that the justification for the change is that it is based upon the successful practice of BBC coverage in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are to be 10 regional political editors, and seven are in place. As we have heard this morning, they will be located in places such as Newcastle, Norwich or wherever. I believe this to be a profound mistake. No part of England is comparable to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Each of those places is evolving a different constitutional architecture and a different political structure. The entities that are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are quite different from England. The justification for the establishment of the regional editors is the alleged success in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a regional political editor coming to London from time to time will be enough. We know that there will be a reduced team.

As I and other hon. Members have said, we have built up strong relationships with the journalists based at Millbank. They know about our interests and our activities and they are on the spot to make judgments about who to approach if a story breaks quickly. That link to Parliament is now being challenged.

There is a clear message—we saw it with the changes to Radio 4—about the view that the BBC is taking of Parliament and parliamentarians. I am concerned about the effect of that in practice because a message has been sent yet again from the BBC about its view of Parliament. I do not believe that it is correct or that it is in the public's long-term interest.

We have already heard about the difficulties over Radio 4. When the changes were first mooted last year, we know that Madam Speaker complained vociferously about the scheduling changes, especially about "Yesterday in Parliament" moving to long wave. Many others echoed those sentiments. We were told that parliamentary coverage was being extended, and we were blinded by all sorts of statistics. When we sum up what happened and what is happening, we can see that there is greater width but an absence of depth. That is the crucial concern.

Tomorrow, RAJAR—Radio Joint Audience Research—will be telling us the latest Radio 4 listenership levels. I have spoken to RAJAR at length, but, quite properly, it did not reveal the figures although there have been leaks in the newspapers. We know already that the pattern that seems to be emerging is that, in absolute and relative terms, listenership is declining. That has come about in part because parliamentary coverage has been messed about and the widening of it has been at the expense of depth. As a result, people are switching off. With the proposals that we now have for television coverage, in addition to the Radio 4 coverage, Parliament will be seen to be even more irrelevant to people's lives. I look forward to the BBC's analysis of the RAJAR figures.

I want to use this opportunity to put things in context. We cannot look at the latest move in isolation. It is part of a pattern of the way in which the BBC projects itself in its public service interest. Undoubtedly, Radio 4 is the jewel in the crown of the BBC. Programmes such as "From Our Own Correspondent" are truly marvellous. However, we are increasingly seeing a downgrading of evidential and top-quality journalism in favour of quiz shows and chat shows, which are becoming ever more dominant.

I would not normally like to use the expression "dumbing down", but it fits in with many of the attitudes that now obtain, particularly in the Government, in respect of Parliament. When discussing Radio 4, the BBC's annual report and accounts for 1997–98 says:

"The new schedule affirms the BBC's intent to place the listener at the heart of its thinking. The BBC will ensure that Radio 4 maintains the esteem and loyalty of its audience through the excellence of its programmes."

It goes on to talk about the independent advice panel and the fact that Radio 4 is a standard bearer for excellence.

We know in practice that that is simply not happening. As a result of the changes in Radio 4 and in regional coverage of Parliament, local BBC radio stations are now genuinely concerned about what will happen to them. My local radio station, BBC Radio Suffolk, is well valued by the local community. Local radio knows the issues, the problems and the Members of Parliament, and it does an extremely good job, not only in Suffolk, but throughout the country. It is naturally concerned that there will be some sort of regionalisation and a further loss of linkage between the local community, Members of Parliament and other movers and shakers in its area. I hope that the BBC will seek to give reassurance on that, because the obsession with regionalisation is wholly undesirable.

We have entrusted the BBC with a special status. It does not essentially have to refer to anybody. However, that places a special obligation on it. Although commercial stations also have public service obligations, the Independent Television Commission has a specific role to look at any possible changes in the coverage of ITV, Channels 4 and 5. That obligation via an independent body is not placed on the BBC, which has a special responsibility because it is substantially funded by licence payers.

We have heard about the extended coverage of news, and we know about News 24 and the enormous increase in channels. However, am I alone in believing that there has been a decline in quality in, for example, the flagship presentation of the Nine O'Clock News? News presentation is being increasingly tabloidised and factual reporting supplemented in ever-larger chunks by BBC correspondents' interpretation of events.

We dismiss television in the United States as being of poor quality. On the main news channels—ABC and NBC—news reporting is factual and without a huge back-up of interpretative reporting by journalists. Tabloidisation and other changes within the BBC are not welcome. Ultimately, they do not serve the BBC's best interests.

We must all accept that we are in the digital age. It is an enormously costly exercise, and huge sums are being invested in the BBC. I have some sympathy for the BBC in that regard. However, although the core functions of terrestrial television, political coverage and the jewel in the crown, Radio 4, must compete with the BBC's other functions, they must not be starved of funds because of digitalisation. That is in the best interests of neither the BBC nor the nation.

To keep the licence fee at the end of the consultation process and the independent review announced by the Secretary of State, the BBC should improve its quality. That is how to assure survival on the present basis. Given the importance of Parliament in the life of the nation, the way in which the changes have been put in place gives considerable cause for concern. The BBC has a special role in the life of this country. It has a public service remit to the people of the United Kingdom and their Parliament.

I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for his kind congratulations. Most importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate. It is extremely important that we have an opportunity to discuss such issues in this place. The hon. Gentleman clearly takes his responsibility seriously in his capacity as a shadow leader of the House. He raised some interesting and important points, which I hope will be listened to carefully.

A number of hon. Members have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) expressed concern about coverage in Scotland. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also spoke. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whom I almost referred to as my hon. Friend because he shares a region with me, often competes with me for regional coverage. He usually wins hands down. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that this had been a bad week for the BBC. May I repeat a popular slogan, which did the Labour party proud not too long ago—"Things can only get better"?

The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he hoped that this debate would not be an exercise in BBC bashing. I endorse that sentiment. In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he bet that there would be no report of today's debate on his regional BBC station. I hope that he is proved wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has had to leave the Chamber—I suspect that he is listening to an address by the Prime Minister elsewhere in the House—expressed concern about a decline in the national reporting of Parliament. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the widely respected Chairman of the Select Committee, cannot be here, as we would all have welcomed his contribution to the debate.

The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its "Royal Charter and Agreement". They include broad obligations in terms of the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. The BBC must provide a properly balanced service to serve the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, introduced in 1948, that the corporation must transmit an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. Within that framework, decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly a matter for the corporation.

I welcome the Minister warmly to her new post and commiserate with her that she has to be with us rather than listening to the Prime Minister, although she has probably heard more wisdom from us than she would from him.

There is an important distinction between what the Minister has just said and the BBC's new approach. Reportage of our debates will in future be treated as a specialist interest like potholing or collecting stamps, to be put in an exclusive ghetto of broadcasting wavelengths. I hope that she, and the Secretary of State, will consider that scenario carefully when the future of the BBC comes up for review.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's concern is shared widely in the House, and I shall come to that later.

The position that I have set out reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters. That was first enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence from political and commercial influences has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation in 1927.

The Government fully support that principle, but the BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need to be, and to be seen to be, accountable to licence fee payers, as stakeholders and customers; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the custodian of its charter and agreement; and to Parliament, as the public authority for the moneys paid through the licence fee. The BBC has a duty to keep in touch with its audiences and to be responsive to their concerns, and that includes Members of this House.

I shall quote from "BBC News: The Future", which is sub-titled "Public service news in the digital age". Hon. Members have referred to the concern that some of the changes may be due to the digital revolution, which is fast approaching. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by the booklet, which says:

"We will report and engage audiences in the proceedings of Parliament and the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. We will help people to understand the working of government and to hold to account those who take decisions."

On reporting politics, it says:

"The reporting of politics lies at the heart of our public purpose both to inform and facilitate democratic debate. The public recognise and confirm this as a central role for the BBC. Yet dissatisfaction with politicians, the political process and key aspects of political reporting present us with a challenge: how to continue providing proper coverage of politics but … make it more engaging and accessible to audiences. We want to ensure that political argument goes beyond the soundbite to enhance public understanding of the complexities that underlie political argument."

The pamphlet continues:

"We are committed to covering Parliament thoroughly. We have already launched the new BBC Parliament channel which offers full access to all the proceedings in the two main chambers, plus committee coverage, to enable viewers to assess their legislators at work. This new channel will maintain links to the political background material in News Online. It will become Britain's answer to C-Span in the US. We will also provide continuous audio coverage on digital radio.

"Our changes to parliamentary programming were approved by the Governors earlier this year."

I do not want to repeat what everyone has said about the changes that have taken place, because they have been given a full airing in this place.

The BBC believes that these new arrangements put in place a more effective system of political coverage for regional broadcasting in England at a time when regional politics is increasingly important. The key objective is to ensure that political coverage is at the heart of the BBC's main early-evening regional programmes and reaches as large an audience as possible.

The BBC also hopes that the new structure will make it easier for hon. Members to liaise with a senior figure in the editorial structure of each BBC region, and that major political developments in each region will be covered more comprehensively and with greater authority.

The BBC is aware that there is still some apprehension about the new structure, and that has certainly been reinforced by this morning's debate. I understand that Nigel Chapman, BBC Controller English Regions, has a meeting scheduled with the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his hon. Friends next week, which will provide an opportunity for these concerns to be aired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds the meeting useful.

The BBC's intention was to strengthen political and parliamentary coverage in the regions. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall, his hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a watching brief on the development of the new arrangements and whether they deliver the coverage of Parliament and politics that the BBC has undertaken to provide.

I do not believe that the BBC is out of touch with opinion in this country. It is important that it keeps in touch, and one of the best ways of doing that is to provide proper reporting of Parliament and politics. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall; I am sure that the BBC will be listening carefully to what he has to say.

I welcome the opportunity to raise some of the competitiveness issues that small and medium enterprises in my constituency have raised with me. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has said many times, SMEs are essential to this country's competitive edge and to the Government's competitiveness agenda. I am pleased that the White Paper on competitiveness, which is to be published soon, will reflect that.

I whole-heartedly welcome the fact that competitiveness is at the heart of our industrial and economic policy. It is a key issue for us in Luton, a town that has suffered badly from the boom-and-bust economics of the previous Government and their desertion of manufacturing industry. The competitiveness and productivity of our local companies are recognised as priorities for the Luton and Dunstable partnership and Luton borough council's economic development strategy, yet we still have difficulty, certainly at local level, identifying and spreading the factors that will increase competitiveness for our SMEs.

I raised that question with local businesses, the chamber of commerce, the local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses and the university of Luton over the recess. My visits and discussions ranged across the SMEs of virtually every sector in Luton, from the traditional hat industry to the engineering and manufacturing sectors, and from the service sector to high-tech firms. I committed myself to feeding back some of the views of those involved in Luton's smaller businesses, with my own observations. As ever, this is a partnership approach, aimed at getting what is best for Luton.

Although the issues raised are not new in the competitiveness debate, I hope that they will make some small contribution to ensuring that our competitiveness agenda recognises the coal face issues for SMEs and assures them that the Government are determined to promote their competitiveness. That does not mean going cap in hand to the Government; indeed, the "more grants" approach from some SMEs that I visit always sets alarm bells ringing about their productivity and competitiveness. Nor is it the old Tory Government approach of "sink or swim". Our smaller businesses can compete and flourish only when the Government are creating the right climate—for example, through our focus on education to help to upskill our people.

What do people at the coal face think about competitiveness? First, although the impact of the strong pound was raised with reasonable frequency, there was widespread recognition that the single most important factor for the competitiveness of the sector is creating a stable, long-term economic framework for planning and investment, whether in production, people or productivity. A senior executive of a small engineering company in our area said:

"economic volatility is our greatest problem".

Secondly, although there is reasonable recognition of the work that we have already done to create the right climate for the sector, some businesses are concerned that, if our strategy to encourage investment is to be fulfilled, there is still a need further to extend the capital allowances.

The extension in the last Budget of enhanced allowances to small and medium-sized enterprises for investment in plant and machinery at 40 per cent. for a further year is welcome, but a longer extension would have been even more welcome. Other measures in the Budget, such as the reduction in the level of corporation tax to 20 per cent.—the lowest in Europe—represent a major boost to profits and should encourage investment, as should the improvements to cash flow from the abolition of advance corporation tax.

The reform in the Budget of the tax and national insurance system, and the simplification of the system by the alignment of the national insurance contribution system with the Inland Revenue, by the abolition of the NIC entry fee and by the alignment of the lower earnings limit with income tax personal allowance are welcome. Those measures will mean that small and medium-sized enterprises will pay about £140 million less tax in the next financial year, which is significant for our smaller businesses.

The national insurance reforms will eliminate 1 million employers' NIC charges, and will make it easier for employers to create new jobs, thereby complementing our new deal initiatives. That is significant for Luton, where unemployment in some wards in my constituency is more than 18 per cent.

Therein lies a further issue for Luton's small businesses: the level of recognition of the benefits to them of the new deal. Despite a series of high profile events, some of which I initiated, including a conference on the new deal hosted by Vauxhall Motors and a launch involving almost all the major employers based at or around London Luton airport, and the Government's national television campaign, I constantly have to explain the benefits of the new deal to every small and medium business that I visit. As most jobs are likely to come from that sector, it is clear that we need to do more. Dare I say that we should have a joint promotion involving the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment to focus attention on the advantages that the new deal can offer, particularly in reducing the training costs of new employees.

One of the barriers to the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in the new deal is the perceived lack of skills on offer. The skills gap problem is not new for any business, but for us in Luton it is crucial. From hat manufacturers, such as Marida Ltd., to high-tech manufacturers, the problems are the same. A Bedfordshire training and enterprise council survey found that, of 50 local companies, 16 said that skills shortages had limited growth in the past 12 months or would limit growth in the coming year. Stanbridge Precision Turned Parts, which has 100 workers, has had to turn down work. With the cost of training running at £50,000 per new recruit—they are often then poached by other companies—more incentives for smaller businesses to assist with in-house training would be valuable. That is just one example of the skills crisis locally and nationally in the engineering sector.

The recent engineering audit carried out in conjunction with the Engineering Employers Federation, which I recently met in Luton, is to be applauded. It showed a greater commitment to training by engineering SMEs than by their larger counterparts. However, it is clear that more incentives and a more targeted approach are needed.

Skills-based training is critical now, but to retain a competitive edge, training staff to embrace the new, more competitive ideas is crucial for the long term. Although SMEs in Luton recognise the immediate skills gap that needs to be tackled, they seem to be less certain about the need to maximise their skills base.

The ability to encourage innovation is an essential element of competitiveness. The level of innovation among small businesses in the Bedfordshire area is low compared with the level in the United Kingdom as a whole, according to a study undertaken by Luton university. That study concluded that, although there is some correlation between size of business and the level of innovation, that does not tell the whole story. Indeed, the factors that account for this focus on the macro level, and we still have little understanding of the processes at work. There is a clear need for more work in that area.

A further factor that the Government have recognised as a key to competitiveness in the small business sector is the ability to adapt to the information age. However, from my experience through my visits to businesses in Luton, it is clear that the importance and the opportunities of new technologies to the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises should be more widely known.

I am aware of the information society initiative programme for businesses that the Government have initiated, and its emphasis on this sector, but not many SMEs that I visited knew of it. That is borne out by research carried out recently by Bedfordshire chamber of commerce, which found that most small businesses in Luton and Bedfordshire use IT equipment, but feel that they are not making optimum use of what they have.

On my recent visit to a company with 80 employees, it was depressing to be told that the only technology in the company was an ancient computer used for the payroll, and that there was a director who was proud of knowing nothing about new technology. I hope that that is atypical, but I fear that for many, the information age is an issue only for the emerging technologies sector and the so-called "tech stars." The message I give to all small businesses is to "get wired."

Our SMEs have much to learn from their counterparts in Canada, which I recently visited. There, the new technologies are integrated into every aspect of business life, from the large to the micro, and from systems to new production methods. We could all learn from Industry Canada' s strategy for creating a knowledge-based economy, which recognises that investment in knowledge contributes directly to competitiveness and growth in all sectors. It has set clear targets for working in partnership with all businesses to promote the recognition of knowledge as a fundamental factor in improving efficiency of production and distribution processes, and in improving the quality, variety and quantity of products.

The proof is that businesses that develop new ideas, manufacture new products and deliver new services succeed. Output in Canada is expanding fastest in knowledge-intensive firms, which are also creating the most jobs. Canarie and Tara in Halifax provide repayable loans to emerging and small companies. Their support for innovation in the application of new technologies is an example of the practical application of the strategy, and can enhance competitiveness for smaller firms.

In this country, the small business foresight programme and the university for industry will have a crucial role to play in helping SMEs to increase competitiveness in these areas. The university for industry cannot come soon enough for many small businesses in Luton. Given the concerns that I have expressed about the competitiveness of SMEs locally, I am delighted that Luton university is rising to the challenge right now. It has recognised that competitiveness is a priority for British business, and that a structured approach is required to tackle the impediments.

At the moment, there is no nationally recognised centre where organisations can seek advice on improving their competitiveness. That is why the national centre for competitiveness is being established. It will help to provide solutions to the new demands of the world's marketplace by working with business to define the key elements of competitiveness, by benchmarking, by drawing on best practice and, crucially, by focusing on practical application.

With a plethora of small businesses on the centre's doorstep, it has confirmed that it will play a key role in enhancing competitiveness among small businesses locally. I welcome its contribution to this task, and I look forward to working with the centre to the competitive benefit of Luton's small and medium-sized enterprises.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) has chosen this important topic for us to debate. I congratulate her on her work with local small businesses. She has done very well to use the recess period for that purpose, and to secure a debate so soon afterwards. She raised a number of important issues that directly affect businesses in her constituency, all other small businesses and, indeed, all who aspire to run their own enterprises.

The Government have said a number of times, here and elsewhere, that small businesses are the life blood of our economy. If they are not competitive, the country is not competitive. That is why the Government are so committed to helping to create an environment in which businesses have the confidence to grow and prosper, whatever their size and in whichever sector they operate. In doing that, we shall generate wealth, employment opportunities, and opportunities for firms to innovate and create.

Since the general election, the Government have been working to establish strong links with businesses at all levels, to ensure that they really understand the issues that concern them and what affects their ability to compete. We aim to be a listening as well as a doing Government, and what my hon. Friend has said is particularly welcome because it will enable us to perform such a role.

We know that gaining access to appropriate finance is a key issue for all businesses, but especially for smaller firms.

Does the Minister share my concern about the recent statement that, now that banks are ploughing hundreds of millions of pounds into black holes known as hedge funds, they may find it more difficult to support small and medium-sized enterprises? Will she seek confirmation from the chairmen of the clearing banks that any irresponsible lending in which they have engaged internationally in respect of hedge funds will not prevent them from supporting the small and medium business sector?

I make it my business to have a good relationship will all the banks and to meet them regularly, not only on an individual basis, but collectively, through helpful organisations such as the British Bankers Association.

I think that the relationship between the clearing banks and small businesses is better now than it has been in the past. The message that I try to get across is that small businesses are operating in a climate in which they must be really competitive to win support. The banks seem to be increasingly aware of the importance of the SME market, but I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to them when I meet them again.

As finance is a key issue, we are working with the venture capital industry, and through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, to get to grips with the problems involved in obtaining small amounts of investment capital. Finance is, of course, especially important to small technology-based companies.

Many firms want to bring an idea to, as it were, the pre-development stage before venture capitalists have invested in it. Other countries have learnt the lesson, and invested at that stage. Are the British Government considering doing the same?

We are examining the possibilities with interest. We do not think that there is any one solution to what is clearly a problem. This is a great country for ideas and innovation, but we have slipped up in the past, in that there has been a gap between creativity and bringing good ideas to commercial fruition. We are talking to the banks and to other financial institutions, and also considering what the Government can add to the contribution of our academic and scientific base.

I gave the Canadian examples of Canarie and Tara. Have the Government considered adopting their approach? The setting up of an arm's-length private sector company has enhanced business confidence, leading to investment in micro-businesses that are doing innovative work and the provision of venture funds on a loan-share basis, to be repaid over a period.

I believe that my hon. Friend visited Canada through PITCOM—the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. A few days earlier, I was in Canada representing the United Kingdom at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting to discuss electronic commerce. I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend and other parliamentarians were to visit the country.

We are considering a number of options. We are considering ways in which we can encourage spin-offs, and our attitude to corporate ventures. I have written to some of our top companies about their experience of corporate venturing. There is probably no single solution, but the Government can make a number of contributions in partnership with finance and business.

I am sorry to intervene when there have already been so many interventions, but does the Minister agree that there is an argument, in the case of small enterprises and enterprises that are trying to get going, for raising the VAT threshold?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor announced in his March Budget that there would be consultation to invite views on the desirability of changing the registration thresholds. On 10 July, Customs and Excise published a consultation paper inviting comments on options, to be submitted by 12 October. The responses will help to inform any future Budget decisions on registration thresholds.

We are working with the financial sector to try to assist "new growth" firms. The long-standing small firms loan guarantee scheme continues to offer support to small businesses that lack security or a trading track record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South pointed out, we have also made tax changes to ensure that businesses keep more of their profits so that they can reinvest and expand. In April next year, for example, the small companies rate of corporation tax will be cut to 20 per cent., the lowest rate ever.

When we were in opposition, we listened a great deal to what small businesses said about what they described as a great barrier to growth—late payment of commercial debt. One of the first things that we did for small firms was to legislate for a statutory right to interest, which will be introduced on 1 November. Along with organisations representing businesses, we are working on a package of measures to tackle the problem of late payment.

Does the Minister agree that the contribution of organisations such as the Small Business Bureau—whose conference she addressed last week, in my constituency—and the Federation of Small Businesses, among others, has helped Governments of both parties to adapt to the prevailing climate, and the need for legislation? Will she join me in paying tribute to the work of such organisations?

I will do so with pleasure. The organisations that the hon. Gentleman has cited—along with the Forum of Private Business, the Institute of Directors, the British chamber of commerce and others—have made a tremendous contribution. They have given freely of their time to allow us to pursue and consult on our policies. As a Minister, I am personally grateful to them for that high-calibre contribution.

We listened to organisations such as those that I have mentioned when they told us that business was being strangled by red tape and the over-zealous enforcement of regulations. That is why we have created a one-stop shop on the Internet—direct access Government—to provide businesses with guidance and the forms they need to comply with regulation.

In the last Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of measures to simplify rules and to help business to comply, including a payroll assistance scheme to help new employers. That, combined with the merging of the Department of Social Security's Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue in April 1999, should further ease the regulatory burden on business.

Where we have introduced new legislation to protect consumers or to ensure that employees are treated fairly, we have taken steps to ensure that the burdens on business are kept to a minimum. That is key—to get the balance absolutely right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South rightly spoke about the role of training and development. Business owners and managers know that their workers are their greatest resource. The more successful a firm, the more likely it is to invest in training. We are working with businesses to help them to develop their own and their employees' skills and potential. Small firms training loans help firms to provide training when it is needed—often at a crucial phase in expansion—without having to wait until they can afford further capital outlay. It is encouraging to note the number of smaller businesses participating in modern apprenticeships and national traineeships. That is why we have placed such emphasis on those particular sectors.

Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the importance of the university for industry and the particular advantage that that can bring to small and medium enterprises. We have used communication and information technologies to develop a new sort of organisation—the university for industry—to stimulate the demand for learning among businesses and individuals, and to improve the availability of and access to high-quality education and training. That will enable the small firm that finds it difficult to allow its employees to go away from their place of work to take advantage of what is on offer. We are also seeing a realisation among employees and employers alike that, if we are to be truly competitive into the next century, the key is a highly skilled, highly motivated work force.

Businesses constantly tell us that, to grow, they need high-quality information and advice. That is where partnership is so important; indeed, that was something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South referred. As all hon. Members will know, Business Links is the network of national partnerships in England that provides a single access point to businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, offering them help and information at all stages of their growth.

Last October, I launched "Enhanced Business Links: A Vision for the 21st century." That is intended to ensure that all those involved in Business Links will raise the quality of business support to the best standard. That means focusing on the needs of customers to ensure that Business Links reaches its full potential, which in turn will enable its business customers to grow and to compete in the global market.

Rightly, in her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South spoke about the importance of new technology for small and medium enterprises. I absolutely reassure her that the Government want small businesses, whatever sector they are involved in, to take advantage of the new technology. All the benchmarking that the Government have done recently, which compares our performance against that of our major competitors internationally, shows that the United Kingdom is doing pretty well in the use of new technology.

That does not mean that we cannot do better. We can and we will—we certainly aim to do so—but there is still too wide a gap between large firms and small and medium enterprises. As we look at our competitiveness, a key aim of the Government is to bridge that gap, and we are working hard to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the programme for business and local support centres; we have increased them. We know that giving small business the hands-on experience of using new technology can be beneficial. We also appreciate that, if people are running their own small business, they often do not have the time to use the technology that they have to its fullest extent. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we can give them the experience of doing so.

The key thing that we have to get across to those businesses is that the changes in the next few years, with electronic commerce coming on stream, will mean that all business, whatever its size, will have to embrace the new technology. That is a challenge to the industry as well: to make the technology as consumer and business friendly as possible.

What specific training will there be for smaller businesses when it comes to the use of electronic communication such as the internet, as they are at some disadvantage against larger concerns?

There is already the programme for business, which looks at the use of information technology. As I have said, just a couple of weeks ago, I represented the UK at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial conference in Ottawa. We are looking to see how we can help small business in that regard, but the key thing is that, in future—I will probably put myself out of a job—we shall probably not define firms any more in terms of small, medium and large, but only by how best they compete in the marketplace using new technologies. That is why schemes such as SMART, the small firms merit award for research and technology, the innovation and technology counsellors in Business Links and the teaching company scheme are so important—to ensure that we really meet those challenges.

Businesses have to prepare themselves for some challenges in the next few weeks and months. Whether the UK is in or out of the European monetary union, businesses will have to learn to deal with the single currency. The year 2000 problem, the so-called millennium bug, also has to be faced, which is why the Government have invested so much time, money and effort in the matter. Of course, the setting up of Action 2000, specifically working with business, is so important in that regard.

All British firms that trade with the 11 European member states that will have a single currency from 1 January next year will be affected by European monetary union, so we have a duty to ensure that those firms are as prepared as they possibly can be to take advantage of the opportunities that that will bring.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South has raised this important subject and recognises the importance of creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurial activity. I again congratulate her on her work in her constituency on the issue, thank her for, so early on in this new Session, giving me the opportunity to speak about the Government's plans in this sector and assure her and the House that enterprise will be at the heart of the competitiveness White Paper which will be published by the Government this autumn. I congratulate her again. The contributions that we have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House demonstrate the importance of this vital topic.

Although this case concerns my constituent, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, I shall be urging the Minister to regard it as a matter that goes much wider than one individual case. I believe that the case raises points of general principle.

The history of the matter is somewhat complex—it is certainly a long-running saga. Nevertheless, it is important to realise that, in taking up Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case, both I and my predecessor, Sir Michael Grylls, have believed in the strength of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case for recognition of the significance of his work in developing the most important and pioneering bomb disposal equipment that the tragedies of Northern Ireland have seen.

The general principle is that those who are serving officers who invent equipment that is well beyond the scope of their normal duties should be recognised for that work. I have mentioned in the title of this debate, which appears on today's Order Paper, the "Committee on Awards to Inventors". Today, I should like specifically to deal with the judgment of that committee and of current Ministers on the principles under which that committee operates.

I start by praying in aid the correspondence that I have seen from those, other than Lieutenant-Colonel Miller himself writing about his case, who have personal experience of the importance of the development of Wheelbarrow. I am delighted that my hon. Friends who have extensive experience in Ulster—as a serving officer, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and as a Minister, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—have come into the Chamber to give their support.

I should like first to mention a gentleman whom I shall not name, because of sensitivity about the names of those who served in Ulster in defusing terrorist bombs. It is sufficient to say that not only is he a Member of the Order of the British Empire, he has won the George medal once and then a bar to that George medal.

In a letter to my predecessor, Sir Michael Grylls, that gentleman states:

"My credentials for writing in support of Col. Miller's application to the Committee on Awards to Inventors (COATI) are 23 years in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (now the Royal Logistics Corps) working solely in the field of explosives and munitions. I joined the Metropolitan Police Explosives Officers in 1973 and became head of that department in 1985 until my retirement in December 1991. I was awarded a George Medal for my bomb disposal work in Northern Ireland, an MBE for gallantry for defusing car bombs in London and a Bar to the George Medal for making safe a device in Oxford Street in 1981."

He is clearly a gentleman who speaks from extensive experience. Moreover, he continues to work on explosives ordnance disposal in retirement.

The gentleman goes on to say:

"I first met Col. Miller in 1972 during my tour of duty as an EOD"—

explosives ordnance disposal—

"Officer in Belfast. As you may know, 1972 was a particularly conspicuous year so far as terrorist bombs were concerned and, during that year, the EOD teams in Northern Ireland dealt with 4,295 incidents involving the use of explosives or suspected explosives.

Between January 1971 and August 1972, eight EOD operators were killed while attempting to defuse bombs in Northern Ireland. Wheelbarrow"—

the piece of equipment invented by my constituent—

"was first brought into use in late August 1972 and, in the period September 1972-December 1973, only three operators died. This downward trend in mortality of EOD Officers has continued to the present day and, despite the relatively high level of terrorist bombing, only one operator has been killed in the last seven years. Although it is impossible to state categorically that the dramatic reduction in loss of lives and casualties is solely due to the introduction of Wheelbarrow, there is no doubt the machine played—and continues to play—a major role. In my opinion these figures alone bear testimony to the exceptional and life-saving nature of Col. Miller's invention. It has also led to radical changes in bomb disposal methods which, in turn, have resulted in terrorists changing their tactics.

The difficulties being experienced by the troops on the ground in Northern Ireland during 1972 was mentioned 'in passing' by the Chief Ammunition Technical Officer (CATO) to Col. Miller. Col. Miller went away, put on his thinking cap and, largely in his own spare time, developed Wheelbarrow and produced several prototypes."

I should say that the genesis of the concept of Wheelbarrow occurred well before any conversation about the need for a new device in Northern Ireland. In 1970, my constituent had invented a technique for mowing the lawn at his own house by remote control. He attached a Suffolk Punch petrol-driven lawn mower by a long lanyard to a central post of such a diameter that the 14 in lawn mower would generate a 12 in cut in the lawn. He was also able to steer the machine by hand at the end of the lanyard.

The other matter that I should mention is that it has consistently been suggested by Ministry of Defence officials that my constituent, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, was "paid to invent", and that therefore the development of Wheelbarrow was part of his "normal duties". That aspect of the matter is the one that most irritates and annoys Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, as his work was as a gunnery trials officer. He did much distinguished work developing gunnery equipment. However, by no stretch of the imagination could a gunnery trials officer have had it regarded as part of his normal duties to develop a bomb disposal vehicle equipment. I shall, later in my speech, provide supporting testimony on that matter.

The gentleman went on to say:

"I understand that one of COATI's objections to granting an award to Col. Miller is that inventing was part of his job. That is certainly not my experience of Trials Officers. In fact, I cannot think of another Trials Officer at MVEE (now Test and Evaluation Establishment) Chertsey who has invented anything, either then or since, let alone an invention as ground-breaking as Wheelbarrow.

Wheelbarrow was—and still is—a pioneering piece of equipment. It has contributed greatly to British exports over the years in that numerous foreign governments and organisations, recognising Wheelbarrow's use and technical achievement, have purchased many hundreds of the machines. I believe this is further evidence of the fact that Col. Miller 'got it right'."

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that I believe, certainly from my time both as Minister for the Armed Forces and in Northern Ireland, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's Wheelbarrow invention is the single most important breakthrough in bomb disposal technology that has been achieved anywhere in the world since the second world war? It has been of the most profound benefit to our own country in securing the removal of bombs in a manner that does not endanger life.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks from his extensive experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister. I know that my constituent will be delighted to hear his words. I am sure that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), will take his comments very seriously.

The gentleman went on to say:

"It is of great personal regret that Wheelbarrow has not been acknowledged as an invention of singular brilliance. Several friends of mine died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist bombs prior to the invention of Wheelbarrow. Obviously, I cannot say for certain that these friends would have lived if Wheelbarrow had been around, but I can assuredly say they would have stood a far better chance.

Prior to 1972, terrorist devices could be made safe only by dismantling them by hand. This was recognised as a very dangerous practice but there was no other reliable method. Then, in the early part of 1972, a new method of terrorist bomb disposal was introduced. In basic terms, this relied on disrupting the circuitry of a bomb by means of an explosively-propelled jet of water. The technique is known as 'disruption' and the first British disruptor was codenamed Pigstick'. It was highly successful and gave the EOD operator a very good chance of defeating a bomb no matter how complex the fusing system or how many anti-handling devices it incorporated.

Unfortunately, the Pigstick is an extremely short-range weapon and, to be effective, the muzzle must be placed within 3 ins of the bomb. This meant, of course, that the EOD operators still had to approach the bomb to place the Pigstick."

The gentleman states that terrorists

"soon recognised—and exploited—this weakness and changed their tactics in two ways:

1. Hand-delivered bombs were fitted with time fuses which were set to expire around the time of arrival of the EOD operator on the scene.

2. The use of car bombs increased dramatically as"

terrorists

"realised that the Pigstick was virtually useless against such bombs.

The danger from the hand-delivered bomb was largely overcome by regulation insisting on long soak times. This reduced the risk to operators but it meant that virtually all hand-delivered bombs exploded and hoax calls caused huge disruption.

The major problem, however, was that of car bombs. These normally contain very large charges of explosive and are capable of causing death, injuries and damage over considerable areas. Moreover, as the car bombs of that period could not be disrupted by Pigstick",

terrorists

"continued to fit the cars with anti-handling devices.

Although there was no clear idea of how to tackle a car bomb it was realised that the ability to safely move a suspect vehicle would be a great advantage. Blast overpressure resulting from a detonation of a charge of explosive falls off very rapidly as the distance from the seat of the explosion increases and moving a car bomb just 10 metres could make the difference between major structural damage and nothing more than broken windows. Various agencies were approached for help and although the problem was addressed with enthusiasm the early results were disappointing … although the machines came in a great variety of shapes and sizes, they all had one common failing—they were totally impractical for use outside a workshop and were often of hindrance rather than help to EOD officers.

Col. Miller put his mind to the matter and the first Wheelbarrow was conceived and delivered in a remarkably short time. This machine was eminently practical, very reliable and cheap and it dramatically reduced the odds against the EOD man. It may well be viewed now that the early machines were simple but … in 1972, on the streets of Northern Ireland, the invention was definitely considered to be of exceptional brilliance and utility.

With a reliable, easy-to-use robot vehicle available, it became possible for EOD operators to attach tow ropes to suspect cars in relative safety. Once a tow rope had been attached it was a simple matter to pull the suspect vehicle to a position where, should the car bomb explode, it would be less likely to cause injuries or major damage to property. Towing the suspect vehicle away from the target was undoubtedly a great help but it still left the EOD operator with the problem of making the vehicle safe. Having been told of the problem, Col Miller designed and developed a range of attachments which enabled Wheelbarrow to carry and position various disruptive EOD weapons. In use, the Wheelbarrow carried the selected weapon to the vehicle, placed the weapon in the optimum attack position before withdrawing to a safe area.

Judged by today's standards, the methods of delivery and the weapons might be thought crude but they were surprisingly successful and, for the first time, it became possible to render safe a car bomb without endangering the life of an EOD operator.

Having done much to help reduce the dangers presented by car bombs, Col Miller then devised a method of attaching Pigstick to Wheelbarrow. This too was a success and it became possible to safely attack a hand-delivered bomb within minutes of the EOD operator arriving on the scene of an incident. There is no doubt the ability to render-safe time bombs using the Wheelbarrow/Pigstick combination was a huge step forward compared to the previous practice of 'soak times' which allowed the majority of the devices to detonate.

As will be seen from above, the introduction of Wheelbarrow had profound effects on both terrorist tactics and the safety of bomb disposal operators. It is impossible to give hard and fast statistics regarding just how many lives Col Miller's machines have saved but, in the period 1972–1978, and taking into account machines which had been exported, over 400 Wheelbarrows were destroyed while dealing with terrorist devices. In many of these cases, it can be assumed that the loss of a machine represented the saving of an EOD man's life."

Having heard that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand why I feel very strongly that my constituent deserves the recognition that he has been denied.

Very belatedly—in 1996—officials finally acknowledged in writing to my predecessor that there was no question but that Lieutenant Colonel Miller's invention was of enormous use. Unfortunately, despite that acknowledgement, it was still not regarded as being outside the scope of his normal duties. Before I ask the Minister to respond to this serious issue, I shall provide other supporting testimony which shows that the invention was outside his normal duties.

The following testimony comes from a gentleman who held the rank of brigadier—again, I shall not mention his name for obvious reasons—and who was a deputy director and head of the Trials Division. He states:

"No formal order was ever given to Lieutenant Colonel Miller but, after failing to find an answer to the problem using existing equipment and techniques he turned, relying on his own initiative and imagination, to outside sources and came up with an electrically powered garden instrument produced by a local firm. This he took and adapted, uniquely and ingeniously, to become the prototype of the anti-terrorist weapon known as `Wheelbarrow' which has been so successfully and spectacularly used in Northern Ireland.

Fortunate in having at his disposal in the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, the facilities to develop and test his ideas, the whole concept nevertheless, starting from an imprecise requirement, culminated in an ingeniously practical machine which was undoubtedly the fruit of Lieutenant Colonel Miller's fertile imagination and determination to succeed."

I now cite another gentleman who was greatly involved. He was a chartered engineer and a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. He states:

"During our discussion, I mentioned the fact that had we"—

those in his division—

"been told in March of 1972 that Weapons Trials"—

the department for which Lieutenant-Colonel Miller worked—

"was about to develop a wheeled or tracked vehicle to meet a specific IS requirement under the terms of the GSOR, we would certainly have objected, through the proper channels, to that action. It would certainly not have been within the scope of Weapons Trials objectives to embark on such a course of action. The divisions of responsibility between the various Branches as they were then called, were quite clearly defined; and no doubt they still are to-day albeit since becoming a Defence Research Agency".

Writing to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, this senior gentleman said:

"As I have said before, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to the true origin of 'Wheelbarrow'; that was clearly and unequivocally to your credit and yours alone."

All the correspondence that I have seen says the same.

Another retired officer states:

"I can confirm that, prior to and during the initial development work on Wheelbarrow, while I was Superintendent, Weapon Trials, there was no duty placed upon the Section to design or develop any form of wheeled or tracked vehicle, for EOD or any other purpose, and I cannot recall such activities being written into the Job Descriptions of any member of my staff.

I well remember at the time you telling me that the idea for Wheelbarrow had arisen from your private efforts to produce a labour saving method for mowing your extensive lawn.

If it had been within the jurisdiction of Weapon Trials to design and develop such a vehicle, I would have expected that the work on Wheelbarrow would have remained the responsibility of the Section … instead of being passed over to VE(L) … just at a time when the initial concept had been fully vindicated".

Referring to officials' suggestion that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was paid to invent the Wheelbarrow, another senior person stated:

"There was no scope for invention by a Trials Design Officer (`TDO') within the TS"—

or trials specification. He continued:

"neither is there reference in the job description for a TDO `to invent'. Hence the comment that Col Miller was 'paid to invent' is, in my opinion, erroneous."

I could say far more. Given that we are talking about a vital piece of bomb disposal equipment that has saved hundreds of lives, not only in the Province but around the world, proper recognition for the gentleman who invented it is long overdue. After the long saga of the issue having been raised by my predecessor and now by me, it is time, for the sake of other officers who may come up with life-saving or otherwise helpful equipment, for the Committee on Awards to Inventors to recognise my constituent's claim.

Let me make it clear at the outset that while there is clearly no case for a monetary award to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, his work, that of his team—the Motor Vehicles and Engineering Establishment—and of others who contributed to the success of the Wheelbarrow bomb disposal vehicle is fully recognised and appreciated by the Ministry of Defence. That work has without question saved many lives and the destruction of much property, as was well described by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). However, we are today dealing with the question whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent qualifies for an award from the Committee on Awards to Inventors.

As has been made clear, this case relates to events which took place more than 25 years ago. In 1973, the Department's Committee on Awards to Inventors, known as COATI, a body that was set up many years before to make discretionary awards for inventions produced by civilian and military personnel, received an application for an award from Lieutenant-Colonel Miller for Wheelbarrow.

By that time, COATI had considered and made awards for inventions ranging from gas turbines to electronics and covering chemical, electrical and mechanical inventions. COATI was staffed by experienced people including patent agents and by others with scientific, engineering or legal backgrounds. There is no doubt that COATI was a well-run and properly staffed committee which had the right expertise and the right qualifications. It had to make difficult decisions within the terms of reference that it had been set. It had been given, and had to maintain, standards to help it to determine whether an award should be made and, if so, the right and proper amount of that award.

All COATI awards were and, indeed, are made on an ex gratia basis at the absolute discretion of the Department. There is no formal entitlement to an award, and it is exceptional to have a case reconsidered by COATI.

Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's first application to COATI was made in 1973 through his establishment at Chertsey, the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, known as the MVEE. The application for an award for the Wheelbarrow invention was made by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and members of MVEE workshop staff, and considered on three different occasions by COATI. As I said, that was fairly unprecedented.

The committee was strongly of the view that the work on Wheelbarrow appeared to be in response to an official requirement and was no more than might have been expected by the individuals concerned. Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was status-barred by reason of his positions at MVEE from receiving any financial award as he was carrying out work that he was paid to do, and the invention, although useful, and vital, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath aptly described it in introducing the debate, was not considered to be of exceptional utility and exceptional brilliance. In other words, it had to meet both those criteria.

The applications by the workshop staff were referred back to a local committee for consideration of local awards which were made. Undoubtedly, the work that was done by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and his team at the time was important and was to have a significant effect on bomb disposal, particularly in Northern Ireland.

The application was considered further by COATI in April 1975 and it was decided that, as a member of the professional and scientific class who could well have been expected to make inventions in his field of work, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was not eligible for an award. I repeat that further consideration is unusual.

The matter was considered a third time on 24 July 1975, when COATI had the benefit of advice from one of the deputy controllers of establishments and research and the director of MVEE, who were of the view that no award was appropriate because of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's position at the time and the duties that he was being paid to carry out. On that basis, once again, COATI concluded that no award should be made.

Having heard the account by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and having read his brief, the Minister clearly must have reached a personal judgment about the merits of the case. Perhaps we could hear his personal judgment as to whether an invention that has saved so many lives is worth an award.

We charge those on the committee with the relevant technical expertise with making those decisions, which should not be overridden by ministerial judgment. I am not technically qualified to make a judgment as to whether an invention is of exceptional utility and of exceptional brilliance. That is a matter for professional judgment.

Churchill did.

We sometimes hear some interesting interventions from the hon. Gentleman. As he should know, having been on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence, we have proper committees to deal with such matters, and this case has been reconsidered. It has also been considered by a number of Ministers, as I shall explain in a moment. I do not remember whether Churchill dealt with the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, but I bow to the knowledge of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). [Interruption.]

Order. The sedentary comments by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) are now becoming disruptive.

A few years later, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller decided to make a direct application to COATI for an award. His words at the time were:

"As far as I am aware the fully story was not revealed. I feel therefore, in justice to myself, that I should submit the whole story as I saw it."

The second application gave further details of Wheelbarrow and ran to some 31 pages with accompanying photographs of various marks of Wheelbarrow. It represented a complete description of his work, and the whole text was considered by the committee in the light of his previous application.

The committee once again concluded that no award should be made because he was status-barred at the time he carried out his work on Wheelbarrow. The committee, which had great experience in such matters, concluded that his work on Wheelbarrow was work that would have been expected by an officer at that level and in the circumstances that prevailed at the time. That is not to say that the committee disagreed with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's version of events, but considered that his status was a bar to an award.

In between the two applications for an award for Wheelbarrow, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller discussed his application with his Member of Parliament at the time, Michael Grylls, who wrote on his behalf to the then Minister of State for Defence, Dr. John Gilbert. His reply was that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case had been considered with great care by COATI, and that a Crown servant employed and paid to carry out research and development work is not eligible for an award unless his invention displays exceptional brilliance and exceptional utility.

Does the Minister recognise the intense frustration on the part of my constituent? It appears to me that the basic misunderstanding that the invention was part of his normal work led to all the subsequent rejections. What is happening again today as the Minister reads out his prepared brief is a repeat of the same answer which the independent testimony of the officers involved completely undermines. That is what is so frustrating for my constituent. It is a factual error.

Many of our constituents are frustrated. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. In this instance, the Department believes that the committee is right and the individual constituent is wrong.

As hon. Members will remember, COATI awards are made on an ex gratia basis at the absolute discretion of the Department. However, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller persisted and wrote again to his Member of Parliament, Mr. Michael Grylls, who wrote to the Department. The then Minister of State for Defence, Lord Strathcona, replied that the claim had been considered long and hard at the time and a judgment made that it did not meet the stringent criteria laid down. It is understood that, by 1980, Mr. Grylls was satisfied that the matter had been fully considered.

I would add that the exchange of correspondence and the detailed consideration by Ministers of both parties and by officials over the past 20 years was unprecedented. I find it slightly surprising that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who served as a Minister in the Department at the time, and other hon. Members who were on the payroll of the Department should appear in the Chamber today. The case has been fully considered, and exceptionally so. No other COATI case has been given such detailed consideration by so many individuals, including COATI members, the director and other staff of MOD's directorate of intellectual property rights and the director-general of contracts.

In 1996, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller again asked his Member of Parliament, by then Sir Michael Grylls, to take up the matter with the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). A meeting was arranged, and it was concluded that no new information of significance had come to light that would warrant reopening the case. We believe that still to be the position today. However, the 1997 election brought a new Member for Surrey Heath, and, as hon. Members realise, this often leads to a temporary burst of old cases. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was approached by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend Lord Gilbert, who has been reincarnated as Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

It is important to note that, at the time the applications for an award were made by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, the COATI rules required that, if the inventor was status-barred, as was the case with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, an award could be made only if the invention was of exceptional utility and exceptional brilliance. The committee looked carefully at the invention on several occasions and, in the light of its experience, decided that it did not qualify. It did not meet the criteria by which other inventions were judged.

The Department has dealt with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's claims for an award with great patience and forbearance over a long period. We are satisfied that the matter has been dealt with properly and fairly. There is no evidence that leads us to believe otherwise. We cannot arbitrarily and retrospectively change the rules. That would be unfair to all the other applicants over the years who have not qualified for a COATI award. That has been made clear to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and to his current and previous Members of Parliament. We believe that the case should be laid to rest.

There have been two major incidents of clouds of acid vapour escaping from SARP (UK) Ltd. at Killamarsh in my constituency. They presented considerable and serious dangers to the residents of Killamarsh and the surrounding built-up areas, including parts of the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The plant is situated close to housing and within a few hundred yards of a junior school. It is also on the border of the Rother Valley country park—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley in the Chamber—which is used by thousands of people.

The first incident occurred on 14 May. I explained the events in detail to the House in a speech on 20 May. I shall not repeat the points that I made then, not least because the case is being placed before the courts in a prosecution by the Environment Agency. However, I should like to place on record details of the second major incident and subsequent events before making some general comments. Although the matters that I shall refer to are under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, no official reports or prosecutions on them have yet seen the light of day. In the absence of such prosecutions, I am free to speak about the issues.

The second major incident took place on 30 May. I visited the site soon after, and met local residents. I have not been able to inform the House of the second incident until now, having been out of parliamentary action from 4 June because of a stroke. Apart from the short recall of Parliament following the tragedy at Omagh, the House has not met for 12 weeks.

However, I raised the issue through early-day motion 1385 on 3 June, and presented a petition to the House on 24 July on behalf of 7,000 residents in north-east Derbyshire, Killamarsh, Rother Valley and Sheffield, Attercliffe—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is also in his place. I should like to mention on the record the help that I obtained from my agent Bob Harper and other Labour party members in the Killamarsh area during my illness and subsequently.

The SARP plant at Killamarsh is a chemical reclamation plant. At its acid-alkali treatment plant, there were four storage tanks surrounded by a concrete bund near the base. On 30 May, one of the tanks collapsed, with two thirds of its sides immediately disintegrating. The tank contained nine tonnes of liquids, 26 per cent. of the contents being nitric acid.

As the liquid, including considerable amounts of acid, fell into the bund, a huge orange cloud of acid vapour rose and escaped. The atmospheric conditions were poor and the acid cloud moved back to the site and its vicinity before slowly dispersing. Firefighters who went to tackle the toxic spill were initially refused entry to the plant on the grounds that the matter was under control, even though the plant's fire hose, which had been found to be defective on 14 May, had not been put right by 30 May.

That second major incident, just 16 days after the first escape of acid vapour from a tanker, had a dramatic impact on officialdom, the local communities and SARP.

The authorities—the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency—set up investigations into that further major incident, and embarked on a full audit of all the processes at the plant.

The reaction of the communities in Killamarsh and surrounding areas was dramatic. Everyone had had enough, and demanded the removal of the plant to a site away from areas of population. A residents committee was formed, known as RASP—an anagram of SARP that stands for Residents Against SARP Pollution. It has persistently campaigned for the closure of the plant in dramatic style, including a visit to SARP's parent company, Vivendi in Paris—a multinational that is embarrassed because it likes to portray itself as environmentally friendly.

The parish council, the district council, the local county councillor Alan Charles and the three Members of Parliament have all made vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend Minister for the Environment. We are all thankful to my right hon. Friend for visiting SARP and meeting representatives of RASP and the councils in Killamarsh on 29 July. However, the determination of the residents did not come out of the blue. It has built up over a long period, which included an explosion at the site in 1986, when the plant was run by Leigh Environmentals.

I took a deputation to meet the Minister for small firms, Mr. David Trippier, even though I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. That deputation was made up of local councillors and representatives of KRAC—the Killamarsh Residents Action Committee. I placed details of those and further serious matters before the House when I became a Member of Parliament, most notably in an Adjournment debate on 28 February 1990. There had been the additional possibility of the infamous Karen B being brought to this country, with materials from it being likely to go to the Killamarsh site.

Astonishingly, although SARP has been under constant supervision by the Killamarsh community since the second incident, it has failed to get its act together. A catalogue of incidents has been unearthed. On the day of my right hon. Friend's visit to Killamarsh, it was discovered that barrels of rocket fuel were stored close to the local junior school. My right hon. Friend will remember his visit to the school playing field, with the SARP site starkly nearby.

The consignment of rocket fuel came in 1,507 drums in 20 deliveries between 1993 and 1995. Of those, 184 were left to deteriorate and had to be stored under water. Some of the remaining drums were incinerated, while others remain in storage on the site. I know that my right hon. Friend is concerned about the matter, which is under investigation by the Environment Agency, as are another five incidents.

First, waste was left on the ground, with serious smells affecting the community, when an old storage tank was being cleaned out. Secondly, substantial off site odours were caused following leachate recycling. Thirdly, 20 tonnes of slurry were dumped on a landfill site. There are questions as to how that met the provisions of the waste disposal licence. Fourthly, the recirculation of effluent in storage tanks caused serious smells. Fifthly, a gas scrubber was not properly maintained, leading to a further inability to remove smells from waste.

There have been numerous other incidents, such as the sample bottles of aniline carried from Killamarsh to Teesside by TNT that leaked en route. The material is hazardous, and causes skin and eye irritation. TNT was not informed of the contents of the bottles. Past carbon monoxide releases from the incinerator have also been found not to have complied with the licence. Then a tanker started to leave the site, although a worker was still on top of it.

In addition to the responses of officialdom and the community, and because of them, SARP has had to react. It closed down the six chemical reclamation processes at the plant following the incident on 30 May. Although the company attempted to restart the secondary liquid fuel plant within 48 hours, it backed off when I objected to the Health and Safety Executive. On 18 June, however, as I was leaving hospital, the process was reopened—not least because it accounts for 48 per cent. of SARP's turnover on the site. The other processes have remained closed down—20 weeks after the tank collapsed.

SARP has announced its intention to transfer its acid plant, oil plant and transport depot from Killamarsh, while reducing the number of drums on site, including the rocket fuel. It claimed to me that that will involve the end of emissions into sewers, which have caused major unrest in the area for years. I welcome SARP's belated recognition that too many processes operate on the site, and appreciate that employees need to be fully consulted about transfer arrangements, as they will affect half the 110 jobs on the site.

SARP's proposals still leave us with the secondary fuel plant in operation, and would involve the reopening of the incinerator and the solvent recovery plant. We are awaiting the outcome of the reports of the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, including the audit of the plant. Those could lead to SARP having to remove more, or even all, of the operations from Killamarsh. I am therefore keen that the official reports into incidents should be completed as soon as possible and put into the public domain. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond specifically to that point.

I am also concerned about whether highly critical reports of SARP will be enough to prompt the authorities to take action to close down SARP's remaining processes. A House of Commons Library briefing tells me that, under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,

"local authorities are statutorily obliged to include conditions in any authorisations they issue which are designed to ensure that the process is operated under the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost … to prevent and minimise emissions of prescribed substances and to render harmless any substance that may be emitted … local authorities can issue enforcement, variation, prohibition and revocation notices to ensure that appropriate standards of control are met, and raised in line with new techniques and new awareness of environmental risk. Prohibition notices are a mechanism for stopping a process if there is an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment."

Will fresh legislation be needed to strengthen such provisions so that the experiences of the long-suffering residents of Killamarsh may come to shape legislation that will have a wider application in protection against industrial pollution?

A series of reports is being prepared about SARP's operation at Killamarsh. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency are conducting three major reports—plus six other investigations, which I have described. SARP commissioned a report by W. S. Atkins after the first incident; it has not seen the light of day. The company is going on to commission a unit at Sheffield university to produce a further report, and the area's Member of the European Parliament is undertaking his own inquiry. RASP has been first off the blocks and has published a report. In fact, SARP has responded to it—it was published yesterday—in a four-page fax to me. That response is somewhat more speedy than the emergence of the reports that it has commissioned.

It is essential that the mountain of paperwork produces results. After all, actions speak louder than wordy surveys. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the points that I have placed on record, especially in connection with the availability of reports and whether consideration has been given to improvements in environmental protection legislation in order to ensure that the type of problems that have for so long occurred in Killamarsh begin to be solved—not just there but in other communities.

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has secured a debate on this important subject. I pay him a very great tribute for the extremely thorough and persistent manner in which he has pursued this serious case—not least because, as he said, in the middle of the events, he was struck down by illness. I know that I speak for everyone present when I say that we are delighted to see him again fully active, in pursuit of these matters with all his accustomed vigour.

I should express my real and unreserved sympathy and concern for the Killamarsh residents' worry and anger about the two occurrences that my hon. Friend has described. As he said, I have taken the opportunity to visit the plant in order to see for myself at first hand what has led to the concerns. I want to put on record how tremendously impressed I was by the poignant and forceful manner in which members of Residents Against SARP Pollution presented their case. It made a very big impression on me.

Having said that, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment on the two specific incidents on the SARP site—not least because it would involve a discussion of matters that are before the courts. Another key constraint that prevents me from discussing the specific issues is that activities at the site are subject to waste management licensing. The Secretary of State exercises a quasi-judicial role in relation to appeals by waste management licence holders or applicants against licensing decisions made by the Environment Agency. I therefore cannot comment on any individual case that may become the subject of one of those appeals. Having said that, I shall still do everything I can to deal with the issues raised.

As my hon. Friend said, the Killamarsh site is a waste treatment site which has been in operation for several years. At the end of last year, its operation was taken over by SARP (UK) Ltd. To be fair, the company inherited a legacy left by the previous owners and operators of the site. None the less, the legal responsibility for the two incidents in May and other concerns rests with SARP.

As a result of investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency into the first incident on 14 May, SARP (UK) Ltd has been charged with contravention of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, regulation 10 of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations 1996, and section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The other incident took place on 30 May. A Health and Safety Executive inspector attended the site on the day of the incident, where he met my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and several parish councillors. He advised that, following the investigation of the incident and the previous one, there would be a comprehensive inspection and audit of all activities carried out on the site. The investigation into the second incident is highly complex, and may yet take several more weeks before it is concluded.

Several key actions have been taken since the very regrettable incidents in May.

First, an off-site safety plan is now being developed by SARP in co-operation with the local emergency authorities. Secondly, all processes on the site were suspended following the incident. Some have restarted to a limited extent, following detailed audits by HSE and the other authorities. Others, including the acid plant that was responsible for the incidents, have been closed down permanently.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked about publication of the HSE audit, and I am glad to say that it will be made public in full. Fourthly, SARP has appointed Sheffield university's environmental consultancy to undertake a full and independent audit of the site. The recommendations of that will be published, and SARP has committed itself publicly to implementing them all. Fifthly, HSE and the Environment Agency continue to monitor closely the activities on the site, and are co-operating fully with one another.

Such serious incidents raise many issues concerning underlying standards, procedures and systems, and I shall try to deal briefly with the main questions. The waste management licensing system established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is intended to ensure that waste management activities do not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. I note my hon. Friend's lengthy list of the company's alleged breaches of consent.

Anyone who deposits, recovers or disposes of controlled waste without a waste management licence, or contrary to the conditions of a waste management licence, or in a way that causes pollution or harm to health, commits a criminal offence. There are strict penalties for such offences. For example, the maximum penalty for the illegal management of special waste is five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

My hon. Friend asked whether additional legislation was needed. I am happy to reconsider that question, but I do not believe it is. I believe that adequate powers are already there, and it is up to the authorities to exercise them where any of the licence conditions are not met.

The Environment Agency already has extensive powers to take enforcement action against the holder of a waste management licence. It may modify a licence in whatever way is necessary to ensure that it does not cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health, or become seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected by the activities. That is a significant power, and I look to the agency to exercise it.

Where the agency considers that there is an imminent risk of serious pollution, it has a duty to serve a prohibition notice specifying the risk and the steps to be taken to overcome it, and suspending the authorisation for whatever aspects of the operation are causing the risk.

I addition, the agency has the power to revoke an authorization—in effect, to shut down the process—where, for example, there has been persistent failure to comply with conditions. I heard what my hon. Friend said about that. It is, of course, for the agency to decide what action is appropriate in which circumstances. For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot comment on whether it would be appropriate to take action along those lines in the case of the Killamarsh site. I can only repeat that I listened attentively to what my hon. Friend said, and those words too will be noted by the Environment Agency.

I shall now talk about standards regulating tankers. The first incident involved a vacuum-operated waste tanker, and I am aware that my hon. Friend is concerned that standards for tankers may be less rigorous in the United Kingdom than in other European countries. I have looked into the subject, and let me assure him that that is not the case. Regulations for the domestic transport of dangerous goods in all EC member states are essentially harmonised as a result of the ADR framework directive adopted in November 1994.

The introduction into ADR of requirements for vacuum-operated waste tankers has been a United Kingdom initiative, and the adopted text is based primarily on existing UK controls. UK safety requirements for such tankers have therefore been accepted by Europe as the best model for future regulation.

The Minister is aware that, as he told me in a parliamentary answer, there have been about 125 incidents involving leakage from tankers over the past 10 years. I do not believe that, until the incident on 14 May, any of those incidents concerned vehicles operated by Leigh Environmentals or SARP. However, there has since been a second incident involving a SARP tanker, near Grantham, which caused considerable leakage on the M1

Even if we are in line with European standards, it is a matter for consideration whether the regulations on the movement of materials about the country are tight enough. One of the problems is that the first incident at Killamarsh might have happened not on the site but in transit. It was bad enough at the site, but it could have happened in all sorts of more dangerous conditions—either at the origin of the goods being moved or during transit through heavily populated areas.

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is true that there have been many instances of leaks from tankers either in transit or at their destination, as was the case with the first SARP incident. I am concerned about that, and I am asking HSE to investigate whether there is a pattern behind the large number of incidents, and whether there is a case for revision of the regulations.

My understanding is that the regulations are tight and clear, and that the incidents have largely been caused either by human error or by management failure. However, I accept the fact that the number of incidents is sufficiently high to warrant further examination. I will have that undertaken, and will then report to my hon. Friend.

Sheffield council has called for an official public inquiry into the activities on the Killamarsh site. Having been there and talked to the residents in Residents Against SARP Pollution, and having seen how the site is cheek by jowl with the local community, I have every sympathy with that request. However, I have to bear in mind the constraints imposed by the legal proceedings now under way, the impact of which I trust I have made clear. It is very unlikely that any public inquiry could start substantive considerations until the legal proceedings are concluded.

As I have already said, SARP itself has announced that it has appointed Sheffield university's environmental consultancy to undertake a full and independent inquiry into operations at Killamarsh. I have been formally advised that SARP will refocus and simplify operations at the site to make it more manageable. That will include a substantial clean-up of the facility.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have enormous sympathy with the local strength of feeling, and will continue to take a close interest in developments.

I thank the Minister for the nature of his response. I know that he takes the issue seriously. For my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, I have been concerned with the issues surrounding the site, and my right hon. Friend's responses today are much more serious than those that I received from the previous Administration when we were dealing with such problems many years ago.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I must choose my words carefully here, but I am inclined to say that the previous Government undervalued health and safety issues. The present Government take such issues extremely seriously. Two worrying incidents involving SARP have taken place within a fortnight of each other, and, having listened for several hours to the people who experienced the consequences, I intend to ensure that justice is done.

What new guidance he has issued to (a) press officers and (b) press advisers of Ministers in departments. [54712]

The values and conventions which govern the work of press officers—both permanent civil servants and special advisers—are set out in guidance on the work of the Government Information Service, published in July 1997.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are currently considering a recommendation from the Select Committee on Public Administration for further guidance.

I welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to his new position, where he will display his style, robustness and determination. When the Prime Minister created the new Cabinet Office in July, he made it clear that the head of the Government Information Service would be part of that office, and that the Cabinet Office would be responsible for the overall presentation and corporate management of government and Government policy.

Does my right hon. Friend have the power and the authority under the new regime to ensure that there is no secondary market in information and access to information; that all aspects of government—all facts, policies and debates—will be presented in a proper fashion and that there will be no question of privateering and spin in such matters? Is the ministerial team satisfied that it now has that power?

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will do all within his extensive powers to effect the co-ordination of the development and the presentation of policy across government under the direction of the Prime Minister.

I can also assure my hon. Friend that the head of the Government Information Service is now based in the Cabinet Office, directly answerable to the head of the home civil service. That is part of our stated commitment to make presentation an essential ingredient in the success of the Government. At the heart of our modus operandi is a commitment to ensuring that we have a co-ordinated view on policy and that it is presented robustly, and with strong political guidance.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister—whom we congratulate on his appointment—not about press advisers, but about efforts to ensure that press statements are made in this House by the Ministers responsible? Will he ensure that they are not spun out with a lot of words, as we have just heard in the Parly Secretary reply to the previous question?

I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman considered my answer verbose. It was not intended to be—it was intended to be a full answer to a series of questions. The statements made in the House will continue to be germane to the subject matter.

On behalf of the Opposition, may I also welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to his new position and wish him well? No doubt any sadness that he feels at leaving the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be compensated for by the pleasure that he will get from enforcing Government policies on reluctant colleagues.

To revert to the question about the Government Information Service, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked, is it not misleading for the annual report to airbrush out all references to bad news, such as the Bernie Ecclestone affair, the difficulties over Sierra Leone and corruption in local government, to name but three? Would it not be better if the Prime Minister presented his report not in the rose garden at No. 10 before his cronies, but in the Chamber before all hon. Members?

It is a travesty of the situation for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the bad news was airbrushed out. Surely the reality is that there has been so much good news that there has been no time to communicate any bad news.

What plans he has to increase awareness of civil service careers among the ethnic minority community. [54715]

The Cabinet Office and other Departments participate fully in workplace development schemes such as the Windsor fellowship, exhibit at careers and other fairs and undertake outreach work with universities. Nine Whitehall Departments, including mine, will next month be promoting civil service careers at the Mega Mela Asian festival at Birmingham, which is expected to attract more than 100,000 visitors. I will shortly be launching with Sir Richard Wilson, the head of the home civil service, a charter for action to redress under-representation of ethnic minorities in the senior civil service. That initiative has been jointly agreed with the civil service unions.

May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and also welcome the initiative undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, including the appointment of Mr. Suma Chakrabarti, who becomes the most senior Asian person in the civil service? Can I tempt my right hon. Friend to go a step further and take a leaf out of the Home Secretary's book by considering the possibility of initiating a system of targets, so that the civil service is truly representative of modern Britain?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and good wishes. We shall soon publish guidelines on the mainstreaming of equality throughout the Government. I can assure him that, as Minister for the Cabinet Office, I will play an important role in taking that forward.

Although I welcome the initiative that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to make job and career opportunities in the civil service as wide as possible, and known about by as many people as possible, will he take this opportunity to stress that people will be appointed on merit?

It is one of our guiding principles that people are always appointed on merit, and that will continue to be the case. Nevertheless, we also need to take more effective action to ensure that the under-representation of people from Asian and ethnic communities in senior civil service posts is redressed.

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept my sincere congratulations on his new appointment? One of the great joys of the city of Lancaster is its diverse range of people from different cultural backgrounds. At this stage, can my right hon. Friend tell me what part he intends to play in the celebration in that glorious city of the 600th anniversary of the Duchy of Lancaster? Also, will he please reconsider his use of the description, Minister for the Cabinet Office, as it is certainly no less opaque than Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it lacks a great deal of style as well?

That would never do. First, I must thank my hon. Friend, who represents the wonderful and ancient city of Lancaster, for his kind remarks and good wishes. Perhaps I should point out to him and the House that I have the honour and privilege of two titles: Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is only in the interests of brevity that I use the former and not both when addressing the House.

As for the celebrations for the 600th anniversary, I hope to play a part in those, too.

How he monitors (a) the effectiveness and (b) the consistency of citizens charters across Government. [54716]

To support the launch of the new service first programme, we have made available to all public services comprehensive advice on how to draw up effective charters that best meet the needs of users. We have also created a new team in the service first unit to audit the quality and effectiveness of selected national and local charters. Those new initiatives reflect the Government's commitment to first-class, responsive public services.

I am sure that the Minister accepts that the concept and implementation of the citizens charter were the result of actions taken by the previous Government. Will he also accept that efficiency and all that goes with it will be achieved in the public sector only through the greater involvement of the private sector? Will he turn his attention to the winter fuel payments to pensioners by the Department of Social Security, so that last year's chaos is not repeated this year and so that my excellent pensioners in Macclesfield enjoy a better and more reliable service?

May I correct the hon. Gentleman's inadvertent misrepresentation? The notion of the citizens charter came from Labour local authorities—specifically York and Nottingham—but we did not mind the previous Government stealing a good idea. His question about winter payments to pensioners should be raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

What plans he has to improve the ordination of the Government's rural policies; and if he will make a statement. [54718]

If he will make a statement on the structures for co-ordinating Government policies. [54723]

My role is to assist my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and ministerial colleagues in the implementation, co-ordination and effective presentation of Government policy. In accordance with the resolution of the House on ministerial accountability made on 19 March 1997, it is for the Ministers to account for the policy decisions and actions of their Departments and next steps agencies. I shall, of course, answer questions on my responsibilities for the work of the Cabinet Office, including the better government agenda, and on my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I am sure that the House realises that MAFF's loss is the Cabinet Office's gain, but, bearing in mind the Minister's recently relinquished responsibilities at MAFF; the growing crisis in rural Britain because of the problems facing British agriculture; the direction in which the common agricultural policy is moving; and the large number of Departments that are concerned with rural policy across the whole waterfront of issues, will he not say something a little more constructive in answer to my question?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thought that I was answering his question, which was about my role in the co-ordination and presentation of the Government's policies. He mentions rural areas, and I return his compliment in wishing him well in his continuing role as an effective and constructive Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. He will know that, following the comprehensive spending review and announcements by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government are paying greater attention and giving more resources to the undoubted problems in rural areas. I know those problems well, because I represent a rural constituency.

Is it not necessary to explain to the country, through the co-ordination of policies, why it is absolutely essential to spend the extra £40 billion on schools and health services? In doing so, should it not also be explained why that money was not made available before the election and why, even now, the Conservative Opposition seem very much opposed to its being spent on education and health?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would certainly help the House and, I think, the country too, if we had a clear exposition of the Opposition's policies in this area. First, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government are whole-heartedly committed to providing an extra £21 billion for health and £19 billion for education. The shadow Chancellor says that that is extravagance and that the investment should not be made; Opposition spokesmen on health and education say that it is not enough; and the Leader of the Opposition says nothing at all.

In adding my words of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will think again about which title he uses in the House. It is good to see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in his place. It is typical of his courtesy to the House that he should be here at this particular Question Time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that the Government are doing everything to address the plight of the farmers, and will he guarantee to the House that he will assist his successor in getting rid of the ban on beef on the bone, which has been his prime achievement to date as an enforcer and which has done a great deal of damage to British agriculture?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I join him in paying tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He is not just a right hon. Friend, but a friend. It is a great honour for me to continue the work that he set in train in the Cabinet Office. As for my title, the reality is that the merger of the Office of Public Service and the old Cabinet Office and the new responsibilities that the Prime Minister announced in a written answer to the House on 28 July 1998, at columns 132–34, mean that the overwhelming burden of my responsibilities is to do with the work of the Cabinet Office rather than the Duchy of Lancaster, important though that work will continue to be.

As for co-ordinating policy on farmers, specific questions about agriculture must remain issues for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On the hon. Gentleman's comments about beef on the bone, the reality is that beef consumption in Britain at present is at a 20-year high, so his suggestion in that connection is wholly misplaced. The biggest problem facing farmers at present, as I am sure he will recognise, is not that ban but the ban on the export of British beef to Europe and elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, including the Prime Minister, are working hard to resolve that problem, which results from the incompetence of the previous Conservative Government.

How many quangos have been (a) abolished and (b) brought under direct democratic control since 1 May 1997. [54720]

Since 1 May 1997, Ministers have abolished 44 quangos and have announced plans to abolish 37 more. The Government's recent paper "Quangos: Opening the Doors" set out a range of new measures for improving the accountability and openness of all quangos which remain. We have already started to implement these policies, which include supporting and encouraging closer co-operation between local authorities and quangos with local offices.

Here is a job for enforcement, because that really is pitifully slow progress after 18 months. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for Ministers to be appointing about 30,000 people who should be appointed by election by the people, is unacceptable? Does he further agree that replacing Tory cronies with Labour cronies, or even Liberal Democrat cronies, does nothing for accountability or democracy?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's charge, I can only say that he should understand the exact definition of a quango as established by the Conservative Government in 1980. None of those had a locus within local authorities, with the exception of some, such as urban development corporations, which have obviously gone, and the Funding Agency for Schools for England, which will be abolished in 1999. As regards the membership of the quangos, this Government have been far more open about appointments to those quangos and their terms of reference.

Although I welcome the steps that have been taken so far in abolishing a number of quangos and opening up the process, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, particularly since he has just sat beside him, about the future role of the training and enterprise councils, particularly the growth and development of the regional development agencies. If my hon. Friend is looking for a pilot area for regional development agencies to take over the role of the TECs, I suggest that the east midlands should be at the top of the list.

I wish that it was within my gift to make my hon. Friend that promise but, unfortunately, I cannot. The publication "Quangos: Opening the Doors" is only the beginning of a process and, within the Cabinet Office, we continue to review the role, designation and membership of all quangos.

What will the Government do to democratise the gigantic quango that they will create if they go ahead with the ill-thought-out plan to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords?

The answer is extremely simple. We will be maintaining faith with the electorate. We set out clearly and unequivocally that we would abolish hereditary peerage in the House of Lords as the first stage in its modernisation, and that we fully intend to do.

What plans he has to use new technology to increase public participation in government. [54725]

An increasing number of Departments already use the internet to carry out public consultation exercises on policy proposals. We are keen to extend that further and want to encourage wider public participation in government via new technology.

We will shortly be publishing our market research results on peoples' attitudes to electronic government and intend to use the findings to help ensure that our better government programme will bring government closer to the needs of all our people.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply [Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady.

May I ask my hon. Friend to look seriously at some of the work done by local government, such as the Lewisham democracy project, in the extension of what we now call e-governance and to look at the connecting Canada e-governance strategy which could be of benefit to us? Will he consider incorporating some of those ideas into the eagerly awaited White Paper on better government?

The former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), went to look at some of those projects. We have considered their place in the better government White Paper and programme. I should point out that, when my hon. Friend was the leader of Lewisham council, she was one of the leaders in all the uses of information technology in delivering better services in that council. We have a programme of visiting many of our local authorities which can provide a lead in this area in partnership with central Government.

What progress he proposes to make in the next 12 months on the better government project. [54729]

The better government project is one of the Government's and my top priorities. We will publish a White Paper in the spring setting out proposals for modernising government and joining up public services, to secure effective decision making and services that work and respond to the people who need them.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he give me an assurance that, in the discussions that are taking place between national and local government to ensure better co-operation between them, one of the primary objectives is that of replacing 18 years of confrontation and clampdown with co-operation, better government and better service for the people of this country?

Yes, Madam Speaker, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Local government remains a key partner in taking forward our preparations for the better government initiative. I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the invest-to-save budget, announced in the document on modernising public services following the comprehensive spending review, run jointly by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, is exciting considerable interest. A fund of £150 million over the next three years is available, and public sector organisations will bid for funds to develop projects that bring together two or more public service bodies to deliver services in an innovative and more efficient way. That is another of the many important vehicles for taking forward better government.

Can the Minister explain how it contributes to better government that, while the House was debating defence yesterday, the Prime Minister was briefing Philip Webster and other journalists about a major revision to defence policy with regard to Europe—a proposal about which the House heard nothing during the debate? Was that at worst unco-ordinated government, or was the Defence Secretary holding the House in contempt in the same way as the Prime Minister was?

No, it was neither of those. I am sure that the Prime Minister was not briefing Philip Webster, either.

How many representations he has received about employment in the public service of citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland. [54730]

Since April 1998 we have received five representations, including one from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), written with the support of 32 other hon. Members. Some have pressed the case for reversing the 1996 change to the civil service nationality rules. That meant that new entrant Irish and Commonwealth citizens ceased to be eligible for 25 per cent. of civil service posts, known in European Community terms as "public service". Others have sought early progress on introducing legislation to open the civil service to recruitment on merit, regardless of nationality.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Irish and Commonwealth citizens have traditionally made an important contribution to public service in this country? Given that in June 1996 the previous Government changed the rules so that Irish and Commonwealth citizens are now debarred from some 25 per cent. of civil service posts, will the Government take steps to end such unfair discrimination, which reduces the employment prospects of many individuals and deprives the civil service of many talented potential recruits?

Those in post before 31 May 1996 would be eligible for the full range of civil service posts. Nevertheless, it would require primary legislation to amend the Aliens Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1919 in order to effect changes. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern and we are currently examining the position.

What steps he is taking to co-ordinate departmental policies in respect of the conduct of public officials. [54731]

On behalf of the Minister for the Civil Service, the Cabinet Office is responsible for the civil service code, the civil service management code and the model code for staff of executive non-departmental public bodies. Policies relating to groups of public servants for which other departments have lead responsibility are co-ordinated with the Cabinet Office as necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind special advisers that they are, generally, civil servants? In particular, will he advise and encourage them not to brief against one another with the views of their departmental Minister? In his capacity as lord high enforcer, will he bring some order to government in case the term "beef on the bone" develops an entirely new connotation?

I can agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says—I hope that he is pleased with that. As the Opposition know, special advisers are subject to a model contract and to the civil service code. Those provisions will continue.

May I add my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Minister on his new appointment? On the co-ordination of Government information services, is he aware that a number of people, not just the Home Secretary, find it difficult to accept the view expressed by Lord Neill that Government information services should not be used during the holding of referendums where Government policy is being put to the test of public opinion?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will know that in due course the Government will give a considered response to the proposals from Lord Neill and his colleagues. The specific point that he raised is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

How many meetings he has had with other Ministers to discuss enforcing greater co-ordination of Government policy. [54732]

I frequently meet my ministerial colleagues to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policies, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, too, if he so wishes.

Instead of using up valuable time meeting me or anyone else from the Labour Benches, perhaps my right hon. Friend would meet someone else, who I believe is probably undermining Government co-ordination. I refer, of course, to Eddie George. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should ascertain from him whether he used the words that unemployment in the north is necessary to keep inflation down in the south? If he did, it is time that he went.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not want to meet me to advise me on how I might be more effective in my enforcer role. I understand that there is some doubt about whether Eddie George used the words at which my hon. Friend has understandably taken offence. As for my meeting Mr. George, I think that I will leave that pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I wonder whether the Minister knows that the members of the Select Committee on Deregulation have been twiddling their thumbs since May 1997, as it has virtually nothing to do. Is he proposing to wind it up or that we should exercise some better regulation, in which case, when does he propose that we should discuss that on the Floor of the House?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the appointment or disbandment of a Select Committees of the House is, fortunately, not a matter for me. On better regulation, I should be happy to see the hon. Gentleman, and members of the Select Committee, to discuss how we are taking those important issues forward, not only in this country, but in the European Union.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 October.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that the people who sent me to this House warmly welcome the extra £40 billion promised for health and education? They see it as an investment in their future. Will he make it clear that cutting spending on schools and hospitals is the Tory way? It is not our way.

My hon. Friend is right. The £40 billion for our schools and hospitals will not just ensure that we can get waiting lists and class sizes down and improve standards in the health service and our schools; it is also an investment in this country's future. The worst thing we could do would be to take the Tory way and cut that spending next year.

After a summer in which one job has been lost every 10 minutes, manufacturing has been taken to the brink of recession, agriculture has been deep in recession and the Chancellor has had to admit that his central economic forecasts are seriously wrong, will the Prime Minister tell the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box and explain how he got us into this mess and how he is going to get us out of it?

I note that the right hon. Gentleman claims that a job is being lost every 10 minutes in the United Kingdom. Since May last year, when the Government were elected, employment has increased by 373,000 in 537 days. That is one new job every two minutes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor will make his pre-Budget report within the next two weeks, and he will give that at the appropriate time.

What a statement of extraordinary complacency from a Member of Parliament in whose own constituency 600 jobs were cut a few weeks ago. In July, when we last had Question Time, the Prime Minister told us that his forecasts were absolutely prudent. The Social Security Secretary, at the same time, told a Select Committee that people had said, "No, you are being too prudent; you are being too cautious." By August, the Education and Employment Secretary was saying that the economy was on a knife edge. By early October, the Chancellor was saying that his forecasts were seriously wrong.

Given that the Government's assumptions have proved so seriously wrong, does the Prime Minister think that the Government have any share of the responsibility for what has happened, or is it all somebody else's fault?

No. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the north-east. He is quite wrong. Unemployment in the north-east has fallen since the Government came to power, and employment has risen. On any basis, not merely will we meet the fiscal rules that the Chancellor has set out, but borrowing will be less under this Government than in any year under the Conservative Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

If the Prime Minister thinks that there is not a serious economic problem, he is not living in the real world. He is not listening to businesses across the country, which have been telling the Government about the situation. All along, the Government's attitude has been to blame the managers, the workers, the investors and the Bank of England. This morning, we even had the Trade and Industry Secretary—who is gaff-prone now that he has to speak for himself—telling the workers at Rover to sharpen up their act. I think that the workers at Rover would tell the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Trade and Industry Secretary, none of whom have ever worked in a business in their lives, that they must sharpen up their act.

Given that the Prime Minister, who is also the First Lord of the Treasury, will not bring the Chancellor the Dispatch Box, does he agree with the Bank of England's report, which said that some of the reasons for higher inflation and higher interest rates were the Government's spending decisions in July? Does he think that the Bank of England got that right?

I have made it clear that the Government's spending proposals—£40 billion extra on our schools and hospitals and investment in the country's transport infrastructure—are right. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he would cancel that spending. If the Conservatives' response to the economic situation is that they would cancel that spending on schools and hospitals, they are wrong economically and wrong socially, and they will pay a very heavy price politically.

It is not an adequate response to these questions simply to attack the Opposition. It is not an adequate response for people in the midlands who went to work this morning knowing that they were in danger of losing their jobs for the Prime Minister to tell the parliamentary Labour party this morning that the economic difficulties would be a political opportunity for the Labour party—that is how he regards the situation.

Has not the Prime Minister put the Bank of England in an impossible position? The Chancellor has his foot on the accelerator while telling the Governor of the Bank of England to put his foot on the brake. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, the Governor of the Bank of England says that the policy amounts to sacrificing jobs in the north to deal with the inflation problems that the Government have exacerbated. Is that the Government's policy? If not, what do they intend to do about the situation?

Borrowing is lower under this Government than it was under the Conservative Government. When we came to office, we cut the budget deficit from the £28 billion we inherited to less than £8 billion. Employment has risen by almost 400,000, and unemployment has fallen.

As for the car industry, there is a problem at Rover Longbridge. We will work with management, unions and others to try to deal with it. However, it is mainly a problem of productivity, and we must tackle that if we are to make our industry competitive. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a balanced picture of what is happening in the car industry, I can tell him that Rover at Cowley is expanding jobs, Vauxhall has just announced an extra 1,000 new jobs, Jaguar is announcing an extra 1,300 new jobs, and there are more jobs at Honda, more jobs at Toyota and more jobs at Nissan. I can also give him the figures on car production for the past six months, which has risen by 4.5 per cent. Exports for the same period have risen by more than 8 per cent. I agree that there is a problem at Rover Longbridge and that we must tackle it, but it is not helped by the idiotic hysteria that the right hon. Gentleman has just exhibited.

Not for the first time, we have a Labour Prime Minister who says, "What crisis?" He is not remotely in touch with how it feels for businesses, small businesses and farms across the country. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister inherited a golden legacy, and in 18 months he has squandered it? The last Labour Government had a winter of discontent. This Labour Government have had a summer of complacency, and are now facing an autumn of rising unemployment. Is it not the case that jobs are being lost, investment is being cut and factories are being closed on a far greater scale than need have happened were it not for the policies of this Prime Minister and this Chancellor?

No. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts relating to the week that has just ended. In actual fact, although it is true that around the country about 5,000 job losses have been announced, 15,000 extra jobs have also been announced. It is important to balance the picture.

When we came to office, we inherited a national debt that had doubled. We are reducing that national debt. We inherited borrowing that was out of control; we brought it under control. Yes, giving the Bank of England independence was a difficult decision, but it is right in the long term. That is why long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 30 years.

Interest rates are now coming down from 7.5 per cent. Everyone will remember that they were at 15 per cent. for a year or more under the last Conservative Government. That is the choice—the choice between boom and bust under the Conservatives, and long-term strength and stability with us. I believe that, in the long term, the country will choose the course that is right for it.

Following the Prime Minister's visit to New York last month and the subsequent meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, is it not right to continue to focus on the problems of developing countries during the current global crisis? Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read Friday's report of the United Nations Development Programme, showing that 1.5 billion people in the developing world are earning less than a dollar a day? Will the Prime Minister make dealing with those problems a priority, so that the poorest people in the poorest countries, who have been the major casualties of our global difficulties, can be given the attention that they deserve?

Of course the difficulties involved in the world financial crisis have made a difference to developing as well as developed countries. The International Monetary Fund has now halved its world growth forecast for next year. But I know that my right hon. Friend will recognise the work that has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for developing nations, both in terms of debt relief and in terms of constructing a new World bank facility to help them.

Ultimately, with the right financial and political systems, those nations can grow, and the benefit of their growth, and their escape from the heavy burden of debt, will be felt by the developed world as well as by developing countries themselves. That is why we have always felt, when investing money in aid and development, that, if that investment is properly targeted, it is in the mutual self-interest of both the developing and the developed world.

Beneath all the sound and fury and the Government's flawed economic forecasts, are not these the human facts? Whatever the situation may have been in the past, most observers now believe that some 300,000 manufacturing jobs are in jeopardy, and one of our greatest industries—agriculture—is now experiencing its deepest crisis for 50 years. Will the Prime Minister at least start by acknowledging those facts?

As I did acknowledge in respect of Rover Longbridge, I readily acknowledge this in respect of the farming industry. Certain parts of manufacturing industry have been either very dependent on exports from Asia, or have been troubled by the strength of the pound. Yes, they are in a difficult position; but I believe that the long-term policies that we are pursuing—which ensure low inflation, stable growth and action on education, investment, skills and technology to deal with productivity problems—are our best option. The farming industry has a particular problem. That particular problem—the problem of BSE—we inherited, but I am hopeful that we can bring about relief for the farming industry over the next few months.

Instead of indulging in the blame game, the Prime Minister could do three things now. Will the Government consider them? First, the right hon. Gentleman could tackle our exchange rate problem by making a clear commitment to the single currency. Secondly, he could end the policy of seeking to control growth just through higher interest rates. Thirdly, he could ensure that our farmers in Britain enjoy the same financial package and advantages as every other fanner in Europe. Three things: will he do them?

I cannot promise to do that, I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman. First, in relation to the euro, as I have said many times, the worst reason for joining is short-term exchange rate issues. I simply point out to him that the exchange rate is now below the level that we inherited last May.

As for farming incomes and subsidy, we do put an enormous amount of subsidy into the farming industry, but the problem is that there has been a collapse world wide in beef, lamb and pork prices, and of course it has affected our industries as well. We and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are looking at what can be done to help our industry; but in respect of the rest of Europe, I do not believe that we should emulate its agriculture policies. We should be working to reform the CAP in the interests of all the consumers.

We in the north are delighted by the net increase in jobs that we have had since the general election, but we did inherit a legacy of the highest unemployment of any region in the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anger and offence that have been caused in the north-east of England by the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that the high unemployment in the north-east is a price worth paying for low inflation in the south? That is grossly offensive. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to make it clear that that is not the policy of our Government?

It certainly is not the policy of the Government. Although Eddie George is perfectly able to look after himself, if we look at his remarks in context, he was not saying that. He was simply saying that we had to set interest rate policy for the whole of an economy, not merely any one region—that we could not, in other words, differentiate interest rates in different parts of the economy.

Again, my right hon. Friend will know not just that, since this Government came to power, we have reduced unemployment and raised employment, but that the new deal, which is bringing new hope to many of the young and long-term unemployed, is working particularly well in the north-east. The help for some of the most deprived communities in the new scheme that has been announced by the Deputy Prime Minister will also help. It will take us time to repair the damage of the Conservative years, but we are making a start on it.

With jobs being destroyed across Britain at the rate of one every 10 minutes because of a recession made worse by bungling in Downing street, and with our British countryside dying because of the Government's neglect, will the Prime Minister stop trying to blame it on other people or pretend it is not happening, and do something about it now?

I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman with the facts, but the facts are, as I say, that employment has risen since this Government came to power, and unemployment has fallen. In respect of both his region and other regions of the country, more jobs are being created.

Of course, as we have said, the economic difficulties we face, in part as a result of world conditions, are faced by countries around the world. What is important, however, is that we have the right spending and the right monetary policy. The right hon. Gentleman's party is now committed to reversing Bank of England independence. That would be a terrible mistake for the interests of the country. [Interruption.] The Tories shake their heads. Will they shake their heads at this—that they are opposed to our extra spending next year? [Interruption.] The Conservative party says that it opposes all the spending in general, but it applauds it all in particular. It wants inflation taken out of the system, but without Bank of England independence—although it now says that it will retain it. The great black hole is the space where the Conservative party's brain used to be.

My right hon. Friend will understand my concern at the report circulating about Rover Group and how unsettling that is, not just for my constituents in Longbridge, but for all those thousands of jobs that depend on Rover in the midlands and elsewhere.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Rover is facing difficulties at the moment, that has to be set against the launch of a new model at the motor show this week and the millions of pounds worth of investment that has already been put in? Does he further agree that, if the difficulties are faced, Rover plants, including Longbridge, can have a bright future; and that the role of Government and politicians is to help the management and work force to reach the agreements that are necessary to face those challenges? That is surely better than, like the Conservative party, standing in some pretty fragile glasshouses and throwing stones.

Quite correct. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the balance of the situation is that Rover, for example, is expanding at Cowley, and that it has tremendous opportunities at Longbridge as well. I greatly hope that the new R30 model will come to Longbridge. However, the important thing is that management and unions sit down and work out how they can raise productivity, as needed for the long term. The Government's role is to help in any way that we can, but also to recognise honestly that, ultimately, the future lies in the hands of the management and work force together. With the right partnership, I believe that it can be done.

As the House congratulates my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on being the first British parliamentarians in 39 years to receive the Nobel peace prize, will the Prime Minister accept that real peace will develop only when his written commitments made to the people of Northern Ireland before the referendum are delivered, and that real peace surely includes the decommissioning of terrorist weaponry and cells?

Of course that is right. We want decommissioning to happen as quickly as possible. Under the agreement, decommissioning is due to be completed within the two-year period. I therefore entirely agree that the agreement—the whole of the agreement—has to be properly implemented. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman's comments on his right hon. Friend. The award of the Nobel peace prize to him and to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland is a tremendous vote of confidence in the future of the whole of the Northern Ireland community.

The Prime Minister talks about tough choices. May I suggest to him—and ask whether he agrees with the House—that the easiest choice that he will have in the next few months will be whether to abolish the hereditary peers down the Corridor? Does he accept that he would receive massive support from Labour Members in making that simple and easy choice?

I notice that the Conservative party is now entirely opposed to any step to abolish hereditary peers—apparently on the grounds that hereditary peers are a representative cross-section of the British people. I have done a little work on that. Of the 750 hereditary peers, only two are black or Asian, only 16 are women, and 45 per cent. went to Eton. I think that that is a representative section of the British community that the House of Lords could do without.

If he will pay an official visit to Silverstone in 1999.