With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's consultation on the reform of the teaching profession. This statement relates to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will report separately in the new year.

Over the past eighteen months, the Government have shown their determination to raise standards. Children are learning to read effectively in the new literacy hour. Infant class sizes are falling for the first time in a decade. We are rapidly expanding specialist schools and developing education action zones. We have tackled failure whenever and wherever it exists and we are providing £19 billion of investment to improve education across the United Kingdom over the next three years. That money for reform and modernisation is to give our children opportunities denied for far too long.

Teaching is at the heart of our drive to raise standards. Good teachers are our most precious asset in raising aspirations and achievement. That is why today I am proposing a fundamental step forward for the profession. Our first objective is to develop a new career structure that will recruit, retain and reward the teachers we need.

Under the present system, after seven years, a good classroom teacher earns around £22,500. Further reward is paid only for responsibility, rarely for performance. The Government believe that must change; that is why we are proposing two new pay scales for teachers, separated by a new performance threshold. There will be a tough new appraisal system. Up to the threshold, teachers would progress as now. To cross the threshold, teachers will need to demonstrate high and sustained levels of achievement and commitment. Heads will appraise and review teachers' progress, underpinned by external assessment. That will ensure credibility and consistency.

Success in crossing the threshold would mean an initial salary increase of up to 10 per cent., or around £2,000 a year, and access to further pay steps on the higher scale, based on appraisal of performance. Teachers could then either take on more leadership responsibilities or concentrate on high performance in classroom teaching. Over time, we would expect a majority of teachers to be of a standard to cross the threshold.

Our second objective is to strengthen school leadership. Good heads are the key to success. We need to develop strong leaders, reward them well and give them the freedom to manage. Successful heads who have turned around the most challenging schools could earn up to £70,000 a year, with strengthened appraisal and the option of fixed-term contracts. We also propose to set up a national college for school leadership, drawing on the best that education and business have to offer.

We also want to reward staff for teamwork in raising standards. Our new annual school performance bonus would provide a significant number of schools with a financial reward—payable as a bonus available to all staff—for improved performance achieved year on year and for sustained good results.

Our third objective is to have a well trained profession. We are establishing the General Teaching Council, and have introduced a curriculum for initial teacher training—with Ofsted inspection—and the induction year for newly qualified teachers. I can announce that we intend to go further by introducing a new national test for all trainee teachers in numeracy, literacy and information technology. Additional help in achieving the standard will be available for mature entrants.

It is vital that we attract the best graduates into teaching to ensure that our most outstanding teachers can move quickly up the profession. Industry and the civil service have fast tracks. We plan to introduce a fast track for teaching to enable good new teachers to make rapid progress. All teachers should keep their expertise up to date. To help them to do so, we are investing in better training in literacy, numeracy and information technology, and in improving the quality and availability of teachers' professional development. A pilot scheme of individual learning accounts will encourage all school staff to invest in their skills over and above Government funding. We will enable more training to take place out of school hours, to minimise disruption to pupils' education through over-reliance on supply cover.

Our final objective is to provide better support for teachers in the classroom. From the investment in repair and renewal through to the learning grid, we are committed to creating the classroom of the future. Today I propose a new targeted fund to improve the working environment for all staff, giving teachers access to the equipment that they need.

The teacher of the future will also make better use of the talent of support staff in schools. Many teachers already use teaching assistants to help with literacy and numeracy, or to support children with special needs. Over the next three years, we will fund at least 20,000 additional qualified teaching assistants with improved training, qualifications and opportunities. We are also keen to see the use of undergraduate and postgraduate students earning while learning, together with those from the wider community.

We also want to support small schools in sharing facilities, technicians or bursary support. I can announce today that a new small school support fund will pilot new ways of working together. It will benefit many rural schools.

The Green Paper contains radical and modernising proposals that will help to transform the standards and status of teaching in this country. It is about something for something. For the first time in years, a commitment has been made to invest and reward teachers in return for a new professionalism. That will mean greater individual accountability, more flexibility and higher standards.

We intend to consult widely with teachers, parents, local authorities and governors, for whom we will provide support and expert guidance to help them implement our proposals.

The vision of a world-class service for our children in the next century is one I believe we all share. Good teachers and support staff are the key to achieving that vision. It is to prepare for that new century, to celebrate the value and worth of our teachers, and for the sake of our children, that I commend these proposals to the House today.

May I begin by putting it on record that the Opposition believe in proper rewards for good teachers, and that we agree with the Secretary of State that we are not recruiting and retaining enough good teachers? It is a problem that needs to be tackled, but it is also a problem that has got significantly worse during the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. Does he recognise that many teachers attribute that fact to the bureaucratic burdens that he has imposed on them?

How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to recruit more people to the teaching profession if he does not treat them like professionals, instead denouncing them as "sneering cynics"? Now, he wants to test them for basic literacy and numeracy. Will he estimate how many of the teachers who are currently being recruited would fail his new test? What has happened to the advanced skills teachers scheme, which only this morning the Prime Minister put at the heart of the Government's proposals? Perhaps even the Secretary of State could not face relaunching it yet again. On 30 March, he claimed that there would be 5,000 so-called super-teachers. Will he confirm that, so far, only 50 have been ecruited?

The Secretary of State talks about paying teachers properly. Teachers would regard it as hypocritical of the Government to launch this exercise today and then fail to implement the recommendations of the pay review body, which are due next year. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure teachers that he will accept its recommendations in full? Can he confirm that his Department wrote recently to that body to urge it to hold down teachers' pay; and will he place in the Library a copy of his correspondence with it?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a new threshold for a new structure of teachers' pay, but how quickly will a teacher reach it? How long will it take for the majority of teachers to cross it? He says that he wants to strengthen school leadership, but he well knows that there has been a disastrous decline in the number of teachers applying for the national professional qualification for headship. Does he agree that the reason is that they are all too busy responding to his instructions and initiatives?

We need better ways to encourage top-quality graduates into the profession, but the right hon. Gentleman's fast-track scheme is a vague plan, which gets five paragraphs in a 72-page document. Will he confirm that his fast-track scheme applies only to a small percentage of the 450,000 members of the teaching profession? As the Prime Minister might say, these are policies for the few, not the many.

Once more, the Secretary of State puts his trust in plans and targets, rather than the professionalism of teachers and the judgments of parents. Does he know what is already happening to his grand plans in practice? Only yesterday, I came across a school that has set targets in its educational development plan which are lower than its current level of attainment. Is the Secretary of State proposing a crude tick-in-the-box school performance awards scheme, with every incentive to set soft targets without any fear of being challenged; or will he rely on outside consultants—and how much will that cost?

Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the initiatives are to be paid for out of central funds, bypassing local education authorities? Will he confirm that the proportion of school funding from standard spending assessments is steadily falling as, instead, head teachers have to spend all their time applying for individual packets of money, under his personal control? The Secretary of State is exasperating teachers with his ceaseless flow of initiatives. At the last count, schools and LEAs were having to submit 17 plans to him. Now he even has a working party to cut the paperwork produced by all the other working parties.

We are told that education action zones are the most radical initiative of the lot. Indeed, the main appeal of joining such zones is that the initiative enables schools to opt out from all the other schemes that the Secretary of State has imposed on them. Will he therefore confirm that schools in education action zones will not be bound to implement whatever changes he introduces to teachers' pay and conditions?

The statement is warm words and ambitious claims, but as always with the Secretary of State, there is little about the practicalities. We want practical, flexible measures to recruit, retain and reward good teachers—measures which rest on local flexibility and local discretion. Instead, the Secretary of State has produced another cumbersome scheme, based above all on his belief that the man in Whitehall knows best. We very much doubt whether it can be made to work. Teachers, parents and children deserve better.

I think the House deserves better than that. A party that presided over the largest exit of teachers in memory owing to its inept messing about with the pension scheme and severance pay is ill prepared to come here this afternoon and talk about difficulties with recruitment. We are facing up to those problems in a way that the Conservatives failed to do in their 18 years in office. The whole programme is geared to recruiting, retaining and rewarding. We know that there is a serious problem: 35 per cent. of those who train do not go into teaching within two years, which is a tragic waste of resources. Let us work together to attract people and keep teachers in the profession.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about basic literacy and numeracy. The fact that many of those who were educated in the past 18 years do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills is not down to the Labour party, but is a result of the Conservatives' failure to provide the necessary phonics, grammar and spelling, which the hon. Gentleman attacks every time he rises to speak.

I tried to ensure that Opposition parties had the Green Paper long enough to allow them to take a look at it this afternoon, instead of giving them only the usual half hour. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at least see that the advanced skills teacher posts form part of the new leadership tier—they are in there. We are pleased that 1,100 people have already applied in time for the target date for the 1 April roll-out; and 80 per cent. of local authorities have put in schools for the advanced skills teacher posts.

What about the pay review body? Who was it kept holding back teachers' pay and did not implement awards in full? I love the way in which the Conservatives, whose instructions to the pay review body to hold down pay and not to implement awards resulted in the catastrophe that occurred in the teaching profession a year or two ago, come here and have the cheek to tell us what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said today. No, I did not tell the review body to hold down teachers' pay; I told it to take account of the circumstances of inflation and, above all, to take account of the fact that we did not want to stage the review from next April. We are clear about that.

How quickly will teachers reach the threshold? We have instigated the fast track for new entrants and the figure will be about 1,000 people a year, which, given the numbers coming into teaching, is a substantial figure. Others who are already in the teaching profession—new teachers in years one and two—will be able to multiply the number of increments through which they can move as part of the new system of appraisal. Fast track linked to appraisal will enable people quickly to reach the point which currently takes them seven years to reach. The whole system is based on appraisal and external assessment—a light touch that enables heads to do their job, but with assessment being carried out from outside to secure fairness and consistency, which is what I described in my statement.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of getting money to schools. It would be grossly unfair if we used a system that resulted in schools that did not have a large number of teachers passing through the threshold getting the money, while those that legitimately had a large number of high-performing teachers could not afford to pay them. That is why, in the early stages, we shall ring-fence the money and consult on ensuring that the money reaches the schools where teachers require the pay. The teaching profession has for years asked us to make sure that there is no block on the ability to pay good teachers well, just because they happen to be in the wrong authority or the wrong school, based on the distribution system.

Education action zones will pioneer our programme. They will be one step ahead of it and they will be able to reward good teachers extremely well. That is why we set them up and why I am sure that the whole House will support the new programmes.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which appears to be one that must give the teaching profession new life and expectations of a far better time in the future under a Labour Government.

I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made such poor use of the advance sight of the document that the Secretary of State gave him. He clearly approached the Green Paper in the wrong way: he looked to see how he could carp and criticise instead of offering constructive suggestions about education in the future. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to show support for our teachers and instead concentrated simply on the mess that he knows his Government made of the same programmes—[Interruption.]

Order. I must correct hon. Members. This is a time for questions, not speeches. Is the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) coming to his question?

I am coming—

Good. The hon. Gentleman is providing a good example of how not to put a question to the Secretary of State. It is the first Back-Bench question, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my using it as an example of how not to question the Secretary of State.

I welcome particularly the fact that teamwork is rewarded, because there is no profession where it is more important. If I may give a specific example—

No, I am sorry. A joke is a joke—I have a sense of humour the same as anyone's, but I cannot allow speeches. There will be no examples. Just ask a question, please.

In order to exploit his skills, a science teacher often relies on a laboratory assistant who does the preparation work. Under such circumstances, how will a school recognise both the excellence of that teacher and the role of the laboratory assistant in preparing his work?

I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree entirely with the preamble to his question.

Those who assist and support teachers will benefit from the school bonus programme, from the development of the individual learning account and from new training and support. Many of them will want to progress in their professions and some will want to begin teacher training. We will encourage them to do so on a modular basis so that they may continue to earn their living while preparing to enter the teaching profession.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the approach adopted by the previous Administration, nearly 20,000 experienced but demoralised and disillusioned teachers left the profession in just one year? We need to do better. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Liberal Democrats welcome the broad thrust of the proposals? Will he confirm that performance-related pay will not be paid according to results? It should be based on the skills, experience and competence of teachers, not the performance of their pupils.

Will the Secretary of State further confirm that the opportunities for higher rewards will be available to all teachers and that he expects the majority of teachers to benefit from them? However, will he also acknowledge that he is relying a great deal on the assessment procedure, and that there will be complications if that procedure is used simultaneously to judge teachers' salaries and an appropriate amount of continuing professional development?

Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that, although his proposals will assist in the longer term, there is an immediate crisis? May I therefore welcome his clear and unequivocal statement today that the teachers pay award will not be phased? Can he confirm that, at a minimum, it will be sufficient to meet the real inflation costs hitting teachers' pockets?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. We can work constructively to get the proposals agreed. On the final point, the recommendation is entirely in the hands of the review body and must be independent. I will respect that.

I shall deal with the essential points that the hon. Gentleman raised. Teachers will move to and will be appraised for moving through the threshold on their performance and their commitment, not on the quantum of past exam results of students whom they may well not have had a hand in teaching. That aspect falls into the teamwork approach and will be dealt with separately through sophisticated arrangements for the school bonus. There is nothing crude about that which would punish teachers for working in challenging schools in difficult areas.

Sufficient resources will be available over the initial period to ensure that a majority of teachers can access the programme, bearing in mind that many teachers will be entering the profession and will be in the early stages. About £1 billion will be available in 2000–01 and 2001–02 to put the proposals into place. It is the best promise that teachers have ever had.

Unlike the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I believe that the national professional qualification for headship offers great scope for the development of head teachers. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about how valuable and important heads are in the lives of schools and the quality of education. How does my right hon. Friend see the NPQH developing through the new structures that he outlined this afternoon?

The development of the college that I described will play a signal role in helping us to extend the NPQH. As hon. Members know, great enthusiasm for it has been expressed by heads. In the initial period we, together with the Teacher Training Agency, have been appraising how we can improve it and build on the experiences of head teachers.

We want to be able to fast-track those willing to undertake leadership, in order to allow them to do so on a modular basis and to accelerate their professional development. We want to put in place as heads those enthusiastic young men and women who see their role in education in the future and have the natural skills to lead the profession in the new century.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the 1995 Conservative Government's Blue Paper on teacher training began with the words

"In education the role of the teacher is central"?

Any aspects of his proposals that stimulate higher standards in the teaching profession, if fulfilled, will be welcome to us.

Nevertheless, may I raise two points with the right hon. Gentleman? The first is a technical one, relating to the basic skills requirements for teachers. Is it not high time that those were built into the standard suite of qualifications—the GCSE, A-level and degree level performance of teachers—so that they do not need re-examination? If anything, existing teachers may need some strengthening in that respect.

Secondly, does the Secretary of State accept that there is likely to be a severe strain on resources, both in assessment and in paying for this substantial pattern of incentives? If so, is there not a danger, while the proposals are being worked through, of a two-tier profession? They can in no sense be a substitute for the adequate remuneration of ordinary classroom teachers who are doing their best and largely succeeding in doing a proper job for their pupils.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's sensible questions in the spirit in which they were delivered. The lag between now and the underpinning of A-level and advanced year NVQ in respect of key skills must be addressed—hence the development of the literacy, numeracy and IT programme that I described. We must help mature entrants to catch up without feeling at a disadvantage.

The question of how we implement that is important. We will have performance management systems in place, which will be monitored by Ofsted and the Audit Commission. The performance management systems will be crucial to ensure that the appraisal and review are non-bureaucratic. The outside assessors will give consistency and fairness to the system, so that people cannot claim that there has been discrimination or the blocking of a teacher's application for movement through the threshold. It is important that we get that right in the early stages. If we can move quickly after the consultation period, I should like to start the appraisal and begin the assessment process before implementation in 2000 so that we can move people on to the new scales as quickly as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how welcome his promise to improve the environments in which teachers work will be? As a teacher who spent at least two years in an asbestos-riddled hut, I know how many of my colleagues would have been pleased to benefit from that.

I invite my right hon. Friend to use the opportunity that the proposals present to reconsider the requirements that university institutions put on entrants to the primary postgraduate certificate of education. I am concerned that such entrants are required to have degrees in national curriculum subjects. That requirement was introduced in advice by the previous Government.

There are, therefore, people with excellent degrees—in subjects such as modern languages, which do not apply in primary years but develop skills that are relevant to literacy teaching—who are not eligible for the primary PGCE. If we have ways of testing literacy and numeracy skills, as well as information and communications technology skills, there is a strong case for changing that requirement. Will my right hon. Friend consider doing so?

I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that we were concerned about the way in which that previous advice was being interpreted. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has sent out a letter clarifying that, so that there will be no future misunderstandings. I hope very much that it will help to alleviate the problem.

My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. She and my advisers and officials have worked incredibly hard with me on the Green Paper, and I appreciate that greatly.

The Secretary of State will be well aware that the results achieved by the secondary modern and grammar schools in the borough of Trafford are once again among the best in the country. That is largely because we have a great number of excellent teachers in those schools.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear—I think that he gave such an assurance and I welcome it, if he did—that there is no upper limit on the number of teachers who can qualify, and that there will be consistent interpretation according to the quality of their performance and nothing else?

Will the Secretary of State also make it clear that schools or the local education authority will not have to fund the programme; and—this is important, given the large numbers involved—how quickly does he envisage all teachers who may qualify being able to go through the qualification period? What are the implications in terms of cost and the number of external assessors who need to be part of that programme?

There were a large number of questions rolled into one there, so I shall be brief. I have made it clear previously and this afternoon that money in the initial stages would have to be ring-fenced and directed so that schools could afford to implement the programme. Obviously that will need to be consolidated; otherwise schools would accelerate every teacher whom the head thought was appropriate as quickly as possible, without any constraint whatever.

The hon. Gentleman should not presume that teachers in schools with high performance would automatically go through the threshold. Teachers who are doing a first-rate job in challenging areas with schools that have enormously challenging intakes may find themselves equally able to access the threshold and the progress that needs to be made. I hope that they do.

As I told the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), we have to get as many teachers as possible moving towards and through the threshold, to accord them the status that they deserve and to reward them for the work that they are doing.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comprehensive statement. It is important to emphasise that it is comprehensive and not only about pay levels. Will he outline further the measures in the Green Paper for encouraging the collaboration of teachers to raise standards?

The bonus system will encourage all staff to perform and work together, and the collaborative fund for small schools will complement the work that is already taking place. In education action zones, schools are beginning to collaborate and work co-operatively to develop ways of supporting and helping each other. They are establishing intranet systems, so that they can share information and advice. The more schools work together to lift standards for children rather than compete with each other in a marketplace, the better it will be for our students.

When will the Secretary of State realise that my postbag is filled with complaints from head teachers and governing bodies as a consequence of his initiatives? Perhaps the most talented primary head in Hampshire is to be lost to the private sector as a consequence of the Secretary of State's initiatives. He is contributing to this problem, and it is time that he addressed it.

I am always slightly amused, if not mystified, by Conservative Members who say that good state heads and teachers are moving into the private sector and then criticise the measures that we are taking, which aim to match the standard and the methodology that the private sector claims to be using. Our proposals are aimed at providing good leadership, clear discipline, a decent environment, good equipment, low class sizes, and literacy and numeracy strategies that place emphasis on phonics, grammar and spelling—but they are opposed by Conservative Members.

May I reassure my right hon. Friend that the reason I left the teaching profession in May 1997 was not that I was demoralised, but that the country was demoralised by the Conservative Government? Conservative Members have provided good evidence of that this afternoon. One of the most frustrating features of my 11 years in teaching was the reduction in the funding and opportunities for professional development and training, so I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement on individual learning accounts for teachers. Will he outline how those accounts will be administered, when we can expect them and when teachers can begin to benefit from the effects they will have on professional development and improving standards?

We are establishing a pilot programme—initially with £5 million—to test the commitment of teachers and non-teaching staff who want to develop their skills and professionalism. That is on top of the resources that we are already allocating to continuing professional development through the standards fund—£60 million this year for literacy and £60 million next year for numeracy—and the additional £230 million for the training of all teachers on information and communication technology. This is a small pilot programme on top of the enormous investment currently going into the system.

Would it help or hinder a head's leadership role if he were given more freedom of manoeuvre in the hiring and firing of staff?

No, I am sure it would not.

May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which goes a long way towards keeping good teachers in the classroom? Will he explain how the system of appraisal will be balanced and fair as between schools and between teachers teaching different types of classes in the same school? One teacher may have a lot of A-level teaching and another may teach slow learners. Will he give the House a few more details on how the outside assessors will work in conjunction with the heads, and how teachers will be able to appeal against their assessment if they are dissatisfied with it?

The appraisal will be personal to the teacher, so it will appraise the worth, commitment and performance of teachers in the circumstances with which they are faced and according to the work they are doing.

The management performance system, which will itself be monitored, will be crucial to ensuring that appraisal works, is rigorous and is seen to be fair. The assessor's job will be to sample the way in which appraisal is working, and to test the claims of teachers who consider themselves to have been badly treated against an assessment of those teachers' performance.

Ultimately, however, the success of the system will depend on the right management and leadership, so that appraisal is not second-guessed by the assessors, but reviewed and monitored. The system must be transparent, and there must be no discrimination.

I welcome the proposals, which will enable good classroom teachers to progress. Many teachers are currently being blocked: they cannot progress without taking on extra responsibility.

What rewards or incentives will be available to schools where teachers are shown to have made progress as a team—where all staff members have made a contribution? We should not only reward individuals for their ability to show the quality of their own teaching.

I have already stressed the need for us to view schools as consisting of a range of men and women who are contributing to an improvement in standards. It is crucial for the future that the professional teacher should be a learning manager, able to direct and use paid staff, volunteers and parents imaginatively, and to bring out the best in the school.

I am hoping that some two thirds of schools will have access to the bonus system, to which we are allocating £60 million each year. Not only will staff be rewarded; we shall give new opportunities to non-teaching staff to display their talent and to develop professionally, which will, I think, be widely welcomed in the profession.

I welcome all the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced, which will benefit teachers in terms not just of pay, but of the school environment and the whole school community—teachers and non-teachers.

What will be the structure of the consultation? One of the criticisms made of the last Government was that not enough time was allowed for consultation on important measures. As we are now discussing the need for modern teachers for a new century, and a new professional status for teachers, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend gave us some idea of how much time will be allowed, so that we can do our job as Members of Parliament and ensure that we hear comments from the grass roots.

Four months will be allowed for consultation, which can take place until 31 March 1999. The consultation will be open to everyone who wants to contribute to getting the system right. In a week or two, a technical paper will be published to back up the Green Paper. We want to ensure that the details of implementation can be discussed not just with the profession but more widely—with, for instance, governors' representatives and - local education authorities—and that everyone with something constructive to say is heard and responded to.

I, too, welcome the statement. I particularly welcome the long consultation period, which will enable teachers in the classroom to respond to the proposals.

How does my right hon. Friend intend to recognise, and boost, the vital role of the classroom assistants who help teachers to raise educational standards?

I have mentioned the 20,000 additional assistants who will be provided over the next three years. I consider that a major contribution to changing the way in which we use the talent that is at our disposal, so that teachers can undertake the key professional tasks for which they have been trained, and can develop constructively over the years.

The use of assistants should be seen as part of the development of their own future, and their own talents. Many are making a substantial contribution, not just to literacy and—in the years to come—numeracy, but to special needs education. Many special needs children would be in a much more difficult position if it were not for the talent of the non-teaching staff who help them so much.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which I am sure will do much to improve the quality of education in our schools. However, I wonder whether he could say a bit more about how he envisages school governors working with head teachers on staffing structures and the skills mix for the school, and, in particular, how he sees governors going about the appraisal of head teachers, which I imagine will be a difficult task.

I want to make it absolutely clear that governors play a crucial role. Often, many of them feel overwhelmed with what they are being asked to do, without the necessary advice and support, so putting in place new guidance and support systems for governing bodies, providing a new role for education authorities where schools are local education authority community schools, and making available the resources to Church and foundation schools will all be crucial. We must ensure that, this time, governors are in a position to be able to do the job and to benchmark what is taking place in other schools, so as to learn about the way in which other governing bodies and schools have worked. In that way, governors can both hold the head to account and support the head in the key management job of raising standards.

For clarification of a point raised earlier, will the Secretary of State place it on record unequivocally that he will accept in full and implement the recommendations of the school teachers review body next year?

Just to be helpful, the answer to that is: no, I will not, for the very reason that I spelled out earlier. It is an independent review. We recommended that the award should take into account our desire—our will—to carry out the recommendation in full; but—so that we all talk in a sensible, mature fashion—should for some reason the review body come up with an award that was simply unaffordable next year in all circumstances, no one in his right mind would expect us to have committed ourselves on 3 December, before the review body had reported, to implementing that award. And I do know that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is in her right mind.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future of the health service in Wales.

The national health service is one of Labour's proudest creations, especially in Wales. It is a tribute to the people who work in the NHS that it continues to give such a high standard of care and retains such public confidence. People want the NHS to be modernised and strengthened, rather than undermined or replaced.

I will not labour the point, but the NHS in Wales has not been given a fair chance in recent years and 18 years of damage cannot be repaired in 18 months. Lack of coherence in the long-term planning of the health service in Wales has frequently left clinicians, managers and officials trying to make the best of a bad job.

I saw that in my area, where the failure to develop an adequate 10-year plan in the early 1980s was compounded by a lunatic scheme to build a third district general hospital in the Cardiff area. The abandonment of that plan and subsequent piecemeal decisions have been bad for morale and for the aim of providing high-quality health care. I hope that today's statement will lay the foundations for a new partnership approach which strengthens the health service to create one NHS to serve the people of each community in Wales, replacing the two, three or four divided services in some areas.

Standing still is not an option for acute services. The Royal College of Surgeons generally wants specialist services to be centralised in fewer units. Instead of being forced to respond to clinical advice in a piecemeal and expensive way, trusts will be able to organise safe specialist services across different sites cost-effectively. A new, coherent pattern of trusts is needed to replace a situation in which many act as if they are mediaeval city states each competing with the other, rather than organisations which need to be partners with each other in providing health care.

Before we came to power, the then shadow Minister with responsibility for health in Wales pledged that we would cut the number of NHS trusts in order to direct resources away from administration and into patient care. The new configuration of trusts, which I am announcing today, follows 18 months of widespread consultation. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) who played such a leading part in those consultations and discussions? Configuration is not an end in itself so I wish to spell out clearly the new shape and direction of the NHS in Wales and the way in which I expect board members and managers to carry out their work in future.

Unproductive competition and piecemeal changes in recent years have led many people to worry about the future of a specific hospital in their area. People rightly identify with "their" hospital and that is to be encouraged by the trusts, not seen as old-fashioned or irrelevant. I can reassure people in every part of Wales that the approach they want, reinforcing the hospitals and institutions they respect and depend upon, will be the way forward for the future.

Wherever possible, we have followed three principles. First, we want to bring together neighbouring trusts which provide acute services in order to eliminate competition, promote collaboration, reduce unnecessary duplication, tackle financial problems and attack waiting lists. Secondly, we want to combine community health and acute services to create a single health service for each area. That will allow clinicians in both sectors to collaborate in providing a seamless service to each patient. I expect that to be of particular benefit to the elderly. Thirdly, wherever possible, the new trust will share the same boundaries as unitary authorities to simplify relations with social services and within the new local health groups we are establishing.

Those principles will better provide for the co-ordination of care for each individual patient, whether on an acute ward or in a community hospital, a nursing home or at home. The changes will remove the problem of bed blocking and release resources for more urgent cases.

Those principles have won general support in Wales, but applying them can be difficult. The distribution of the population, the distribution of hospital services and the geography of Wales are all against us—otherwise it is straightforward! As a result, several themes came up consistently from the consultations. I wish to be absolutely clear on our response to these for the benefit of the public and for the benefit of planners and managers in the health service.

First, reconfiguration in itself must not stop anyone going to a local hospital. As at present, general practitioners will be able to refer patients where they believe it is in their clinical interests to do so. Secondly, mergers will not be takeovers, but the creation of a new partnership. Key services must not be moved to the larger hospital. Community and mental health services must not be ravaged for the benefit of acute services. No hospitals will close as a result of reconfiguration. If health services should change or a hospital should close, such events must occur for objective reasons, not as a result of reconfiguration.

Some people have asked for reconfiguration to be put off for a year or more. That is not an option. We have to keep the pre-election promise of cutting bureaucracy, and create health service structures that will enable the new Assembly to undertake its work of accountability. Reconfiguration is essential if trusts are to plan their services effectively, to deal with the mounting pressures upon them and to make real inroads into waiting lists and cope with current financial pressures.

Reconfiguration must not be just a question of merging organisations or drawing lines on a map. I am prepared to take time to explain the reasons behind each decision and to demonstrate that I have listened to people's concerns. For that reason, I have prepared a much fuller statement explaining my decisions which will be sent to trusts, health authorities, community health councils, local authorities, trade unions and the press. I am placing a copy on the Board this afternoon for every hon. Member with a Welsh constituency and for representatives of the Conservative party. I will also send a letter to trust chairs to pass on to staff to allay concerns.

I have approved the establishment of eight new trusts on 1 April 1999, but I wish first to refer to two areas where I am not going ahead with the proposals on the basis on which consultation took place. I do not intend to agree to a merger of the Powys Health Care NHS trust with Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trust. On each of the visits I made to Powys during my period as a shadow Health Minister for Wales, I was impressed by the degree of local unity, which was reinforced by GPs and nurses during my recent visit to Newtown hospital and by views expressed by local MPs, Labour party members, trade unions, and local councillors as well as the trust itself.

The decision leaves challenges for the Powys trust, and I shall insist that it delivers on the assurances given to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, that the benefits and savings of reconfiguration can be delivered without the need for a merger. I hope that local Members and others will support the board in delivering on those commitments.

I am very much aware of the isolation of Ceredigion's acute services, but those problems would be hidden in a combined trust. I therefore expect the development of close collaboration between Ceredigion and acute services in other trusts. I shall in the near future discuss those issues personally with representatives of the Ceredigion trust and other local representatives.

In Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, the proposal to split the Llandough hospital from community services now managed by Llandough NHS trust is entirely opposed to the principle of creating a single health service for each area. The way forward for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan is the creation of a single integrated trust for the area—excluding Velindre, because of its specialist nature. However, immediately to create one trust would involve an operation of far greater complexity than any of the other mergers.

I have, therefore, reluctantly accepted that a two-stage process is necessary. It is important to give certainty to staff and management by setting a clear time scale for both stages. I intend to merge the University Hospital trust with the Llandough trust—including the community element—and to combine Cardiff Community trust with the University dental hospital. There will be speedy consultation on the proposal, but I am confident that it meets most of the objections to the previous proposal. My intention is that the merger will proceed on 1 April 1999. As soon as possible, I shall make a further announcement on the second stage.

The new NHS trusts to which I am giving the go-ahead are: North West Wales NHS trust; Conwy and Denbighshire NHS trust; North East Wales NHS trust; Carmarthenshire NHS trust; Swansea NHS trust; Bro Morgannwg NHS trust; Pontypridd and Rhondda NHS trust; and Gwent Healthcare NHS trust.

I intend to take a personal interest in the way in which the changes are made, and I will strengthen the role of community health councils which, with local authorities and local health groups, will help to create an effective and inclusive structure for the NHS in Wales.

Major benefits are available, for example, by bringing the Gwent health authority's three trusts together. Moreover, the merger in Gwent—unlike the merger in Cardiff—can be achieved immediately, as it is a far less complex operation. I am convinced that the future of Nevill Hall hospital is secure because of its key strategic position, but appreciate the fears that have been expressed in north Gwent.

I am requiring the new trust to state clearly how the pattern of services will be developed across hospitals in Gwent. Local authorities, hon. Members, and community health councils and the new local health groups will have a chance to comment, and I hope that that transparency will ensure that the reconfiguration is seen as a new partnership in Gwent and not as a takeover of one hospital by another.

The same principles will be emphasised with every one of the new trusts. We are interested not only in the pattern of services, but in the nature of management and the way in which services are delivered. For example, I have more reason than most people to understand the local importance of Llandudno hospital, which is where, after an operation in 1950, I left my tonsils. Community links and expectations might suggest that Llandudno hospital should be linked to Ysbyty Gwynedd, but doing so would fail to provide the critical mass of acute services in north-west Wales that are essential to effective local care.

Llandudno will stay with Ysbyty Gwynedd, but the way in which it provides its services must respect local expectations in Llandudno and the surrounding area. I am therefore requiring Gwynedd Hospital NHS trust to consult Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS trust and other local partners, including the local authority and local health group, and report back to me on how those matters can be reconciled.

Mechanisms such as the one that I have proposed are the way in which we can ensure that there is proper co-operation in the best interests of local areas, in which the principles I have stated are inevitably in conflict with each other.

Similarly, the merger of the Llanelli Dinefwr and Carmarthen trusts is intended to improve patient care across the county. However, I understand also the fears in the Llanelli area and the strength of support for a hospital that local people have supported enormously strongly over many years.

I am determined that reconfiguration will not lead to the closure or downgrading of Prince Philip hospital. The hospital will not lose its accident and emergency unit or its magnetic resonance imaging scanner. I am requiring the new trust to state how it will meet those requirements, and the views of local hon. Members and other local partners will be sought to ensure that our intention becomes a reality.

Finally, I am aware of the concern that changes in patient flows as a result of creating a single new trust could damage services in Swansea. I shall hold Iecyhd Morgannwg health authority to its pledge not to allow patient flows to change because of reconfiguration. My officials will have the clear task of working with health authorities and the new trusts in as transparent a way as possible towards an improved style and quality of management in the new structures directed entirely at providing better patient care and respecting the needs of local communities.

It is central to the role of the new trusts that they should make themselves accessible to their communities and engage them in their decision making and planning, as our NHS White Paper requires. That is the only way in which to reassure communities about the impact of reconfiguration and to reap the benefit of better patient care that the changes are intended to achieve.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post. I believe that this is his first statement as Secretary of State for Wales. I am grateful to him for giving me a copy of his statement earlier this afternoon so that I had an opportunity to read it. He may have other matters to divert his attention these days, particularly the battle with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), and his hopes to be parachuted into a position in the Welsh Assembly, but I hope that he will be able to get his head out of the clouds for long enough to give sufficient attention to those issues that need it, including the national health service.

We fully appreciate the fact that the health service in Wales needs special extra attention. The consultation document "Better Health, Better Wales" mentions on page 5 that health service provision and the health of people in Wales is poorer than in England and the rest of the European Community. There is no reason why that should be allowed to continue.

I applaud the work of the nurses, doctors and support services in the hospitals in Wales. They do a superb job and deserve our recognition, not just today but every day.

The people of Wales will want to know how the reconfiguration of trusts will improve services. Will it reduce waiting lists and waiting times? I am sure that the Secretary of State saw the Western Mail on 12 November, which said that more people were waiting 12 months and 18 months for operations in Wales. That is unacceptable and we need to ensure great improvements. Many people believe that there is more fiddling with waiting list figures than Stephane Grappelli has ever seen. The Western Mail article features the comments of Jan Williams, the chairman of the confederation, who welcomes extra money to tackle waiting lists, but believes that sustained improvements will need increased funding on a recurring basis. Can we have assurances that we shall get such continued extra money for the health service?

I am concerned about the comments of Dr. Dewi Evans of Singleton and Morriston hospitals on the scandal of youngsters having to wait for operations in certain specialties in Wales. Will the reconfiguration of the trusts ensure an improvement in the health service, particularly for our young people?

The Government have talked about the reconfiguration resulting in savings. Initially a figure of £10 million was mentioned, although that has changed to £7 million recently. Those who work in the NHS have grave suspicions that the savings cannot come simply from the reconfiguration and that the extra money will come from front-line services. We are concerned that if the savings cannot be made as the Secretary of State has outlined, he will have to turn his attention elsewhere in the NHS to secure them. We want to ensure that the front-line services are improved, not damaged, by the changes.

The Secretary of State has also said that he has not acted on all the recommendations initially, with particular reference to Powys and Ceredigion, which I applaud. When I was in Powys, I too listened to the concerns of many members of the public—the people who are on the receiving end of the health service in Wales. People were worried that the acute service would completely swamp the community-based treatment that they received. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to their concerns.

Yesterday, a statement was made on the millennium bug problem. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it today, but as the changes in the health service will take place in 1999—exactly when the millennium bug might affect hospitals that have not taken proper action—will he assure us that the problem will continue to be treated as a priority? The Audit Commission reported earlier this year that the treatment of the problem in the NHS was extremely patchy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that people who live in rural areas will continue to receive the community services on which they have come to rely? He will appreciate that those people do not have adequate public transport to go to larger hospitals many miles away.

Will the Secretary of State reassure us that, in the reconfiguration, waiting list lengths will be tackled? I understand what he says about the geographical problem in Wales, but we must not allow those hospitals that he says will not be closed to be generally downgraded; the reconfiguration must not be used as an excuse to downgrade services. Will he assure us that there will be no downgrading of provision in, for example, the Nevill Hall hospital, which he mentioned?

The right hon. Gentleman referred to Swansea. That is where I grew up and where my family live, so I have particular reason to attend to what happens to the hospitals there. I remember that, when the emergency service in Singleton hospital was threatened with closure, there was an almighty outcry, even though extra provision was being made elsewhere. Will he guarantee that, even with the flows of patients between various hospitals in the area, that service will not be damaged?

If the Government paid as much attention to the real doctors in Wales as they do to their spin doctors—on whom they spend twice as much money as the Conservative Government did—the services would be much better in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be elections in Wales next year. Many people will wonder why, as it is only a few months until the Assembly takes responsibility for the health service in Wales, he did not delay his decisions on the reconfiguration and let the Assembly take them. The Assembly may want to look again at what he has announced today and make further changes, and that could be extremely expensive. He should remember that, in the elections to the Assembly, the Government will be judged not on their words, but on their deeds.

There was a good deal of knockabout in that contribution. The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to talk about parachutes. I have represented a Welsh constituency for 11 years and, before 1 took up other responsibilities, I spent four years as shadow Health Minister for Wales. I have been immersed in the politics of the Labour party and Wales for more than 30 years, but he had to go to Ribble Valley to win a seat in the House. I take it that he left his parachute outside the Chamber before he came in and had the cheek, as someone who represents an English constituency, to talk about the health service in Wales.

I suppose that we should take his contribution as a belated apology for the damage that the Conservative party did over 18 years to the health service in Wales. His recognition of the importance of nurses is also belated. I speak for all Labour Members in saying that we value the nurses, doctors and the other health service staff who have a variety of functions; they all contribute enormously to the quality of health care.

It is important that we do not become frozen in immobility because of the Assembly. I believe that the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), agrees with that. We must lay down foundations and make sure that structures are in place so that the Assembly will be able to call the health service to account, to examine the management of the health service and to look at the outcomes and the outputs that are important to the people whom we represent.

The proposals will help to reduce waiting lists and waiting times, and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should recognise that waiting lists dropped by 1,700 last month. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, will have more to say next week to embarrass the hon. Gentleman further. The separation of elective and emergency work within the new trusts will help to tackle waiting lists.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was worried about the extent of savings, but the Pembroke-Derwen merger made continuing savings of £750,000 per annum—well above the estimates given of resultant savings. We can have some confidence in the estimates. I will talk to people who have concerns about achieving the savings and about the way in which they are fed back into health care. The hon. Gentleman seems to get most of his information from the Western Mail, and I can tell him that I will listen to those who work in the health service, including the representatives of Unison. They have genuine concerns about these matters—they do not want to score points in this Chamber.

The hon. Member wanted to know about the millennium bug. He must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for something to say at that point. Yes, the changes will take place on 1 April 1999, and we are making sure that the millennium bug will not damage the emergency services and health services generally in Wales. We give priority to that matter. I have been a member of the Cabinet Committee that is emphasising the need for every organisation to be aware of the issue. If new IT systems are needed as part of the reconfiguration, they will be millennium compliant.

The hon. Member asked about rural areas, and I have recognised the need for flexibility. That is precisely the reason for the decision in Powys, and why I have recognised that the situation in Ceredigion is difficult, but must be addressed. Problems of rurality, sparsity, mountains and other matters cause problems in the provision of services in virtually every part of Wales. That is one of the issues that we are trying to address through the flexibility provided by the reconfiguration. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman noticed the geographical problems of Wales. I am not sure how long it took him to come to that conclusion.

I emphasised in the statement the answers to a number of questions that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked, such as the future of Nevill Hall, which I said should not be downgraded. I made it clear that in each of the trusts, there should be no asset-stripping of one hospital by another or any undermining of confidence, so that services are available where people need them. The ability to maintain those local services and different centres of provision will be strengthened, not weakened, by the way in which we have undertaken the reconfiguration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is all good news and that he can leave the Chamber cheering at the news that he has been given.

First, I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Welsh Office, and to the managers, medical staff and others at all levels in the health service in Wales for the immense efforts that they have put into the reconfiguration process, which has been incredibly important. It is estimated that it will save between £7 million and £10 million by the end of this Parliament. Given the small adjustments that have been made in individual proposals, will there be any effect on those savings? My trust was confident that it could do better in savings terms than the figures in the proposals.

It is very important that we get the message across that permanent savings from administration will go directly to patient care. Will my right hon. Friend confirm and underline that the future of hospital and community services in the health service in Wales will, in the near future, lie in the hands of local health groups, doctors, nurses, midwives and local authority representatives, who will have the job of seeing how hospital services fit into the new health service in Wales?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those people who are going through a difficult process, and who worked closely with him during his period as the Minister with responsibility for health in Wales. I repeat my tribute to my hon. Friend for the hard work that he undertook in difficult circumstances. It is always more difficult to start when one is clearing up a mess than if one is starting from a strong position. Frankly, the former is where we found ourselves 18 months ago.

I am confident that the adjustments will not cause a problem in relation to savings. In Powys, the health authority has given the assurance that the necessary savings can be effected in ways that it is happy to achieve itself. I am certain that the dismemberment of the Llandough trust in order to put it back together again in a couple of years as part of stage 2 would have been an expensive way of doing a job badly. I am confident that the savings will not be any lower as a result of the decisions on Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.

We will look specifically at Ceredigion in light of our decision, but I hope that my intention can be carried through and that we can strengthen partnership and co-operation between Ceredigion and other trusts to make sure that difficulties are not caused. I underline the point that savings are to be diverted back into health care, and I am sure that all my hon. Friends want to see that happen.

Finally, I can give my hon. Friend the answer he is looking for in relation to community services. It is very important that there is a proper balance between hospital and community services, which must be integrated and complementary. My hon. Friend is right to stress that the future is in the hands of local health groups, which will bring a new degree of accountability at the most local level. That matches the developments that will take place in the coming year, when the overall strategic accountability will be in the hands of the new elected Assembly for Wales.

May I offer the Secretary of State and his Minister my profound gratitude and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and the people of Powys at today's decision? The people of Powys have worked so hard to protect the continued existence of Powys health trust, and have won a common-sense victory today. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this will be regarded as an indication that, for once at least, Ministers have been willing to listen to the concerns of the public and to act accordingly—something that is extremely welcome? That will bring great cause for celebration to the professionals working in health trusts in Powys.

Does the Secretary of State agree that while this decision may not please everyone in Wales, few in Powys will be disappointed? Does he agree that it was somewhat mean-spirited of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to seek the negatives and to make irrelevant party political points at a time when it is important for us to recognise that the decisions have been altered according to the consultation process that involved effort on both sides? That process has led ultimately to a pleasing result in terms of the modification of the plans.

The Secretary of State mentioned the need for Powys to achieve savings, and that has been mentioned on a number of occasions. Will he accept my assurance that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will honour the commitment to work with Powys health trust to ensure that those savings are found—recognising, none the less, that the process presents us with a further challenge that we must not avoid?

More broadly, there will be debates and concerns in other parts of Wales, especially about the financial savings that must be found. Does the Secretary of State agree none the less that the Powys decision should be regarded as an example of what can be done when parties listen and work together—[Interruption.]—when the public are genuinely consulted and, perhaps most importantly, when the public interest is put above party political concerns, in this case leading to the maintenance of a health service that is loved by the people of Powys and highly respected by all those who have cause to use it?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. To those Conservative Members who mocked some of his points, let me say that I welcome his reasonable approach. This is the new politics: to disagree when there are things to disagree about, but to agree when we can agree. In particular, I would stress the importance of one thing that he said: it is a matter of integrity that he acknowledged the fact that there are difficult decisions for Powys Health Care trust to take in order to make the savings that will be necessary for it to deliver on its promises.

I have heard Labour party and trade union voices arguing in the same direction as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I look to Members of Parliament, local authorities, trade union representatives and others to help to deliver on the promises that have been made. I am convinced that, with a reasonable and co-operative approach, we can achieve an outcome that is satisfactory for everybody.

Order. I have given some leeway to Front Benchers and to the former Health Minister in Wales, but I now appeal for shorter questions and answers, as we have other important business to cover.

I accept entirely the logic of the proposals for Swansea, which reflect the consultation that was held in the area. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new trust will start with an enormous problem, with the overhanging shadow of the £8 million debt that Morriston will bring? If the new trust is not to start in an atmosphere of cutting and holding back on developments, we must deal with the debt. Recognising that it should not have been built up in the first place, will he consider writing it off?

There are proposals to deal with the problem to some extent. A recovery programme is being set up, and my right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point when he says that the debt should not have been built up in the first place. The reconfiguration will help the process, but I recognise that the problem to which he alludes is extremely difficult. We will be conscious of it when we consider how the new trust is to develop its work.

There is widespread cynicism in Wales about the reconfiguration exercise. People think that it has more to do with a pre-election undertaking than with actual need and the provision of a more efficient health care system. There will be widespread dismay at the failure to take the opportunities for improvements in health care delivery in mid-Wales— especially in relation to the integration of services—that were carefully described in the consultation process.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the development of services and of clinical excellence that has taken place in Ceredigion, and particularly in Bronglais general hospital, will be able to continue? Does he accept that accessibility is also vital, and that the royal colleges need to—and are in fact beginning to—understand that? May I warn him that any diminution in the status of Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth or reduction in its range of services and specialties would evoke a furious public reaction in the area, compared with which what we have witnessed in Powys would pale into insignificance?

I agree that there is widespread cynicism in Wales. That is precisely why, when I took up my post, I delayed the announcement of the reconfiguration in order to examine the proposals and ensure that I would not be announcing something that I could not put my hand on my heart and say would improve patient care. That is my objective in today's announcement. That is precisely why the announcement is about not only lines on the map, but the way in which the new arrangements will be put into practice.

I would have hoped that the way in which I made the announcement would have set some of the hon. Gentleman's doubts to rest. He asks whether I can guarantee that the development of clinical excellence in Bronglais will continue. The whole point of the way in which I referred to Bronglais and services in Ceredigion is that I recognise that there is a specific problem there. That problem would not have been helped at all by simply merging it with another set of problems at Powys Health Care trust: that would have been running away from the problem.

I fully intend to address the problem, and I will be quite happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and to listen to any constructive suggestions about the future of the health service in his area. The reference to co-operation and partnership with other adjoining trusts is precisely about trying to find a formula that will protect the future of Bronglais.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about accessibility. It is not an easy situation to protect, but I am determined to do so, and I look forward to working with him, with those who work in the trusts and with other interested parties in the area. It is not my intention that there should be any diminution in the standard of care available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable anger in Llanelli at the decision to abolish the Llanelli Dinefwr hospital trust and that the anger will be compounded by the fact that the decision was taken by a Labour Secretary of State? Is he further aware that there will be widespread cynicism about the consultation process, because all groups in my constituency—health professionals and others—were totally opposed to the Welsh Office plans? Is he finally aware that all his fine words about not downgrading hospitals will carry little credibility because there is real concern, as a result of the decision that he has taken, that Prince Philip hospital in Llanelli will be downgraded and we will lose our medical services?

I know and understand my right hon. Friend's passion for the health services in his area. I hope that he will help to ensure that nobody pursues the approach of either cynicism or promoting the belief that there is any threat to Prince Philip hospital. I have made it clear that that is not the basis on which the reconfiguration is proceeding. I have been absolutely explicit—I hope that he will pass my words on to those of his constituents who have expressed concerns—about the requirement on the trust, the board and officials at the Welsh Office to ensure that none of the dangers that he fears will come about.

I understand the fears and cynicism that have arisen from the way in which health service decisions have been taken over the past 20 years. Many of us have had worries about our local services. The whole point of making my statement in a clear and considered way, measuring each word, is to ensure that the changes that I have to accept as necessary to concentrate on health care are implemented in such a way that high-quality care is provided, but with a proper regard for factors such as the affection of people in Llanelli for their own hospital. I hope that that offers the reassurance that my right hon. Friend seeks.

I agree with 80 per cent. of the statement, but I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the two-stage reorganisation of the trusts in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. We heard enough about two-stage reorganisation yesterday to last us a lifetime, although I understand that today's announcement does not involve any grouse moors or the resignation of any Tory Front-Bench spokesmen, however popular that might be in Wales.

How long does my right hon. Friend expect the period to be between the completion of stage one reform, with the two mergers that he has announced today, and the ultimate merger of the two newly merged trusts into one mega-trust covering the whole of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan? How high will morale be among the top management, the clinicians and everybody working in the health service in the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan area when they work for two organisations with such a limited shelf life?

I accept that a two-stage reform is not ideal, but nothing else was on the cards from the beginning of the consultation, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope that not only will we have no grouse moors, but no grouses at the end of the process. I have made our direction clear, following much uncertainty in the health service in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. People suspected that we would have stage one and that stage two would never happen. I am determined that we shall have a short first phase, leading to the completion of the job as soon as possible. I will consult further on how quickly that can be done, so that a time scale can be produced that gives some certainty to clinicians and staff in the area.

It is only fair to point out that the complexities in the area, of which my hon. Friend is aware, include the moving of the accident and emergency unit from Cardiff Royal infirmary to the University hospital of Wales and a variety of other movements in the acute services in the area. We do not intend to dismember the Llandough hospital from community services, thus producing a mish-mash and pretending that that is a second stage towards a single trust. Instead, we will merge existing arrangements in a manageable first stage, which will quickly lead to a sensible second stage and the degree of certainty that my hon. Friend rightly suggests should be achieved.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as far as Gwent is concerned, because I believe that the single trust is the proper solution. However, I know that my hon. Friends have some concerns about that and I am sure that they will express them to him. Will he confirm that his decision will provide us with an opportunity in Gwent to shift resources from bureaucracy to patient care and how does he intend to ensure that that happens?

My hon. Friend is right: the purpose is to shift resources from bureaucracy into patient care by having only one level of bureaucracy and ensuring that services are available to people in appropriate and convenient locations. We wish to strengthen services in the northern half of Gwent, about which there has been some concern, and we want to ensure the safety and long-term security of Nevill Hall hospital. I am certain that the reconfiguration can achieve the improvement in patient care in Gwent for which my hon. Friend hopes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I agree that the best solution is to concentrate the strengths of the services into a single trust. All the alternatives would have meant that administrators would have been appointed unnecessarily, and bureaucracy would have been doubled or even trebled at the expense of patient care by doctors and nurses. Given what my right hon. Friend said about the problems in the north of the county, may I remind him that the area of Wales with the worst health record is a ward in Newport? The solution will help all parts of Gwent to save money and enjoy a stronger health service.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right to suggest that we should focus on seeking to improve health care where it is worst, including wards in his constituency and areas in north Gwent. The purpose of the reforms is to ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has access to high-quality health care from acute and community services and from the complementary services of local authorities.

I wish to express my disappointment with the statement as it affects my constituency. The policy of forced mergers of trusts that my right hon. Friend has inherited from his predecessor and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is mistaken, because mergers should be voluntary. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend provide for my constituents and people in Llanelli that services will be available in both areas and will not be affected by rationalisation?

I can understand my hon. Friend's disappointment, but I am not sure about the concept of voluntary mergers because that might mean leaving the management of trusts that may have been established on an unsatisfactory basis to choose whether to merge. The overriding consideration must be the need to provide the best quality of patient care, as I know my hon. Friend agrees. I am happy to give the reassurance he seeks that the quality and choice of care in his part of the new county area will not be downgraded, and I shall remind those who will run the trusts of the need to ensure that there is no asset stripping of one hospital for another. That applies equally to both sides of the combined trust.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to Nevill Hall hospital, people in Blaenau Gwent will still be angry about the statement. My right hon. Friend quoted the Royal College of Surgeons, but if he had quoted the local authorities, such as Blaenau Gwent, Monmouthshire and, even, Newport he would have found opposition to a single trust for the county of Gwent. The vast majority of general practitioners in Gwent are also opposed. The community of Blaenau Gwent has some of the worst health problems in the United Kingdom, including heart and respiratory disease and cancers, and the people are terrified that they will again have an authority that will be unable to relate to and respond to their health problems.

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend presents on behalf of his constituents. I accept that different voices have different views, but I mentioned the Royal College of Surgeons because it has argued for larger concentrations of acute services, which can cause problems for more localised services, unless they are a part of a combination. I have proceeded with the interests of his constituents and the services at Nevill Hall hospital in mind. I accept my hon. Friend's concerns for his local area, but I believe that the creation of the local health groups and a stronger voice for community health councils will be a way in which to achieve our intentions. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend and his colleagues the changes to community health councils, because they will be important to our scheme.

I remind my right hon. Friend that, when the previous Government introduced the trust system, they included no consultation whatever. The Government should take some credit for having a consultation process on this occasion. My right hon. Friend will know that I campaigned with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for a separate trust for north Gwent and I must express the disappointment of campaigners that my right hon. Friend has decided not to implement that. Will he give us an assurance that Nevill Hall hospital will be maintained as a district general hospital, that there will be no drift of resources to south Gwent and that the Government's commitment to combat social inequalities in health will work specifically in the interests of the people of north Gwent?

I am happy to give those assurances. Nevill Hall will continue as a district general hospital. As I indicated earlier, there must not be an exercise in asset stripping. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there was no consultation when the previous group of trusts was created, but we have listened, and I would be more likely to share the concerns expressed by some of his constituents if the trusts were to be of the type set up by the previous Government. We have made it clear that the trusts must be totally different, and must involve partnership and co-operation. They must provide an integrated health service in which there is no question of hospitals or acute services winning over community services, but, instead, complementing each other. I shall be happy to work through those issues with my hon. Friend and his colleagues as time goes by.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the business of the House. The business for next week is as follows:

MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Water Industry Bill.

TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day].

Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on decommissioning and the release of prisoners, followed by a debate on tax. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Motion on section 155 of the Finance Act 1998.

THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on prison sentences and alternatives to prison sentences, followed by a debate on new deal pathfinders and pathways into work for lone parents. Details will be given in the Official Report.

At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates, the votes on account and supplementary defence votes A.

FRIDAY 11 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill.

TUESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, conclusion of Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill,

Debate on the Common Fisheries Policy on a Government motion

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.

Debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons.

THURSDAY 17 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Scottish Enterprise Bill.

FRIDAY 18 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.

Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Christmas recess from Thursday 17 December until Monday 11 January 1999.

The House is grateful for the business and for the dates of the Christmas recess, which are a sensible response to our suggestion that there was no point in bringing the House back after a non-sitting Friday for one or two days during Christmas week when we want to be busy in our constituencies.

On the Greater London Authority Bill, I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's response to my suggestion of allowing extra time for debate. Will the House be able to sit until midnight on that day so that debate is not duly constrained? May I repeat my request for sections of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House as they affect the constitution?

The right hon. Lady trailed a debate on modernisation of the House, not on a Thursday, but on a Wednesday. Can she confirm that the report on how we manage Thursdays will be published in good time for that debate? Does she recognise that Members have strong and conflicting views on that matter? Can she confirm that Members will be able to vote for a range of options, including the status quo, on a free vote?

On Monday, will the Prime Minister be making a statement on the Anglo-French summit, and will he be able to explain his increasingly isolationist language on European matters? When we debate tax on Wednesday, will the Chancellor try to make good his disappointing performance on the "Today" programme on tax harmonisation? Will he be able to tell us which United Kingdom businesses are being targeted by the working group on harmful competition, which is chaired by the Financial Secretary? Will the Chancellor explain what he meant when he signed a code to tackle harmful tax competition? Will he give the same messages in the UK that he gives when he is in Europe?

First, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to suspend the rule and to allow debate until midnight on the first day of consideration on the Greater London Authority Bill. We hope that debate on the second day will conclude at around 7 o'clock.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would take sections of that Bill on the Floor of the House. We can discuss that through the usual channels, and I understand both the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and their anxiety to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I expected the report on modernisation of the House of Commons to be published in time for the debate. I expect it to be published on Monday, leaving many days in which Members may consider it. He also asked about voting. It would be wrong of me to attempt to comment on how we might handle decisions when the report is not yet before the House. I am sure that the matter can be discussed through the usual channels, although if hon. Members wish to vote for the status quo, all that is required is that they reject any proposal for change. There will certainly be a free vote.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would make a statement on the summit. I expect that my right hon. Friend will do so. As we have made clear, informal councils or meetings might not be followed by a statement, but we certainly expect the Prime Minister to make a statement after the summit. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on the Prime Minister's stand, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is drifting back in time. The Government are not isolationist; on the contrary, we seek, successfully, to put together alliances across the European Union, which is one reason why we—unlike the previous Government—were successful in lifting the beef ban, a lifting long promised by the Conservatives, but never delivered.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the finance debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will speak about some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. As for the targeting of UK businesses in any proposal under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands that matter. We have had many complaints—I am sure that the previous Government had many such complaints in their day—about unfair taxes and concessions elsewhere. United Kingdom businesses have complained to us, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is addressing those complaints.

Have the Government given any consideration whatever to making a statement about the information that came out casually yesterday that there has been a major change in Government policy towards the second Chamber? The House has been completely bypassed. Was the matter discussed by the consultative committee on which the leader of the Liberal Democrats sits? Is Lord Cranborne now an unofficial member of that committee, as part of the patriotic alliance? Will the hereditary peers who are elected be elected by proportional representation on a closed-list system, or will they be elected in the traditional hereditary manner of first past the bedpost?

As my right hon. Friend will be well aware, the Leader of the Opposition chose yesterday to publicise discussions that had been undertaken. If the matter was put casually before the House, that was not the doing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Indeed, had agreement been reached in the ordinary and customary way, it would have been properly announced to the House when we discussed the way in which the Bill on the Lords would be handled. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) chose instead to publicise the matter before any formal announcement had been made about the handling of that Bill. That is a matter for him, but given the way that Lords are leaping off the Tory Front Bench even as we speak, I imagine that he regrets his handling of it.

My right hon. Friend also asked me about the general issue of the second Chamber and how widely the matter was discussed. I understand that it was not widely discussed because the relevant discussions were continuing. Attempts were being made to reach agreement so that the matter could be handled by consensus and on common ground, according to how the Government had said from the outset that they wished to handle it, if and where they could. That has been the Government's position from the beginning, but it was clearly not the position at least of some parts of the Opposition, and it is still not their position.

As for whether Lord Cranborne is an unofficial member of any coalition, I am not sure where he stands at present. Should the agreement be put in place, how the hereditary peers will choose who should continue in the transitional House until all hereditary peers go—the Government have said from the outset that that is the intention at the conclusion of the legislation—is, I am happy say, for another place to decide.

I have a more serious question about the events of the past 24 hours. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the sensible management of the business of Parliament and, in particular, of this House, depends to a considerable degree on mutual trust and confidence across parties? Does she agree that that will be especially true not only for the business that she has announced for the next few weeks, but in the new year? Has the leadership of the Conservative party assured her that that mutual trust can be restored and that, when those who appear to be speaking on behalf of the party—appropriate spokesmen—enter into an agreement in good faith, they will stand by it? Has she received assurances to the effect that the Conservative party will now agree in good faith to the assurances that it has given?

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that mutual trust and confidence are important in this place and that, if assurances appear to be given but the situation then changes, it shakes that confidence. However, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received assurances of the sort that he suggests. I do not want to rub salt into any wounds, but it seems to me that such is the confusion that exists on the Opposition Benches that no one is in a position to give an assurance.

I know that my right hon. Friend is highly efficient, so will she use the extra time that she will undoubtedly find in the legislative process, as a result of those interesting and rapidly arrived at decisions, to establish a strategic rail authority? That would not only be widely welcomed by all our constituents, but would produce positive results for all the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate and as I said a moment ago, there is such confusion that it is a little hard to know what will happen. If, as seems possible, that agreement is adhered to, in particular in another place, we may well be able to introduce the strategic rail authority Bill, which will give not only my hon. Friend but many hon. Members considerable pleasure.

Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), can the Leader of the House tell us whether, when the Chancellor speaks to the House about taxation on Wednesday, he can explain why the Financial Secretary told European Standing Committee B that she believed that our "domestic tax system is fully consistent with the principles of the code"—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 26 November 1997; c. 2.] that the committee that she has been chairing is studying, when it turns out that 10 of our domestic tax measures will have to be changed?

I am not familiar with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is seeking the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom from the discussions on the tax code. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will raise that matter in the debate next week.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on family leave? Is she aware that a commission reported recently to the United States Congress on family and medical leave, stating that it has a good effect on families and no significant effect on competitiveness? The Government have referred to parental leave in their programme, but unless there is some arrangement for payment that will be a hollow right for many people. Will she undertake to communicate that fact to the relevant Ministers?

I much respect my hon. Friend's strong feelings on that matter and take the point that a sensible balance between rights and the understanding and recognition of mutual responsibilities in the workplace facilitates competitiveness and economic success. He raised two slightly different issues. The first was family and parental leave; the Government have been discussing family leave in general rather than merely parental leave. Secondly, he mentioned a pay scheme and we are certainly some distance from that, although I understand the importance of his argument.

Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on early-day motion 56?

[That this House notes that from April 1999, 300,000 non-taxpaying pensioners and 330,000 other non-taxpayers will lose an average of £75 each because of the Government's decision to abolish the dividend tax credit; further notes that 80,000 of the pensioners affected will lose over £100 per year; considers that it is unacceptable that basic rate taxpayers and higher rate taxpayers are unaffected directly by this decision which only affects non-taxpayers, half of them poor pensioners, who by definition must be poorer than taxpayers; calls on the Government to act on the promise made to the House on 30th June when the Paymaster General stated 'I am aware of the growing anxiety among poorernon-taxpayers who have been hit by the measure so I know that we need to make our position utterly clear as quickly as possible', Official Report, 30th June, column 175; calls upon the Government to now honour this pledge by announcing that non-taxpayers will be able to continue to reclaim a 10 per cent. tax credit from April 1999 in the same way as taxpayers who hold PEPs or ISAs will be able to do; and further notes that this is still a 50 per cent. cut from the current 20 per cent. dividend tax credit.]

It has been signed by Members representing all three main political parties and concerns the plight of more than 300,000 pensioners, who will lose on average £75 a year because of the Government's decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits.

I am not in a position to allow an early debate on that matter, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in the business statement that there will be a debate on tax matters. He will be able to raise it then.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm if there is to be a statement or a debate on the proceedings with which we have been deluged in the past 24 hours, that is, the demise of the hereditary peers? Although I, for one, want to see the end of the House of Lords, there is a delicious irony in seeing 750 hereditary peers sign their own death warrant-to-be, like the dead parrot, defunct and caput. In those circumstances, would it not be advantageous to introduce in the time that would be made available a strategic rail authority Bill, a food standards agency Bill and one or two other measures? The net result would be a benefit to the House and to the Labour party in particular.

I certainly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on the general handling of the issue. It is noteworthy that a most respected former Speaker of the House and other peers on the Cross Benches have put forward a proposal that commands support in another place. As my hon. Friend observes, that would mean that the Government could achieve a clear aim, namely, the removal of the right to sit and vote in another place on the basis of heredity. Indeed, we may well succeed in that aim faster than would otherwise have been the case. If the agreement can be implemented, we may well be able to introduce not only the strategic rail authority Bill but, one hopes, legislation on the food standards agency. Since the Conservative party has made so much of that latter measure, saying how important it is, I am sure that that would please Conservatives, too.

Will the right hon. Lady find Government time for a debate on early-day motion 69?

[That this House believes that the statement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 9th November, Official Report, column 14, that he has never been, and does not intend to be, involved in procuring or negotiating sponsorship deals for the New Millennium Experience Company is totally inconsistent with newspaper reports that he entered into discussions with S. P. and G. P. Hinduja in January with a view to persuading them to abandon support for a millennium project in the Midlands in favour of the dome atGreenwich and met the Hinduja brothers on 6th October at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the dome and other trade and industry matters; and is of the opinion that the Secretary of State should now apologise for having misled the House and should give up his position with the NMEC immediately.]

It draws attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry misled the House when he said on 9 November that he had never been and never would be involved in securing sponsorship for the New Millennium Experience Company. This afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to explain and apologise for his actions on that day. In an answer to a very reasonable question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), he did not deny the facts or that he had misled the House. He sought, however, not to apologise, but to ridicule my hon. Friend and, in so doing, he made a fresh and totally false allegation against Mr. Hinduja.

Order. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to call the House's attention to early-day motion 69, but he should not use the colourful language that he is using, or introduce new charges. He has done perfectly well in putting down that early-day motion, but he should stick closely to its wording, of which I am well aware.

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. You were here this afternoon when the issue was put to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and you heard his response. Will the Leader of the House demand that he comes to the House to explain his conduct? At the moment, he appears to be above the law.

I certainly cannot undertake to give the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends an opportunity to raise afresh a matter that has clearly been raised once already today. From the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it seems to me not that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not deal with the matters raised, but that the hon. Gentleman does not like the answer that my right hon. Friend gave. I fear that that is not unknown in this place. It remains the position that my right hon. Friend does not procure or negotiate sponsorship deals. I understand that, in early October, he had a meeting with the Hinduja brothers to discuss several issues relating to the Department of Trade and Industry, but there is no record of any discussion of the millennium experience at that meeting.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if there was a statement on the hereditary peers next week, it would provide the Government with an opportunity to respond fully to the quite extraordinary—there is no other way to describe them—antics of the Leader of the Opposition? One would like to see the right hon. Gentleman respond accordingly. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as far as one can ascertain, there is widespread Labour support for any compromise and practical solution that would deal with most of the hereditary peers? I welcome what appears to be an arrangement that would help the Government and provide an excellent opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to move forward. It will certainly be appreciated in the country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all my hon. Friends who share the view that he expresses. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future to debate the developments of the past few days, although I agree that that might be an entertaining debate. Unfortunately, we are not here to enjoy ourselves, but to get on with legislative work.

One most noteworthy aspect of the events of the past few days is that the hypocrisy of the Conservative party has been completely exposed. Conservative Members have repeatedly claimed that the measure on Lords reform should not even be in the Gracious Speech, because it would take time from matters that are of far greater concern to the British people. On the other hand, we have made it quite plain that our chief interests in the Queen's Speech were indeed those other issues, such as health care, which are of far greater importance, but that we felt that Lords reform was a matter that had to be dealt with in its proper place. It is we who have been trying to find a way of not taking up excessive time to discuss the matter, although the proper time will, of course, be made available. Therefore. it is now crystal clear that it is Conservative Members who want to spend all their time discussing a matter which they say should not be a high priority.

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in calling for a debate in Government time on funding for the millennium dome? I ask that not least because it struck me that the original answer at Question Time was that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had not sought extra funding for the millennium dome from other sources. I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman directly whether the matter had been put to the Hinduja brothers at their last meeting, but I failed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State is a fairly slippery customer, and 10 minutes is a short time—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I withdraw that remark. The right hon. Gentleman is capable of evading a point for 10 minutes of questions in the House, and he has shown his ability to do so. However, a full debate on the dome would not only allow that question to be properly addressed. but would enable us to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the extraordinary claim he made this afternoon, that the millennium dome would somehow create £1 billion-worth of economic growth for the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the same issue as his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and he will get the same answer. All I can add is that, as Conservative Members have of late spent so much time arguing that the House should devote itself to high-priority issues, the notion that we should spend a day debating the Conservatives' ridiculous accusations about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is quite ludicrous.

May we have a debate on the banking industry, especially the role played by Lombard banking and National Westminster bank in inducing customers to invest in The Tanning Shop franchisee business, when the bank knew, because that business was one of its major customers, that it was collapsing? If it is possible to have that debate, will my right hon. Friend ask Ministers at the DTI to ask inspectors to interview Mr. Peter Stern, who is the NatWest franchise manager? He knows the whole truth and he should tell the whole truth, so that the bank learns the whole truth. It is his failure to tell the bank the whole truth that is costing franchisees all over the country millions of pounds.

I am sorry to hear of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised and of the losses he has identified as being made. I understand that DTI officials are looking at those issues and that the matter may have been referred to the banking ombudsman. I believe that my hon. Friend may have secured a meeting with the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He is the relevant DTI Minister and I know that he will share my hon. Friend's concern and be anxious to ensure that anything that can be resolved is resolved. However, I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I shall be able to arrange a debate in the House on the matter in the near future.

In the light of the right hon. Lady's remarks about faith and confidence in the House and given the comments that have been made today about the business yesterday, does she think it appropriate for an urgent debate to take place in which this House can discuss and debate the conduct of the Prime Minister? In the Queen's Speech debate, the right hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that he was keen to scrap hereditary peers at an early stage and made it a point of principle; yet, at the same time, through his offices and others in his party, he was making secret deals and negotiating how many hereditary peers could, through a Dutch auction, be retained in order to expedite the Government's business.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been paying attention to what has been going on. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it plain that it is a point of principle in the Labour party that an hereditary position should not be a qualification for sitting and voting in the other place and that we want to see that change at an early stage. It is clear that part of the purpose behind the discussions that have been held is indeed to make sure that that eventuality does occur earlier than might otherwise have been the case—in fact, I am beginning to wonder whether that is the Conservatives' real objection.

Has my right hon. Friend had a moment to glance at the amazing, bewildering, breathtaking, fascinating and mind-boggling second report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on "The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy"? Not since Rip van Winkle, or at least since St. Paul was struck on the road to Damascus, has there been anything quite like it. Has she read paragraph 32, which states:

"Two aspects of the way in which the constitutional reform is being implemented give us particular cause for concern. One is the belated addressing of the English dimension."?

Well, better late than never, but where on earth have our colleagues been all this time? Is it not about time that the House of Commons addressed itself seriously to what is actually happening to the constitution of this country and in Scotland?

I must confess that I have not committed to memory every word of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have a further confession to make: the connection he makes with Rip van Winkle escapes me for the moment, although I am sure that if I think about it afterwards, I shall realise what it is—I shall work on that. I can say only that I know and understand my hon. Friend's strong views about devolution, which he has held for many years. However, regardless of the evidence given to the Select Committee, the remarks made or opinions quoted, I understand that the report welcomes the Government's proposals overall.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that I asked her predecessor many times whether we could have a debate on the inordinate amount of time that Ministers take to reply to letters from Members of Parliament. She will probably also know that I put a series of questions to Ministers asking how long they took to reply to such letters. My questions were referred to a report that was published just before the summer recess. However, the report told us what had happened in 1997, not 1998—which is not satisfactory.

I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a letter that I received from the Department of Social Security in response to a question about why pensioners in my constituency had been told that they would receive a guaranteed minimum income of £75 a week. After three and a half months, the reply eventually came that there is no guaranteed minimum income of £75 a week because people must have less than £3,000 in savings in order to qualify. Why must we wait three and a half months to discover that our constituents have been misled in that way?

I do not intend to sound as though I am treating the hon. Gentleman's concerns about answers to letters trivially. That is an important matter, and I know that all my colleagues do their utmost to answer correspondence as speedily as possible. However, as to the specific issue to which he referred, I take it that he was asking a rhetorical question as I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is much too intelligent not to have known the answer before he wrote the letter.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the rather strident language that has been used today? Lord Pilkington described Lord Cranborne's deal as his "crowning glory", while the Daily Mail described the actions of the Leader of the Opposition as "treason". In light of those comments, will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate about constitutional reform? Finally, in light of Baroness Strange's departure to the Cross Benches and the changing balance of power in the other place, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will not lose their resolve to reform the hereditary peerage system?

I am aware of the remarks to which my hon. Friend referred. Every time one turns on the television one learns that a fresh member of the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords has departed—no doubt as a vote of confidence in the party's overall leadership. Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's request to have an enjoyable and amusing debate in what is normally a festive season, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for it.

I thank the Leader of the House for her courtesy in responding to questions put to her by the Northern Ireland Select Committee about the powers of Select Committees in the devolved territories and remind her that we corresponded about that issue in July and November. Is the Leader of the House aware that the deadline for settling those matters is 1 February? Although we are making progress, I hope that that deadline is firmly in the Government's mind.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman both for his kind remarks and for the manner in which he has raised the issue. If by any chance the matter was not strongly in people's minds, I assure him that it will be from now on.

The Leader of the House will be aware that the chief fire officer for London proposes to cut five fire pumps across Greater London. That proposal comes on top of the removal of 14 fire pumps in the three years since the docklands bombing. It is also proposed to cut one of two pumps in my constituency—a move that will be resisted every inch of the way. The legislation governing the fire service, the Fire Services Act 1947, is woefully out of date and in need of review. Could we have a debate or at least a statement about that matter?

As my hon. Friend has correctly identified, that legislation has been on the statute book for some time. Responsibility for provision of the fire service rests locally with the fire authority, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the approval of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is required if such an authority wishes to reduce the number of stations, appliances or fire-fighting posts. I understand that no application has been received to date from the London fire and civil defence authority in respect of Hornchurch fire station.

As a result of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, the fire service standard spending assessment for London should increase by almost £10 million—or 3.8 per cent. That may assist to some degree with the difficulties identified by my hon. Friend. I take his point about the concern regarding those issues, but I fear that I cannot offer to provide a debate or a statement before Christmas.

Bearing in mind the current confusion in the ranks of the Conservative party to which my right hon. Friend correctly referred, can she confirm whether the progress of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—which was supported by a majority of hon. Members many times last night—will continue to be impeded by hereditary peers in the other place?

My hon. Friend asks a very interesting and pertinent question. I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record Labour Front Benchers' appreciation of the devotion to duty shown by many of our hon. Friends on the Back Benches who toiled through the Division Lobby on many occasions last night. I share my hon. Friend's hope that we are well on the way to disposing of the Bill. It is not yet entirely clear what attitude will be adopted in another place—whether as a consequence of the potential agreement or otherwise—but it is not impossible that we may finally be able to dispose of the matter in a manner that allows the efficient conduct of elections. That seems to me to be common sense.