Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday 19 May 1999

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

British Child Migrants

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

9.33 am

I begin by expressing my gratitude to you, Madam Speaker, that we are holding this debate on the report of the Select Committee on Health. In 1992, in your House, you hosted a function for the international board of the Rugby Football League at which I met Tilly Brasch from Queensland, Australia, who is the wife of an Australian rugby league official. She told me the tale of the British child migrants—about which I had previously heard nothing. Subsequently, I became involved with that issue and, on several occasions, was moved to press the Government about my concerns.

I express my profound thanks to Mrs. Margaret Humphreys who wrote the book "Empty Cradles"—now a bestseller—about her fight to uncover what she described as Britain's most shameful secret. The book is about the history of child migration and how Mrs. Humphreys came across it through her work as a social worker with Nottinghamshire county council. I express my gratitude to her and to the Child Migrants Trust which she formed and which has done a tremendous amount of work to bring the issue to light. It is also appropriate to record the Health Committee's thanks to Nottinghamshire county council for its work in supporting the trust financially and in other ways over several years.

I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on child migrants, some of whose members are in the Chamber today. I hope that they will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, as I know that they want to speak about their work. I sincerely thank my colleagues on the Health Committee for the support that they have given me during our inquiry, especially those Members who went to Australia and New Zealand for what was an extremely traumatic couple of weeks taking evidence. It would be wrong of me not to thank the staff of the Health Committee. Although I should not single out individuals, I especially want to thank Second Clerk John Whatley for his valiant work in helping the Committee to draw up the report, and Committee Assistant Frank McShane for his support in organising the visit to Australia and New Zealand.

I thank all the former child migrants who participated in the inquiry. I shall mention some of them later in my remarks. I thank the Canadian representatives of the Ellen Foundation Inc. and Home Children Canada, who came to the United Kingdom at their own expense to give evidence to the Committee. I sincerely thank the high commission and consular staff in Auckland, Wellington, Melbourne, Canberra and Perth for their efforts on behalf of the Committee and for the help that they have given to the former migrants. It is appropriate to give special thanks to the consul-general in Melbourne, Peter Innes, and his wife Robbie, for allowing their home to be used for two days while we took evidence from the former migrants. I also thank Ministers, politicians and officials in New Zealand and Australia for their co-operation.

Finally, I thank the British Government. Although there will be critical comment today, I realise that the Government's response to the Health Committee report has, in general, been extremely positive. That is appreciated by all those who are concerned about this issue.

I will say a little about the background to our report, but whatever we say in the debate will fail to do justice to the issue. All those who know about child migration will accept that point. I apologise to those affected by child migration for the fact that we will not be able to do justice to what they all went through. The debate is about one of the most shameful secrets of Britain's recent past. It is about the deportation, in effect, of thousands of vulnerable children and young people from our care system. It is about this country washing its hands of responsibility for its own citizens, who, in many instances, had the most appalling experiences as a direct consequence.

To illustrate that point, I refer to an answer that I received from the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as basically a decent human being, despite our differences. In answer to my question on child migration, he said:

"Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country."—[Official Report, 2 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 147.]

Those were British children, placed by British agencies and local authorities in a scheme authorised and encouraged by successive British Governments. Those children were, and still are, our responsibility.

The debate is about a top-level cover-up of the results of policies pursued by British Governments of different political persuasions. It is about the suppression of the scandalous consequences of a bizarre scheme that had clear undertones of racism and physical and sexual exploitation. Most important, the debate is about what we can do now to help those whose lives were affected and, in many instances, ruined by the child migration schemes.

I will touch on several of the key points of our report. Most hon. Members will be aware that, from 1618 to 1967, about 150,000 children were sent from the care system to various parts of the former Commonwealth. After the second world war, 10,000 children were sent to New Zealand and Australia. Most, if not all, of us here today could have been eligible to be one of those children. This week, I checked in the House of Commons Library to find the average age of Members of Parliament; somewhat surprising, but refreshing, was the discovery that I am one of the younger Members, the average age being 51.1 years. Therefore, given that the child migrant scheme ran until 1967, the majority of serving Members of Parliament could have been eligible for it and might have been sent abroad. We are talking not about ancient history, but about events that occurred within our own lifetime.

The scheme was ostensibly designed to enable children to have better lives, and I concede that we met some people in New Zealand and Australia who said that they had probably gained from the scheme, even though all of them were aware of how badly organised it was and how questionable were the motives underpinning it from the word go. In my view and that of the Committee, the real motivation for the child migration schemes was often to obtain cheap labour and, in Australia, to increase what was described as "good white stock"—a racist motivation to which our report refers.

The reality for significant numbers of the children involved was separation from their siblings: we heard tale after tale of brother being separated from sister, never to see each other again after arrival, especially in Australia. The reality was years of suffering, degradation and denial of the fact that most of the children had natural parents and families still living. For the natural parents, who were often persuaded to part with their offspring on the pretext that they would be adopted in good circumstances in Britain, the reality was years of lies and deceit.

Our report opens with a quote from the chief executive of Barnardo's, and it is worth repeating:

"It was barbaric; it was dreadful. We look back on it in our organisation with shock and horror."

I believe that his remarks are honest expressions of sincere regret that reflect the views of an organisation for which I have the greatest respect. Barnardo's is genuinely trying to face up to its past practices, but, sadly, not all the organisations and Churches involved in the child migrant schemes share that profound regret. Some are still anxious to avoid their responsibility and to obstruct the right of former migrants to know the truth about themselves.

One witness felt that the consequences of the schemes had been overdramatised by television—the term he used was "sensationalised". He referred particularly to a television drama-documentary called "The Leaving of Liverpool", which some hon. Members will have seen. That programme showed a child being torn from his mother by a nun and put on to a train at Liverpool station. We met that child, now grown up and living in New Zealand, after having been sent to Australia by the system. We spoke to him and he told us that those events had not been sensationalised, but that they actually happened. He described his memories of having been placed in care by his mother, who could not afford to keep him; she had to go out to work, so she placed him in a Catholic institution. She found out that her son was, in effect, to be deported and he has a vivid memory of, as a youngster, seeing his mother wrestling with that nun at Liverpool station. All those things happened; we must face up to that and do something about it.

Most of the report's recommendations have been addressed in the Government's response, and I welcome the fact that the Government have responded so positively to an extremely difficult issue which has not been satisfactorily addressed by previous Governments. However, I want to press my hon. Friend the Minister on certain specific concerns relating to the Government's response.

I am concerned about the continued failure properly to resource the Child Migrants Trust—the agency which, in the Committee's view, is carrying out the most important work of rehabilitating former migrants in their natural families, counselling them and supporting them. The increase of £130,000 on last year's grant, which was £20,000, is welcome, but the actual increase is only £70,000. That is because although Nottinghamshire county council has supported the trust with Nottinghamshire taxpayers' money, it has now reduced its grant to the trust. It is commendable of the council to have supported the CMT so positively, but perfectly reasonable for it to have reduced its grant now, because Nottinghamshire has no responsibility whatever in this matter.

The result is that the overall funding increase is nowhere near as large as the Government anticipated, or anywhere near the £500,000 annual revenue costs that the CMT needs to meet the demands placed on it. I do not know how its staff have continued their work through the years—their dedication, passion and commitment to dealing with this awful issue should be recognised, as should their need for proper support.

The other issue about which the CMT and others are concerned is the imbalance between the resourcing of the family research element of their work and the travel fund. It has been put to me that the cart has been put before the horse: there is no point having a travel fund unless people are found and rehabilitation with natural families is possible. I am not arguing about the sum available for the travel fund, although I think it is insufficient, but the imbalance between that money and the sums given for research must be redressed and more money made available for research. The CMT is desperately frustrated by having insufficient resources to make the links between people. Many former migrants have parents who are still living, and every day is crucial in making the links between them and enabling former migrants to return to Britain and meet their natural families.

There has been criticism of the travel fund, especially from the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families, saying that £1 million is inadequate. The Minister has told me that about 300 applications have already been made to the fund, which shows the extent of people's interest in making use of it. There is also concern that the issue will not go away in three years—it will continue for some time to come. Many of the migrants in Canada have grown old and died, but many of those sent to Australia and New Zealand are younger, being of an age similar to or less than that of hon. Members present here today. The adequacy of the sum in the travel fund is questionable.

The organisation of, and practical arrangements pertaining to, the travel fund remain unclear, so I hope the Minister will give some clarification on that point. In addition, the criteria for eligibility need to be examined within the context of the problems being encountered. The issue is a completely new one—we have never had to deal with anything like it before and I hope we never have to do so again, so we are in unknown territory.

There is concern that funds are available only for a first visit. Some people who would have been eligible for travel funding had already spent their entire savings on coming over to this country before the fund was established. Having visited once and perhaps found a member of their family, surely they deserve help to come again? Do we not have an obligation to give them that help? There is also concern about funding being restricted to visits to close family only. Some people do not fit into those criteria, because their natural parents and siblings are dead and their only living relative falls outside the definition of "close family". For goodness sake, that relative is as important as a mother or father to those people and we should recognise that. Finally, there are concerns, of which I know my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, about the operation of the means test. No doubt, he will respond to those concerns.

An issue to which the Government did not respond, but where their response might be helpful, was the Committee's proposal that there should be an international conference. Because so many countries and agencies were involved in the scheme over the years, people have tended to blame each other and pass the buck, saying that it is not their responsibility, but someone else's. To be frank, it is entirely our responsibility—a collective effort landed us in this mess. That is why we, as a Committee, felt strongly that an international conference might be able to resolve many of the inter-country issues.

One good example of such an issue, which was raised with me by former migrants in New Zealand, is the concern about International Social Service, which is responsible for the travel fund, having subcontracted the travel fund in New Zealand to the New Zealand Department of Social Welfare—a receiving agency. That contradicts the Select Committee's recommendations. We recognise that the migrants have no confidence in dealing with any of the agencies that placed or received them, so they will not access a travel fund operated by an agency that was involved in this devious scheme.

This is a tragic affair. It has been a traumatic experience for all those involved in the inquiry and I pay tribute to my colleagues for the courage that they have displayed. I place on record what an honour it has been to meet so many former migrants. We saw their tears, and were impressed by their incredible sense of humour—despite the many problems that they have experienced—and their immense courage in the face of appalling adversity.

I have one recollection of a former migrant's sense of humour—I cannot do the Aussie accent, which ruins my story somewhat. At a public hearing with migrants—I think it was in Perth, but we had many such sessions—a guy got up and said something like, "For 50 years I thought I was an orphan, but I was delighted to discover recently that I am actually a bastard." He made a very important point, which all Committee members will understand.

For an example of real courage, I refer hon. Members to the testimony of John Hennessey, the first witness to appear before the Committee. He travelled from Australia to give evidence in the Grand Committee Room. John has a terrible stammer, acquired as a result of the beatings that he received from the Christian Brothers. His courage at that first session was an example to us all, and I will not forget it for as long as I live.

For me, there was no better conclusion to the inquiry than the discovery that the Child Migrants Trust had found Mr. Hennessey's elderly mother, alive—although not particularly well—at 87. She lives in this country and John was reunited with her two months ago. He had last seen her when he was two and he was sent away at age 10. He did not know that his mother was alive and he knew nothing about his background.

I will never forget taking John to meet the Prime Minister at Downing Street—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for finding the time to see us. The Prime Minister arranged for John to be shown around No. 10. Hon. Members who have been to Downing street will know that there are stairs with photographs of previous Prime Ministers along the wall. John identified Clement Attlee, who was Prime Minister when he was deported to Australia. He said something like, "Hello, Prime Minister, I'm back; it's taken 50 years, but I'm back." I pay tribute to John and to all his fine colleagues who have shown so much courage.

I end with a final plea. We must learn the lessons of this episode and it must never be repeated. I am afraid that, in years to come, people will look back on present events and ask, "Why did that happen?" I remember travelling to Romania shortly after the revolution in the early 1990s when there was a lot of pressure to adopt Romanian orphans. I visited an orphanage where I asked how many of the little kids piled on top of me were orphans. I was told that 99 per cent. of the children up for adoption overseas had parents or families. I believe that we should have tried to reunite those children with their families and assist their parents in caring for them.

I do not want to make a political point, but, not long after our report was produced last summer, the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, said in a speech that we should place the children of one-parent families in the care of religious organisations. That is exactly what happened under the child migrant scheme: children were sent to those sorts of organisations and we all know what happened to them. The Select Committee sent a letter and a copy of our report to Baroness Thatcher, but we never received a reply—just like the migrants never received replies to their questions over many years. They want to know who they are, what went on, why it happened and what went wrong. I think they deserve those answers today.

9.55 am

It is a tremendous privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, in this debate. I endorse all of the tributes that he paid to the long list of people who have been concerned about this matter. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has handled this sensitive issue.

What emerged most strongly from the Select Committee's investigations was the fact that this was an institutionalised use of institutions: it was a case of the establishment trying to deal with a problem. Committee members viewed many historical documents and the notepaper was always headed with long lists of names of the great and the good who were trying to do what they thought was best for the children, for the empire, and for the race that they wanted to perpetuate across the globe. It is chilling how national and local governments, the Churches and the charities conspired to forget the needs of the children.

Many people probably had the best intentions: they assumed that the children would be better off. They probably believed much of their own propaganda that they fed to badly off parents and to the children. However, the evidence revealed that the ends did not justify the means. The awful deception, the lies and the economic pressures made it almost impossible for parents—especially single parents—to keep their children. We have heard about the bullying and the trading of children as chattels in order to maintain the viability of institutions, especially towards the end of the regime. A most shameful element of the scheme is the way in which children were abandoned at age 16 because the institutions no longer received any income for them. Many people are stateless because they were abandoned at 16 and never received the paperwork that would have allowed them to acquire citizenship of either their adopted country or the country in which they were born.

The hon. Member for Wakefield detailed the Committee's recommendations and the Government's response. I endorse his comments in welcoming the positive aspects and in attempting to strengthen those areas where the Government could have gone a little further. I wish to spend a few minutes considering the lessons that we should learn from this investigation. Children are still placed many miles away from the communities from which they come. The Utting report had little to do with north Wales per se because it revealed that most of the children involved came from communities many miles away and that social services supervision was not as good as it should have been—just as it was not good in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. I share the concerns expressed about inter-country adoption. It is beholden on us to try to keep children with their families.

What is happening with our present social services system? Social services departments are so stretched for money that they tend to concentrate on their statutory responsibilities. In most parts of the country, the child protection teams—or the crisis intervention teams—are well resourced and work effectively. However, that success has been achieved at the expense of the child support and, more especially, the family support aspects of social services work. Social services has become an enforcement arm when there are accusations of child abuse. It is rare that such families are supported by their own advocate, such as their social worker, who will guide them through a difficult, complicated and often inevitable set of consequences that is almost Kafkaesque.

I still meet single parents who cannot afford to look after their children, and the recent change in benefit regulations certainly does not send out the right message. We need a structure in which parents who are accused of neglect or child abuse have the opportunity to get high-quality legal aid to make sure that they are aware of the grinding process that will inevitably take their child away from them. We seem to have a strange system in which parents cannot have their children back unless they admit that they have abused them, even if they genuinely believe that they have not abused them. Professionals, whether in social work or medicine, are not always right. I am aware of cases in which mistakes have been made with dire consequences, not only for the children but for the parents.

The debate is extraordinarily valuable and timely because we are witnessing a redetermination of access to the courts and to legal aid. There ought to be a system of checks and balances. The child migrants story demonstrates that we cannot, even now, rely on the establishment or on the professionals to protect children and their families. We cannot rely on the court system, as it is currently accessible, for that protection. There are too many delays, courts are too busy, and legal advice is not readily available and not always of sufficient quality.

I urge the Minister to review the working of the Children Act 1989 on compulsory removal of children from their homes, so that we can put as much effort into keeping families together—whether they have one or two parents—as we do, at present, into purely protecting children irrespective of what would be the right course of action.

10.3 am

When the Health Committee went to Australia and New Zealand, we were told, "You will meet only the hard cases, not the success stories." During our visit, I was struck by the fact that that was totally untrue. We were not meeting the hardest cases because many of them were in psychiatric wards or dead. We met relatives of some of those people, but many were completely unknown even to other witnesses whom we met.

We met people who felt that they had survived pretty well, but I was struck also by the fact that even those who were not physically abused or cruelly treated were extraordinarily critical of the system because they all suffered the trauma of separation, lack of knowledge and destruction of identity. That is true even of those who managed to reach good positions. They came to talk to us, so we certainly acquired good knowledge of what had happened, even though we did not meet people in the worst cases.

We were also told, "That is all in the past. You should be concentrating on the present." I became more and more aware that the past is never past; it is the present for those who have survived those events and for their relatives in this country. If we do not learn the lessons of past events, we will not make a proper contribution to improving the present.

A Conservative member of the Committee and I discovered, when we returned to Britain, that we each had a member of our local party who had narrowly and accidentally escaped being a child migrant. They realised that when we published our report and they found out what would have happened if, for example, they had not been unwell on the day and had been put on the ship. As well as not being entirely past, those events are also very near to us.

We were told also to be careful about making judgments because there was a "different social climate" at the time. That expression was used in the first memorandum given to the Committee by the Department of Health, so that idea was prevalent even in the Department. I am pleased that its attitude seems to have shifted during, and, in my view, because of our inquiry. When we met the Secretary of State, his attitude was very different from the Department's original view. Child migration went on until the late 1960s, and the Secretary of State told us that he was now chilled by the belated knowledge that it was happening when he was watching the world cup in 1966 and he did not even know about it.

That dark secrecy that has shrouded the consequences of child migration is another significant aspect of the issue. Some people knew about those consequences. Officialdom in this country knew about them as long ago as 1875, when a report said that child migrants were being mistreated and used as cheap labour. Those who did not know were the people who would be most intimately affected: the families to whom child migration would apply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has already said, those children could have been many of us here today. Our families managed to escape that fate, but it could have happened to us.

We are not discussing a dim and distant time about which we can say, "Wasn't it awful then?" These events occurred in the very recent past when many of us were politically active. The Secretary of State was politically active in 1966 and he knew nothing about them. I was a mother and I had been politically active for many years as a councillor, but I knew nothing about what was happening. Some people knew, and kept it secret.

Why did those events occur? I do not want to impute too many motives, but one point that clearly emerged in evidence was that, for some voluntary organisations, child migration was a means of getting income; for others, it was a means of cutting costs. We are lucky that there was such resistance to the policy within professional social work and local authorities that few children in the care of local authorities migrated. Most of the child migrants were in the care of voluntary organisations.

The evidence to the Committee made it clear that, at the time, the Government were putting pressure on local authorities and children's officers to send children abroad because it would be cheaper than caring for them here. Those professionals were tackling issues involving human considerations and being told that the existing policy was too expensive and there were cheaper policies. I do not know whether the term "cost-effectiveness" was used then, but that term rang in my head as one which would be used now. That confirmed my deep suspicion of policies that are primarily driven by the wish to cut costs.

The question of secrecy is also very much in the present, and I welcome the Government's response to the index and the data and the understanding of their importance that was shown. Although the Chairman of the Committee quoted the striking repudiation of his organisation's policies by the Barnardo's witness, which we were pleased to hear, other witnesses did not always share his view. Some attempted to defend what happened, and the standards of the time were rolled in again. I was a mother when this happened—it might have happened to me or to my kids if I had been a single parent.

Our inquiry took place around the time when there was controversy about single parents. I was pleased about the attitude that I took towards single parents, because we also heard about the insufferable moralising that took place. Women who were unmarried single parents were told to put their babies in the orphanage, forget about them and be good girls in future. Those whose marriages broke up had to struggle financially because there was no state support. I am glad that I support state benefits for single parents and for low-paid people in general. That is another respect in which the past is certainly in the present.

What we discovered was utterly harrowing and our report is explicit—much more explicit in its language and descriptions than any Select Committee report I have seen. We discussed that earnestly, because we were not sure whether it was proper to say some of the things that we said in an official report, but we decided that it was absolutely proper and that we should not contribute to a veil being drawn over the matter. Despite that, the report cannot provide the full flavour of what we learned.

The Chairman of the Committee has said that the experience was traumatic, and I do not know how the Child Migrants Trust has managed to endure dealing with this issue for so long. We found it traumatic to talk to the victims and survivors for only a couple of weeks, but the CMT has been talking to them for years and years. The experience showed us what happens when power is abused, although several other concepts, such as secrecy, are involved.

Awful things are happening in the world, frequently around a war situation. People are demonised—one race against another, one colour against another—and made to seem less than human. The most chilling aspect was that hearing about this process was like hearing about war crimes without the war and without even the shallow justification that people were being misled in the heat of the moment. The process was very cold and involved children and people like us, which was the most chilling realisation. That means that we have special responsibility.

I was pleased, but not ecstatic, about the Government's response, which was a good start. I welcome the setting up of the £1 million fund, but we should not put a top limit on it. Taxpayers' money was used to subsidise the process, and I want taxpayers' money to be used to try to do something to rescue some of the survivors' lives. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Government to say that there is £1 million and that is it. There is £1 million for the moment, but we should not have a top limit because there was no top limit on the suffering of those kids.

We should look again at the social security issue. The worst aspect is that the people involved are frequently deprived of entitlement, when they come here, on the ground that they do not pass the habitual residence test. Whose fault is that? They were forcibly deported. They wanted to stay here, and it is not their fault if they have not lived in this country—it is the fault of successive Governments and agencies and to compound the crimes that were committed by saying that people are being deprived because they did not live here is the most profound insult.

I hope that the Government's response, welcome though it is, is not their last word. If it is, the case will not have been sufficiently met. If it is their first word and their first attempt to remedy the matter, it is a good first word. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who was not in post at the time, will study the evidence that we took and our report to try to get the flavour of what we learned.

I also hope that my hon. Friend will then use that knowledge and understanding in considering present policies as a member of the Government and to try to repay those people. There is a difficulty of wording here—we cannot repay them, but we must at least acknowledge properly the awful process that went on in our name and which was cloaked in secrecy. If we do that, we shall be able to say that we have done our best and, although it was not our fault, we are trying to remedy the matter. I hope that the Government will look at it in such a way.

10.17 am

I do not propose to say a great deal. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said very well by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Preston (Audrey Wise), but I think that I have something special to add to the debate.

I was one of the councillors who voted to give money to the Child Migrants Trust back in the mid-80s, but I have to be honest and say that most of the credit for what happened is not mine. It belongs to Margaret Humphreys, the social worker involved, and the then chair of social services, Joan Taylor. We were strapped for money and things were tight, but she persuaded the leader of the council and other councillors that we should be doing something about this matter. We said, "It's not our responsibility, but if it isn't ours, whose is it?" That is the message that I want the Government to take on board.

Someone has to take responsibility for what has happened and take account of this tragedy. I remember my utter disbelief back in the 80s when we heard about the case. We could not believe how recently it had happened and we could not believe the stories, but they were true. At first, it was difficult to grasp what had happened and to think about how some of it could be put right. I congratulate the Committee on making recommendations that will help to put things right. We cannot ever put them right completely, but we can try to help some of the people who have suffered.

Hon. Members have talked about how the issue was shrouded in secrecy. It happened not only because the organisations involved wanted to keep it secret, but because the child migrants themselves wanted to keep it secret because they felt stigmatised. John Hennessey described himself as one of the devil's children, and we could see how their self-esteem had been destroyed by the system, by the Government, by the voluntary organisations and by the way that they had been treated. If nothing else, they deserve to have their self-esteem back.

I make a plea to the Government. I share the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Preston that the £1 million limit may not be sufficient. If it proves to be insufficient and more people apply to the travel fund than there is money for, will the fund be bolstered in the future if that becomes necessary? I am not asking for a guarantee of extra money, just that the matter will be reconsidered if there are problems in the future.

10.20 am

I should like to add my congratulations to the Select Committee on Health on its report and the way it went about its inquiry. Having spoken to some members of the Committee, I know that they were drained and exhausted and found the many tales harrowing.

I have also spoken to some former child migrants who gave evidence to the Health Committee, and they were pleased with its handling of the issue, its sensitivity and understanding, and the fact that it gave them time. The Committee was determined to go to Australia and New Zealand so that as many as possible of the people who had been treated appallingly could have their say. However, it was symbolic that the former child migrants came to the House of Commons, because the state was ultimately responsible for shipping those children abroad. It was important for them to come back to make their case and to tell their story in the House of Commons.

I should also like to congratulate and acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He has, for many years, been the driving force in the House of Commons on this issue. As he rightly said, he would not have done anything had it not been for the work of Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust.

The report tells what happened to those British children at the hands of their abusers, and leaves nothing to the imagination. Many of those abusers purported to represent God. We should never hold back our condemnation of the treatment of those British children. Part of the responsibility must lay with the state—with the House of Commons.

I am one of three or four former social workers in the Chamber—there are no corduroys—and, like my colleagues, I have had to remove children from their parents. That was carried out with the approval of the courts and partnerships agencies, and for the right reason: to protect children. It is not a pure science. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, we can get it wrong, and that has been proved. But we had authorisation, records and files were kept, and there were hurdles to overcome. Removing a baby from his mother at birth, for whatever reason, is the hardest thing I have ever done. Deciding that a child should not be brought up by his parents and removing him from his mother is the ultimate state intervention. Hurdles must be overcome before that intervention can be made, and that is absolutely right. That is the best we can do, and we must continue to review the process and ensure that we are getting it right.

When the children that I took from their parents grow up they will be able to understand the reasons for that decision. They may not agree with them, but they will be able to read the files and the court records and understand why the decisions were made. We have been following such procedures for a long time—they have improved over the years—including the time when British children were shipped to Australia. People may say that it was different back then, but that is not so. What was afforded to children in Britain did not apply to children who were subject to forced deportation without the permission of their parents, and without birth certificates and passports. Children as young as four were condemned for years to an existence of abuse and fear.

I should like to draw on some remarks made to me by one of the former migrants who came here, Mr. Norman Johnston. As I am the secretary of the parliamentary group, I had the privilege of meeting some of the former migrants and giving them support when they were giving evidence. Like so many others, Mr. Johnston suffered at the hands of the Christian Brothers. One of the brothers attempted to drown him. I asked him why they tried to drown him, and he said that they did not need a reason, because they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. There would not have been an inquiry if he had died. The beatings were harsh and frequent. He also told me that if he witnessed a child being beaten or whipped—or whatever form of abuse we care to imagine—there was a sense of relief, because at least it was not happening to him and he was out of the frame for a little while.

also said that living in such a climate of fear took away all emotional feelings, which made the children perfect recruits for Nazi officers. They became bereft of all feelings of human suffering. It was a matter of survival. He was taken from the institution to a farm in South Australia, and the passing comment from the person in charge of the institution was, "Next time I see you boy, you'll be in Fremantle jail." As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said, we have not heard evidence from many of the former migrants who have had a life of alcohol problems and have been led into crime. They did not fit into society.

said that there should be an inquiry into the well-being of people who were in those former institutions. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider that? Perhaps a note could be sent to the Australian Government asking them to hold an inquiry. Mr. Johnston spent two and a half years on a farm working 14 hours a day, seven days a week but earning less than he would if he were unemployed. That was slave labour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said. He even contemplated cutting off his finger to get off the farm. He shared his bathroom with farm animals. He served three tours in Vietnam with the Australian army. The irony was that he was serving the country in which he lived but of which he was not a citizen because he had no birth certificate and no passport.

These people are remarkable because their main preoccupation is not to obtain compensation—and goodness knows they have an overwhelming case—but to allow those who were taken from this country to be reunited with their families, to have some peace and to understand the circumstances in which they left Britain to go to a world of abuse. Without the completion of the picture, many of them have a void in their lives. For the reasons given by all hon. Members who have spoken, we must do everything we can to fill that void.

For many child migrants time is running out. Every day that goes by is another lost opportunity. There are people in Australia who can trace their parents, but it requires a great deal of work, which must be done by the Child Migrants Trust.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I hope that this is just the Government's first response. While I welcome their response to the Committee's inquiry, we need to take further steps. We must look at the travel arrangements, and ensure that the trust is adequately funded. A simple apology is not enough; to apologise properly, we must fund the trust properly.

10.30 am

I shall be brief, because I know that the chairman of the all-party group wants to speak. I am grateful to the group for bringing this matter to our attention. I also echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said about Margaret Humphreys and Joan Taylor, without whom we would not be having this debate.

I must admit that when the Chairman of the Select Committee first suggested that we should conduct an inquiry, I was a little sceptical. I wondered why the matter should be so high on our agenda, given the number of pertinent issues of the day; but the Chairman persuaded the Committee.

Our visit was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life. The Committee contains some very hard cases—former social workers, general practitioners and people who have been in politics and local government for a long time. They are not short of experiences of human misery. However, no one who reads the evidence presented to us—evidence of years of wholesale, systematic, institutionalised abuse—could fail to be deeply moved and shocked by what was done in our name. This House of Commons is responsible for what happened, and has a duty to those British children. As the Committee Chairman said, these are members of our generation.

When I arrived in New Zealand, a man came up to me and asked, "Are you the Member of Parliament for Erith?" I was surprised that anyone in New Zealand had heard of Erith. He said, "You are my mother's MP." For 50 years, that man had thought that he was an orphan; then, having discovered that he had a mother in her eighties living in England, he was reunited with her after all those years. We must provide the Child Migrants Trust with the resources to enable further such reunions to take place. I hope that if the demands on the trust and the travel fund are such that they cannot be satisfied, my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to review the position.

This is on-going: it is here and now. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and I spent some time conversing with a young woman who was not a child migrant herself, but who had been placed for adoption in Australia and was the daughter of a child migrant. She wanted to know why her mother had been taken from her own mother, and whether that had influenced her mother's inability to continue to care for her. There was a void in her life, and there were questions that needed answers.

I am pleased that the British Government have issued an apology. Some of the child migrants did not want an apology, but for others it was all-important, as was the fact of the Select Committee's visit. It was the first time that these people had been listened to and that their horror stories had been believed.

All this happened after our Parliament had passed extensive legislation in the 1940s and 1950s, and after we had signed conventions on human rights protecting children. We denied these children those human rights. Let us leave aside the question of sexual and physical abuse; we took away their human rights by removing them from their families.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) spoke of the lies and deceit, the falsified names and falsified birth certificates. All that makes the trust's job of tracing people and their families that much more difficult. An apology for the deceit is needed, not only from the Government but from the voluntary organisations that were involved. Why will Barnado's not issue an apology? Have its solicitors and insurers told it not to? Why will Fairbridge not own up to its responsibilities? Has it changed the terms of reference in its constitution, and is it now looking after a different group of children?

The state and the voluntary organisations ought to own up. We in the House of Commons have a responsibility to provide the Child Migrants Trust and other organisations with the resources to enable them to ensure that families can be reunited and supported. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said, for many time is running out.

10.35 am

I want to pay tribute to a number of people. It is important for us to recognise those who brought about the Select Committee's report and today's debate and enabled us to uncover and publicise this scandal.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He helped to uncover the scandal, not just in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee but through his work on the issue in the last Parliament. I know of his personal dedication and the efforts that he and his fellow Committee members have made. Their work is a credit to the Select Committee system, and shows how well it can function. We can all be proud of the Committee's report.

It is a source of great pride to all of us from Nottingham, and Nottinghamshire, that we have been at the forefront of the support for efforts to uncover the scandal. We have heard of the work of the Child Migrants Trust, but the trust would not exist without the support of Nottinghamshire county council. It cannot be said too often that that council has worked, and paid, to uncover a national scandal. I also pay tribute to individual members of the council: its leader, Sir Dennis Pettitt, and Joan Taylor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) was very modest, but he worked hard for many years in Nottinghamshire, as well as in Parliament—supporting the efforts of the all-party group—to bring this about. I also think that Margaret Humphreys should receive an honour for all the work that she has done in uncovering the scandal.

I became involved in the issue as a new Member of Parliament, and became chairman of the all-party group. I have been proud to work with the group in supporting the Select Committee's work. When we hear the stories that we are told, we find them incredible; we cannot believe that such things can happen. My hon. Friends have spoken of the incredulity that they felt. It is impossible to believe that this has taken place—and that it has taken place while we have been doing ordinary things, such as watching television and going shopping. Horrific things have been done to children. They have been taken abroad, split from their families, and lied to; they have been told that their parents were dead, or that they did not want them and had abandoned them—and there was no supervision when they were sent away.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, one of the worst things is that the policy was explicitly said to be about ensuring that good white stock was put into some of our former colonies. That is unbelievable: "good white stock" was being exported in the form of children, and that was officially sanctioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) pointed out that the process has been justified on the grounds that it took place in a different social climate, and in different times. That is ridiculous; it is scandalous; it is rubbish. When has it ever been right to abuse children and take them from their parents? I do not believe that it has ever been right, or that, in any times, it has been thought right to do that to children simply to provide "good white stock" for our former colonies. I say again: in tackling that scandal, the Health Committee report has been a credit to Parliament.

The Government response generally has been good; it is a credit to them. At least they have recognised that there has been a huge problem and a huge scandal. They have not ducked the issue, or tried to hide it away. This morning's debate is a credit to the Government and to Parliament. It is taking place in the full glare of publicity; we are debating and discussing the report.

There are some points that I should like to raise. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, if he cannot address them in his brief remarks, to look at them afterwards. The Government have set up a travel fund, which started in April, but the procedures for people to access the fund are not yet properly in place, and people are finding it difficult to access it. I therefore ask the Minister to try to speed up that process.

My hon. Friends have mentioned the grant to the Child Migrants Trust. If we bring these people back, which is obviously what we have set out to do, clearly, they will need support and counselling; they will need help when they find their lost relatives. We need to ensure that the trust, which does an immense amount of work, is funded properly to provide that help. The county council will soon start to withdraw the money that it provides to the trust on the basis that it has done it for years and it is a local authority. It is now up to the Government to start to put in that amount of money. I ask the Minister to find out whether more money could be made available.

The database that is being set up is welcome, but there are concerns about the sharing of information. We are going back many years. When people come back to try to find lost relatives, accessing those records will be important. Ensuring that people have easy access to the database is important. The Government will have to take the lead in co-ordinating the agencies and ensuring that all of them provide the necessary information.

I reiterate the point that was made by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. An international conference would be important and helpful to everyone. Speed is of the essence. These people are not getting any younger. They need access to their families quickly. The Government need to do everything that they can to act quickly.

We must ensure that such a scandal never happens again. How many times, after reports and debates, and after such scandals emerge, do we say, "It must never happen again"? How many of us can be absolutely sure that, in children's homes and in various families throughout the country, children are not being abused and that all the things that are scandalising us today are not still happening? We must learn the lessons and do all we can to ensure that such things never take place again.

It needs to be stated again that, for all of us who have been involved in the matter, it has been personally traumatic to listen to people's harrowing stories while working with them to restore them to their families and to help them to find their past—but it has also been a privilege. As I often say, when people are in the most terrible adversity, we are inspired by their courage and by the way in which they can face the most desperate circumstances head on. All that those people ask of Parliament is that we show the same courage in ensuring that, at long last, they can meet their lost families, and in supporting them with counselling and with all the other things that will be needed. Let us show that courage.

10.44 am

I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate on their thoughtful and well-informed comments. The subject has raised some powerful and strong emotions as all of us have a deep concern to ensure the welfare of children, past as well as present. The contributions of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) have borne witness to that concern.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on raising the subject in Parliament. I pay particular tribute to both him and the Select Committee on Health, which he chairs, for its landmark inquiry into the misguided policy of child emigration. It is estimated that, during the period that the policy was in operation, as many as 150,000 children were transported to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as to some former British territories in central and southern Africa.

The largest number of children went to Canada. Child emigration there had more or less ceased by the end of the 1930s, but emigration schemes to New Zealand were still in progress in the post-war years and, as many hon. Members have commented, some emigration occurred to Australia up to the late 1960s. Those schemes have no defenders today.

The greater understanding of these issues that now exists in Parliament and in Government is largely thanks to the work of the Health Committee. As the Committee itself recognised, it was able to draw on valuable research by a number of workers, authors and voluntary groups, not least the Child Migrants Trust.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield will know from the Government's response in December to the Select Committee report that they accept the Committee's adverse judgment of what happened. We deeply regret what happened and the anguish and misery that many child migrants must have experienced. We strongly support the Committee's view that the prevailing mood is to move forward positively and to concentrate on improving support for former child migrants.

We have therefore committed ourselves to action on a number of fronts. We have set up a support fund to help former child migrants who have not previously visited this country to have a first reconciliation with their close families here. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised a number of concerns about access to the fund, including the definition of "close families." We will look sympathetically at all cases where people seek support, including cases involving grandparents, half-brothers and half-sisters.

We have committed ourselves to financing the scheme to the tune of £1 million over three years. It is now in operation. It is being administered for us by the International Social Service in the UK, which has branches and contacts in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

We fully accept that it has taken slightly longer than originally anticipated to finalise the financial eligibility criteria that feature in the local application forms for the fund—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) referred to that. That was because, although it had been agreed that the same formula for assessing financial eligibility should be applied to everyone concerned, the differences in living conditions and costs between the countries where the child migrants now live had to be recognised and taken into account.

In Australia, for example, considerable research, involving many different state offices, was required before a national mean was identified. The ISS has now authorised its branches in Australia, Canada and New Zealand to send out the application forms. We understand that those have begun to be distributed. As far as I am aware, the scheme is now fully in operation. The application forms are out and we anticipate a response.

There has already been a considerable number of inquiries of ISS branches in those countries, most notably in Australia, where I gather that more than 300 have been received, but there have also been a number of inquiries of ISS contacts in both New Zealand and Canada. Applications will be decided by the ISS in London, to which they will eventually be sent. I hope that we shall soon see the first arrivals in this country under the scheme. Obviously, cases that are urgent, due to the age or health of either the former child migrant or their close relative, will be given priority. Several hon. Members have spoken about the need to prioritise cases. I assure them that that will be done.

The arrangements for running the scheme were foreshadowed in our December reply, where we made it clear that we were in discussion with the ISS over its administration. Since then, after further discussion in the three countries, the role of the ISS has been confirmed and agreed, and the scheme opened formally early in April, as we had intended.

I wish to explain how we have publicised the new arrangements, as concern has been expressed about that. The Government issued a press notice here in the UK which was picked up by many of the media and led to some central inquiries. More importantly, however, we have liaised very closely, through the Foreign Office, with the overseas posts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand to ensure that there has been appropriate publicity in all of the receiving countries. A great deal of effort has gone into this, and I shall detail some of the activity that has taken place to date.

We are keeping all the arrangements under review, as we want the scheme to be properly and effectively publicised. We will make sure that that happens. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised other questions about the operation of the scheme which I will deal with in a few moments.

In Australia, there was a strong response to the press release issued there. The British high commissioner conducted a number of interviews, both on television and radio, to publicise the fund, and the news was picked up by a number of national and local newspapers. A press release was issued in New Zealand, where the Department of Social Welfare is in any case seeking to notify individually all known former British child migrants about the fund.

My hon. Friend also asked whether £1 million will be sufficient for the support fund over three years. It is hard to be certain what the level of demand will be from those who come within the scope of the scheme—that is, those wishing to have a first reconciliation with their close families here and who, without support from the fund, would not have the means to bring that about.

Our rough estimate is that, over three years, the sum would be sufficient to bring some 450 people to this country. As time passes, we will be monitoring the scheme carefully. My hon. Friend will understand, I hope, that with the pressures on my Department's programme, I am not able to give any commitment today to increase the funding for the scheme. However, we would, of course, welcome any contribution that any of the other agencies involved in child migration might wish to make.

My hon. Friend has raised the question whether there should be a means test for support fund applicants. I understand very well why he makes that point. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that the fund operates effectively and is targeted on the former child migrants who most need and deserve the support that we are able to provide. I cannot say with any confidence that it would be realistic to expect taxpayers in this or any country to finance visits here by people with the means to pay their own expenses, even with the unhappy legacy of the child migration policies.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government responded positively to the Committee's recommendation that a central database should be established as soon as possible, containing basic information that will direct child migrants or their representatives to more detailed sources. This project is now well advanced in the hands of the National Council for Voluntary Child Care Organisations. The sending agencies, which hold most of the detailed records, are, generally speaking, co-operating satisfactorily with this project. The index will be available by the autumn.

Finally, the Government responded positively to the Committee's recommendation for a larger grant to the Child Migrants Trust. My hon. Friend mentioned that we have increased the grant from £20,000 last year to £150,000 in the present year. This is less than the trust requested, but it was a very large increase indeed compared to the grant that it has had from the Department in the past. It is, of course, the case that quite a number of the bodies that we fund would like larger grants than we can afford, but I am very glad that we have been able to make so large an increase in the grant to the Child Migrants Trust.

The first instalment of the grant was paid at the beginning of May. The grant had been on a cycle of quarterly payments starting in May of each year, with subsequent payments being made in August, November and February. If the trust would prefer a different cycle of payments, we should be glad to discuss that with it.

In its report, the Committee made a number of recommendations about the trust's accountability and the audit of its accounts. In the Government's reply, we said that we were in discussion with the trust about those issues and expected a positive outcome. We spent a good deal of time with the trust on these matters, and a small audit team visited it in Nottingham. I am very happy to say that, as we anticipated, there are no outstanding anxieties of that kind. We received the auditor's final report of the financial appraisal on 7 April, and a letter confirming the grant offer and conditions was sent on the same day.

I understand, however, that because of the withdrawal of other funding from the Nottinghamshire county council, the Child Migrants Trust is nevertheless struggling to cope with the demands placed on it and still needs additional funding. A number of my hon. Friends referred to that today. I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield that there has to be an appropriate balance between the money made available to help child migrants to be reunited with their families, and the resources available to help them to trace and make contact with them in the first place, which is the trust's main concern. Clearly, without the tracing, there can be no reunions. That is an important point, and we will consider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend about how we address that.

I should add that my officials have been looking for other sources of funding outside of Government resources which might be available to the trust, and we will be in touch with the trust about this shortly. If this situation cannot be resolved, or there are other problems which the trust would like to discuss further, I shall of course be very happy to meet it.

I should make it quite clear, however, that any adjustments to the funding that the Government have made available for increasing the availability of tracing and counselling services for child migrants and to support reunions must be made within the same overall resources which we have already committed and which we announced in December.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield asked about the contributions being made by the sending agencies. The agencies have already agreed—in addition to providing the information for the new central information index for child migrants—to expand the tracing and counselling services that they offer to meet any increase in demand. This should ensure that child migrants have a choice about where they turn for such help, although I recognise that many child migrants may prefer to conduct their search through an independent agency, such as the Child Migrants Trust.

A number of my hon. Friends asked specific questions to which I shall try to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to intercountry adoptions. I remind him that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), will allow the UK to ratify the Hague convention and make sure that those adoptions are placed on a sound legal basis in the future, with full and proper safeguards for the children placed at the centre of our concerns.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the existing problems with social services in the UK. I should remind him that the Government are determined to improve the quality of children's services. That is why we have introduced our "Quality Protects" programme and why we are supporting it with an additional £375 million of targeted resources to help local authorities improve their children's services. I am confident that the programme will make a significant contribution.

I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for his role in supporting the Child Migrants Trust. I can assure him and the House that the Government take our responsibility seriously. He is right that we cannot rewrite history, but we can try to do the right thing for the former child migrants in the future. That is what we intend to do.

In conclusion, I emphasise the Government's determination to stand by the commitments that we gave in our reply of December last year to the Committee's report. The historic policy of child migration was tragically misguided. We acknowledge that, along with the Governments of the receiving countries, we have an obligation to do what we can realistically to improve the welfare support of former child migrants who can still be helped. That is involving us in a complex international programme which we shall carry forward and monitor carefully.

I am grateful to all hon. Members today who have made their comments known to us. We have a clear responsibility towards the former child migrants. The Government intend to discharge that responsibility to the best of our ability into the future.

Eurostar Services

10.59 am

When the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 was going through the House of Commons, we were told that, because it was a national project with considerable impact on all the regions of the United Kingdom, extremely good services would be provided outside the London area and there would be no concentration on what used to be called the golden triangle of the south-east. That was the basis on which the legislation was accepted and on which Members of Parliament were prepared to support the expenditure of very considerable sums. So far, the taxpayer has paid well in excess of £320 million.

The original company put in a bid that many of us believe, in the light of subsequent circumstances, may have been pitched deliberately too low. The company was subsequently replaced, and none of the regional services are now running. That seems to many of us to be a subject for considerable worry and regret.

The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee produced a report that examined in detail both the history of the matter and what the House has a right to expect now. We began by saying that we believed that we had been cheated. There have been few signs that the trials and tribulations of the rail service have produced new thinking, imaginative plans or even the suggestion of some services north of Watford that would begin to provide decent regional access.

We said that the Government should make it very clear that they believe not only that the regions have a right to equal access but that that access should be smooth, with a high level of service. We said that we did not think that there were now any significant technical barriers to operating regional Eurostar services on the west coast main line or even on the east coast main line by early 2000.

The regional train sets were almost the ultimate toy for the taxpayer. We now own large numbers of train sets that have never been used; they have been mothballed and it seems to me that they have been treated in such a manner that the taxpayer does not even have an acceptable asset in them.

We believed that the present Government, who took over this mess, were prepared to take urgent and targeted action, but the reality is that there has been no firm decision about regional Eurostar services. We want an immediate response. The Government have said that they will not only ask for plans but use the effective new consultancy to produce some facts and figures for the House.

Some companies have said that they do not accept that regional Eurostar services could not be run efficiently. Virgin has produced a business plan that at least merits careful examination. It may be workable, because of Virgin's marketing skills, which have been shown in other fields, but it should at least be considered. We want to know whether Virgin's proposals are sensible.

What is the attitude to Olympia as a stop? Do the Government accept that one way in which regional services could have been developed would have been to allow access for domestic passengers? The Committee made it clear that we do not underestimate the security problems that would be produced if domestic passengers were able to use a service intended for international use, but other countries have demonstrated that the problems are surmountable, and I see no reason why the ingenuity of the British should not be applied here.

The Committee said that it thought that Watford was very well placed to become an integrated transport hub.

Hear, hear.

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's totally unbiased support.

We suggested that the Government's review should consider what benefits and costs would be associated with direct services from Watford and with through services on the west coast main line calling at Watford. However, we said that we thought it unlikely that the plan for development and change to Eurostar services at Heathrow would meet universal support from the passengers. We did not believe that people who had flown in to a very large airport would automatically be prepared to join a rail service at that point for the next stage of their journey to Paris or elsewhere.

The review should consider what additional benefits might be gained by British Airways, which is after all one of the partners in Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd., from the introduction of a Heathrow to Paris service. We do not in any way underestimate the advantages of having other transport companies involved in the planning of rail services, but we would expect the Government to examine the matter in detail and with an honesty that will perhaps make it clear where the real commercial benefits lie and what the effects will be on passenger traffic.

We recommend that the Government consider the possibility of regional Eurostar services having regard to the impact of the second phase of the channel tunnel rail link. The last phase of the link will be difficult and involve considerable costs, as it will be built through parts of London that are extremely congested. It will have to be considered as part of the overall service. One cannot suggest that the channel tunnel rail link should end at a point south of the most important and congested parts of the capital city and still expect it to produce the high quality of rail services that we require.

We also said that we think that the promise of regional services implicit in section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 should be the concern of Her Majesty's Government. The House of Commons was given clear and sensible undertakings that we expected to be honoured. It is clear that, without ease of access for the regions, the economic benefits of such a service, which will be largely funded by the taxpayer, will be lost to large sections of the United Kingdom.

It is clear that transport has a direct and immediate impact on economic development, and if the regions are to be deprived of the benefit of something that they have been asked to fund, frankly, the Committee will have been right to say that we have been cheated.

I served in Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and we thought that the pledge to run regional Eurostar services was based on the completion of the channel tunnel rail link. Who did my hon. Friend and the Select Committee feel would travel on the trains under the current circumstances?

That is precisely why the careful work done by my hon. Friend and by that Standing Committee needs to be treated seriously by the Government. It was precisely because we were concerned that domestic passengers would not have access but would still have to bear the costs, and that if we were not careful the only region to benefit would be the south-east, that we made our feelings so clear in the report.

I represent a constituency not far from the hon. Lady's, and I am all in favour of greater choice and greater access to facilities for the north-west. My concern is about her suggestion that the region is losing out. No doubt the south-east is benefiting, but surely the north-west is not losing out, because the journey times by air are shorter.

The Committee considered that idea carefully, and history shows us that areas that do not keep up with modern transport, or allow people to move freely in and out, lose out on economic development. We all ask about airport development because we know that without good access by air, rail and road, a region's economic development is stunted. It is not totally shut off, but it does not go ahead at the rate or in the way that it should.

I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall finish when I have made one more point. When the Department's representatives were being questioned by the Committee on the annual report last week, they said that they would give us information about what was happening to those train sets that cost us so much.

We were especially concerned because there had been a suggestion that the company intended to let the drivers of the train sets go, and, in view of the real worth of the assets and of what such a move would mean for the future development of an efficient service, we wanted to know how much that would cost.

I have now received from the Department information that the House of Commons has a right to know:

"Eurostar have offered voluntary severance to the 32 regional drivers following consultation with …their unions. 12 drivers have accepted the offer, at a cost to Eurostar of £266,000".

That sum must be added to the cost of the original arrangements.

What I find really depressing is what the Department says about depreciation:

"The Regional train sets were accounted for in the fixed assets of Eurostar (UK) Limited at a cost of £174.6 million as at March 1996."

However, they have now depreciated so that their book value went down by £100 million in 1997, and by £45 million in 1998. The letter continues:

"The current book value of the regional train sets",

which cost the taxpayer so much,

"is £45.9 million".

That is a disgrace. The House of Commons was given undertakings, spent the money and demanded the service, yet finished with nothing to show for it. That should not be allowed to continue.

Is the hon. Lady not aware that the value of the train sets themselves has not fallen at all? All that has happened is that, by standard accountancy procedures, their book value has been decreased. Because they have not yet been used, they are of precisely the same real value as they were when we bought them.

The hon. Gentleman can provide as many apologiae pro vita sua as he likes, but the truth is that the House of Commons was sold a nonsensical bill of goods. The House has the right to be indignant and to say that that is not acceptable.

I do not need to wax indignant on behalf of my Committee, because many other Members will do that. I shall simply say that the future of transport and economic development in this country are closely linked. The development of the channel tunnel rail services presents an opportunity to provide not only the taxpayer but the rail traveller with a high-quality service. If that is not taken, either by the Government or by individual Ministers for Transport, we shall all suffer.

I hope that Ministers will be able to tell us today when the report will be ready, what quality of service will be provided, what undertakings the company has given, and how soon the House of Commons can realistically expect to see a company operating the service. The company should be one that does not simply write unrealistic plans that can never be translated into services, but provides for the United Kingdom the level of rail service that we have a right to demand, and which we have paid for over and over again. We should surprise the taxpayer by producing the goods this time. That would be a real development for the future.

11.15 am

The House will have heard with interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Transport Sub-Committee, has said. Many of the points that she made were valid.

I begin by declaring an interest as a director and chairman of various companies involved with the National Express group, none of which have anything to do with the railway industry. National Express obviously does not find my railway experience of any value. All the companies with which I am involved concern either the bus or the property interests of the group. I ask the House to accept the fact that I have not been in touch with the group in any way about its views on what we are discussing.

The Committee used strong language, as did my hon. Friend, about the regional Eurostar saga. Its report said that the regions had been cheated—a phrase repeated by my hon. Friend. She will be aware, as will the rest of the Committee, that there is no legal obligation for Eurostar (UK) Ltd. to run regional Eurostars. Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 simply imposed a duty on the British Railways Board to prepare a plan for

"the provision or improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom".

My hon. Friend will also be aware, as will many of my hon. Friends who have taken an interest in such matters, that in 1989 the chairman of the British Railways Board, Sir Robert Reid, said about regional Eurostars:

"Our duty is not to run a service because it is desirable; it is to run a service which will be profitable".

It appears that that doctrine is still true—or rather, is still believed, although it may not be true,

My hon. Friend suggested some alternatives to Eurostar UK Ltd.—other companies that might run regional Eurostars—and she mentioned Virgin. I have sat in this Chamber several times and heard her say scathing things about Virgin Trains. I live in the west midlands and represent a west midlands constituency, so from time to time I share her anger about Virgin's performance.

As recently as last year, the review carried out by the Deputy Prime Minister, in its submission to the Transport Sub-Committee, described the Virgin proposals as unlikely to be commercially viable. Virgin has been understandably vague. So far, as far as I am aware, it has not provided either the Government or Members of Parliament with detailed costings or information concerning traffic forecasts or the costs of operating the trains. In view of my hon. Friend's strictures about its patchy performance in operating the west coast main line services, if Virgin took on that additional burden, it could lead to even more strident criticisms by both my hon. Friend and other users of the west coast main line in the near future.

There is another reason why I suggest that regional Eurostars should not be introduced now—certainly not on the west coast main line. We have almost had the 1,000 days and nights in which Railtrack promised to refurbish that line and transform it to make it suitable for train operation in the 21st century. We have concrete information, rather than hype, from Virgin this time, and we know that a considerable number of new trains destined for that line are under construction.

I am long enough in the tooth to remember the last time that the west coast main line was rebuilt, and such work is, to say the least, not conducive to punctuality and the maintenance of the existing service, let alone to adding more trains. I am concerned that Railtrack may take much longer than a thousand days and nights to modernise the west coast main line, and its task will not be helped if additional trains are run.

The essential point that the House has to face about regional Eurostar trains without the channel tunnel rail link is who would use them. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) may wish to justify his comments about the north-west, but it is difficult to imagine business travellers who usually pay a premium being too interested in using a rail service from Birmingham or Wolverhampton that takes much longer than the air service. However, those considerations should not apply once the channel tunnel rail link has been completed.

Does my hon. Friend understand the concern in the south-east where people have waited years for the CTRL to get off the ground? It is being constructed through my constituency now. If money is diverted to regional trains, that could stall the process.

My hon. Friend makes his point well. Without the CTRL it is impossible to conceive any economic operation of regional trains. For example, from Glasgow, on the best estimates it would take three times as long by train under current circumstances as it does by air. There may be a leisure market for such a service from cities including Glasgow, but a service at regular intervals is hypothetical rather than realistic.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) reminds me of a point about the CTRL. Those of us who served on the channel tunnel Committee in the mid-1980s presumed that once the go-ahead was given for that great project, the CTRL would be built around the same time. Before too many Conservative Members participate in this debate, I hope that they will accept some responsibility for the appalling mess that the CTRL is in. At that time, a route was settled upon that would bring the trains into Waterloo and, eventually, under much of London and out to the north-west and north-east using the rest of the railway network. It was that great architect of social change, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who decided—having allowed British Rail to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in acquiring property on the original route—to scrap it and to divert the trains via Stratford.

I concede that those of my hon. Friends who fought for that diversion fought a good campaign.

Hear, hear.

The hon. Gentleman, who managed to drift in to the Chamber for the debate at seven minutes past 11, agrees that it was an effective campaign, but those of us who wanted to see the project completed sooner rather than later made the point that the campaign for Stratford—I do not wish to upset anyone, but it is not a place that leaps to mind when people talk about visiting the United Kingdom—would delay the completion of the CTRL. It has done so to such an extent that we are still concerned about the second portion of the line.

My conclusion is obvious. Although I understand the ire of the Select Committee, I do not see any alternative to what has been proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) enthusiastically supports a quicker way to Europe than we have at present, but that will depend on the completion of the full CTRL if the trains are to compete with the airlines.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the Select Committee may be angry, the people in the north of England feel that they were cheated? They travel on train sets that frequently break down and they want to know why carriages should stand idle when they could be used to transport them to London and perhaps on to Paris.

I visit my hon. Friend's constituency occasionally, and he is aware of my one vice these days of supporting Stockport County. I have not been conscious of his constituents' anger that they cannot travel direct by train to the fleshpots of Paris and Brussels, which might be because they are not interested in such things in my home town and the town that he represents. However, he makes a valid point.

There is no point in running empty trains, because that will not benefit the north-west, the midlands or anywhere else. The task of all of us involved in that great project is to ensure the completion of the CTRL, and the use of Watford as a transfer point for passengers for Paris and Brussels. However, with the best will in the world and having spent most of my life working in the railway industry, I cannot see a regular interval service from some of the cities represented so ably by my hon. Friends present today being sensible or viable in the short term.

11.26 am

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. We are in another fine mess, as Laurel and Hardy would say. That is the best way to describe the state of the railways bequeathed to the nation by successive Governments. Hardly a day goes by without reports of increases in trains failures and cancellations. Today's free paper, Metro London, contains details about a report from the Office for Passenger Rail Franchising. It states:

"Rail firms have been forced to pay about £1 million in fines because they have failed to meet basic performance targets.

On almost half Britain's rail routes, reliability worsened while fewer than a third showed any improvement."

Where does responsibility for the chaos lie? It is partly down to decades of under-investment in rail, and that was the responsibility of previous Administrations, and it is also down to the absence of a level playing field between road and rail freight. The failure so far of regional Eurostar services to emerge is another example of the UK's inability to provide train services of a quality that travellers on the continent take for granted. Their services are fast, frequent and, when I make use of them, they seem to be fairly crowded.

It is true that in France and other European countries much higher subsidies are given to rail services. However, they have other advantages that we should not discount and which may offset the additional subsidies. Why do French towns fight so hard to get the TGV to stop there? It is because they expect economic development to result from a train station being built in or close to the town. It is good for business and for tourism in the area. We should not underestimate that potential.

Rail services carry other advantages that should be taken into account. They bring clear environmental benefits, for example. Transport is a major growth area for CO₂ emissions. Eurostar compares itself with the aviation sector in which CO₂ emissions are increasing quickly and significantly. They tend to have an impact in the higher atmosphere, so it is perhaps even more damaging.

We are not talking about the advantages of air over rail in general but about regional Eurostar services. Why should any business man consider spending six hours on a regional Eurostar service from Manchester when he could travel for an hour and 20 minutes by air? Even if it is environmentally better to go by rail, why would he wish to do so, particularly if the service is more expensive?

I shall come to that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel later that it has been adequately addressed.

Rail can provide the potential for shifting passengers from short-haul flights to rail services. Rail is less noisy when the impact of airports on communities is taken into account. Rail generates less congestion. I have no evidence to support that proposition; it is merely a hunch, but I suspect that the congestion associated with airports, which are placed outside cities, is much greater than that created by rail stations, which tend to be in the centre of cities. People more often use public transport to get to and from the rail stations.

The Government must also consider the costs of CO₂. If they identify the cost of each tonne of CO₂ emissions, they will be able more clearly to compare the impact of train and air services.

Let me return to the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Even if rail has benefits for wider society rather than Eurostar or its passengers, they will not be achieved if Eurostar decides that services cannot be commercially justified because they cannot compete with air travel times. However, Eurostar's time comparisons for journeys to Glasgow by train and by air fail to take a significant factor into account—the time taken travelling from the centre of a city to an airport, to another airport and on to the centre of another city. Many journeys are from city centre to city centre rather than from, say, Gatwick airport to Charles de Gaulle, and a more accurate comparison would take that into account.

The business man or business woman may consider only the time factor, but other people travel by train. My family frequently travels by train to the south of France. Our two-year-old is much more manageable on a train than she would be if cooped up in a plane for two hours. We have made that choice not only on how long it takes to get there. It would be much quicker if we flew to Avignon, although I do not know whether there are any scheduled flights from Gatwick, so we might have to resort to a charter flight, which would cost considerably more.

Cost is important if people decide to travel at the last moment because air fares are significantly higher. Eurostar should consider the time and cost factors in their deliberations on regional services. Other matters on the horizon may affect the relative competitiveness of rail and air. Only an hour ago, the Minister for the Environment said that supported the introduction of an aircraft fuel duty. Although he did not substantiate it with hard evidence, he took the view that there was widespread support for such a measure in Europe. If such a tax were introduced in Europe, it would affect the balance between rail and air services.

Eurostar should not underestimate the commercial benefits that could be derived from regional services. Nor should the Government underestimate the other benefits. The review that will be conducted should consider socioeconomic benefits. If the benefits are shown to be enormous, the Government will have to consider finding imaginative funding for the schemes.

The hon. Gentleman is making a very Liberal speech. If the owners of existing train sets are correct in thinking that the loss on regional Eurostar services is about £95 million, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should produce that money, or could it come out of the ever-expanding penny that the Liberal Democrats would put on income tax?

I am not sure that I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is a question for the Government, not for me.

Decisions always are.

Of course they are. I have stated clearly that if clear socioeconomic benefits could be derived from regional Eurostar services, the Government would have to consider how they should be funded. Eurostar will not fund the services as a social initiative, but only if they are competitive and profitable.

I want the Government to act quickly on the train sets that sit in sidings. I suffer from overcrowding every day as I travel into London. If rolling stock can be released—

In Carshalton?

Yes, in Carshalton. If rolling stock can be released, we can have Eurostar regional services and a significant improvement in services across the whole country.

11.37 am

I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs had used strong language in its conclusions. By contrast, I would say that our language was moderate under the circumstances. To say that we were badly let down is to be extremely moderate. Scotland has been totally conned given what Eurostar now proposes.

Charlie Gordon, chairman of Strathclyde passenger transport authority, is jumping up and down with rage about what the company has done, and is threatening legal action. It is nonsense to suggest that Strathclyde should accept what is proposed under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 when one considers the investment that the authority made when the services were first introduced. They did not invest directly in the rolling stock, but indirectly by creating travel centres dedicated for Eurostar services at Glasgow central station and other service centres.

All that was funded by Strathclyde PTA, but for what? The authority has been completely conned. Compensation is to be offered to drivers, which is ridiculous. The Government must deal with that as a priority. I understand that Charlie wrote to the Department as far back as December and is still waiting for a reply.

As we say in our conclusions to the report, why have the Government or the company not conducted any research into the usage of Eurostar services through the tunnel? During the Select Committee investigation, we asked where passengers were coming from. We were given no information. The Government did not seem to know the facts. The brief that I received from Eurostar does not mention where clients come from. It is a priority to find that out so that we can make conclusions about the value of continuing to argue for a regional Eurostar service.

I said that I would be brief so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of what I have said and to give us answers to our questions.

11.41 am

I, too, shall be brief. The Whip has permission to give me the nod if I go beyond five minutes. I welcome the report and congratulate the Committee. The Chairman is right. We have been cheated. There is no doubt about it. We have not got the services and we have spent more than £300 million of taxpayers' money not to get them.

I am joint chair of the west coast main line all-party group. We take a particular interest in regional Eurostar services. We are disappointed by what is happening, or not happening. The group is used to being disappointed. We have existed for six or seven years now and all that we have seen is services getting worse on the west coast main line. I understand that today's results from the Rail Regulator show that services are getting poorer, although in Scotland, in which Carlisle is counted for this purpose, we have a better service—only one in five trains are now late. That is an improvement on last year.

We have a poor service in Cumbria, and we expect better. Two proposals have supposedly been made by the companies, but in reality only one has been made, because Eurostar UK's is not a proposal. It is not even an apology, which it should be. The only proposal on the table is from Virgin. Harsh things have been said about Virgin in the past, especially by me and by the Chairman of the Select Committee, and rightly so, but it has made a proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that it had not, but I have it here. It was a supplementary proposal that went to the Select Committee. It give details of pricing, the number of sets a day, where the trains would call and the cost. I am disappointed that it does not say that the trains would come from Glasgow via Carlisle and down the west coast, but I accept that that will not be an option in the near future. There is a vital link to be made with the station at Watford.

rose—

I give way to our honourable clever Friend across the way.

Despite the hon. Gentleman's note of irony, I should like to correct one minor point. Virgin does propose services from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The proposed services start from Glasgow and go to Edinburgh and then down the east coast, not from Glasgow to Carlisle and down the west coast. I think I am right on that one.

Points have been made about the option of flying. The reality is that people who live in my constituency will probably have to leave home three and a half hours before their flight from Manchester airport. Parking is expensive. Many people do not like airports. They find them uncomfortable and unsatisfactory. They are stressful places. It would be much easier to get on a west coast main line train, get off at Watford and go through the channel tunnel. We should not underestimate people's dislike of airports. We need a rail service.

I greatly admire my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East and respect his expertise on railways, but all that he seems to offer us on the west coast is that things will get worse, there will be no extra services and it may take much longer than one thousand days to modernise the west coast main line. That is a negative estimate of what will happen. I hope that I do not become as cynical as my hon. Friend as I spend longer here.

It is not cynicism but realism. 1 was a signalman when the line was last modernised. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that modernisation and punctuality do not go together.

I accept that, but the technology used 30 years ago when my hon. Friend was a signalman has advanced considerably.

If I am not to have Eurostar services on the west coast main line, I make a plea that the seven train sets be made available to Virgin West Coast. There is no doubt that our rolling stock is unsatisfactory. To use a technical term, it is clapped out. The seven sets would make a great deal of difference. Instead of being in sidings gathering graffiti, which I am sure they are, they should be put to good use on services to Europe down the west coast or, if not, on the west coast main line.

11.46 am

I want to make a plea for my county and the region that I represent. I attended the Second Reading debate on the Channel Tunnel Rail Bill as an Opposition Member, regularly making the plea that the regions should be serviced by Eurostar. We were promised regional services on several occasions. One has to ask why the company is reneging on that promise and what the Government will do to ensure that it is fulfilled.

I shall not go into technical details. They were covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). People suggest that there would be no passengers on regional Eurostar services and that, if people want to travel to Europe, flying is best. If hon. Members read our reports on aviation, they would find that we want a service into the hub airports. We have no service from Leeds-Bradford into the hub airports. We are moving fast towards a similar situation with the hub airports on the continent. There will no slots for regional connections from our regional airports. I deprecate that. We need such a service.

It is important that West Yorkshire—Leeds and Wakefield, my own area—should have a rail link into Europe. There are passengers who want such a service. We need an opportunity for people to demonstrate that they want to travel by train. Rail passengers benefit a great deal from the freedom that the railways offer as compared with flying. It would be wrong for a conurbation such as West Yorkshire, with a population of 2.5 million and five large authorities-—eeds, Bradford, Calderdale, Wakefield and Kirklees—to be denied Eurostar services.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is familiar with Yorkshire. We have a regional development agency, and we need a service to sustain it. He is dedicated to developing the regions. If we are to succeed in generating economic development in the region, we need a regional Eurostar service. I cannot imagine or envisage that the area in Yorkshire where I live will be denied this service. We must press the company at all levels to ensure that the promises that were made when we were discussing the then Channel Tunnel Bill are fulfilled.

There has been talk about people being cheated. I shall consider that my constituents have been cheated if the service is not extended into the area where I live. The rail paths are clear and a system is in place. We need an additional service and the trains that will provide it. There is a demand for the service and, along with my parliamentary colleagues, I plead for the service to come into the area of the Yorkshire region that I represent.

11.50 am

As someone who much appreciates the opportunity to travel on Eurostar at any time, I am particularly enthused by the prospect that I can get on the service at Watford and end up in Paris three and a half hours later.

The Select Committee has correctly identified that Watford is well placed to be an integrated transport hub. Indeed, the town is already on its way to becoming that. For example, the Silverlink service takes 20 minutes to get into Euston and there are Virgin services on the west coast main line. If the Government support the regional Eurostar scheme, there is the prospect of the Croxley rail link, which will bring tube links direct into Watford Junction.

I share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). There are capacity difficulties on the west coast main line, even given the modernisation of that line. I recently held a rail summit, bringing together all the train operating companies that serve Watford and Railtrack. When we considered potential new services and regional Eurostar, it emerged that there is no capacity for any new or innovative services. That is the position now and, even with modernisation and upgrading of the west coast main line, there will not be much capacity for additional services. There will be only the improvement of existing services.

We may have real problems in extending regional Eurostar to other areas, and there is no doubt that the solution lies in Watford. The town can provide a real hub for trains coming along the west coast main line from all parts of the country and connecting with Watford. Watford has other good connections. It is very close to the M1 and the M25 and is only a short distance from Heathrow. A proposal was put forward by Anglia Railways Train Services to link Watford and Heathrow by rail. Unfortunately, that has been turned down by Railtrack because of capacity issues. I believe that the link could offer more opportunities for regional Eurostar services. As I have said, there is a tube link. Many people will be surprised to know that it extends as far as Watford. We hope that, eventually, it will be brought into the Watford Junction service.

There are cost issues. The Select Committee report correctly identifies that the costs involved in making Watford a base for regional Eurostar would be considerably less than those of extending the service much further beyond Watford. I understand that investment of about £2 million would be needed at Watford for new passenger facilities and for immigration controls. There is no doubt that the cost would be much lower than that of an extended service and it would be a much quicker alternative. It would ensure that we see Eurostar services extended beyond London. It would be much cheaper than extending them from Glasgow, for example.

I understand that other hon. Members are keen to speak in this debate and I do not wish to prolong my contribution. I merely say that my constituents would greatly welcome the extension of the regional Eurostar to Watford. The town can cope with such opportunities and provide much better onward travel links for anybody who wishes to come from Europe straight through into Watford. I hope that the Government will consider this option as soon as possible. I look forward to seeing Eurostar operating from Watford to Paris as quickly as possible.

11.55 am

The Select Committee report does not say that we want any delay in the construction of the high-speed rail link. It says specifically that we do not want that. For those hon. Members who seem to have written off the regions in terms of Eurostar, the report specifically does not say that we want to see empty trains running into the regions. I am disappointed that some hon. Members have made contributions that seem to write off the regions. I can only conclude that the Members responsible have not read the report. If they have—

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me?

Yes, I am referring to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency in the north-west.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Stevenson: I do not have time.

I suggest that those who seem to have written off the regions should either read the report or read it again more carefully.

The report also states that the one assessment of, or piece of research into, regional Eurostar—it was carried out by Capital and Continental Railways—lacks credibility. That company was appointed by the Secretary of State in July 1998. It knew then that it would be appointed as the leader of the regional Eurostar consortium. It had made it clear that its preference was for Eurostar to be based at Heathrow.

Lo and behold, at about that time, British Airways took a 10 per cent. stake in the consortium. There we have it. That is why the Select Committee said that the research that was carried out by Capital and Continental Railways, or its assessment, lacked any credibility. Indeed, when the company gave evidence to the Committee, a number of us asked a specific question: "Which is your preference for the development of Eurostar services?" The answer was clear—Heathrow. The representatives of the company told us that their assessment of Heathrow was that, if they could develop a service there, they would take passengers away from Waterloo. Nevertheless, their preference was development in the south-east. That was all that they were interested in.

We were delighted when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he was not completely satisfied with the outcome of the assessment by Capital and Continental Railways. He decided that there should be another inquiry with different terms of reference. Crucially, they include economic benefits to the regions, something which was not included in the terms of reference of the first inquiry. The credibility of the first assessment, on which some hon. Members have based their opinions, must be treated with great caution. We are delighted that the Secretary of State has recognised that. We are delighted also that there will be a further investigation. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the next inquiry is conducted as speedily as possible but consistent with a thorough job being done.

I have no doubt—I think that the majority of members of the Select Committee, if not all of them, equally have no doubt—that, when the next inquiry takes place, with the terms of reference that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has laid down, very different conclusions will be reached about the need and demand for, and the essential nature of, regional Eurostar services.

11.59 am

I sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) did not give way, having referred to me in his contribution. I understood that that was a normal courtesy in the House. As a point of correction, I ought to make it clear at the outset that it was his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who referred to empty trains. I do not see anything wrong in that—the hon. Gentleman made a sensible and intelligent contribution to the debate.

Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, I feel that the important question about regional Eurostar services is not whether there is outrage and anger on one side or another, or whether it is fundamentally right that there should be rail services from the regions to Europe, but simply whether there is a demand for those services.

I speak with some care and caution on the matter, as I am aware that my constituents are fortunate in numerous respects, but particularly fortunate with regard to transport. They are well connected for motorway transport, reasonably well connected by rail, and extremely close to Manchester airport, which is a major regional hub airport. In terms of time taken to travel from one place to another, they are therefore on the other side of the debate from the constituents of some of the other hon. Members who have spoken.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that residents of the north-west living in Liverpool, Lancashire, Cumbria and elsewhere are many miles away from a suitable airport, and that, in any case, the existence of an airport in no way obviates the need for rail links to the channel tunnel—a need which was identified by the north-west chamber of commerce and manufacturing industry in the north-west?

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Of course, she has an airport in Liverpool, and it would be nice if it were used more than it is at present, perhaps with a greater variety of services. She makes a sensible point, and one that I was trying to develop. There are parts of the regions where there may be demand, which may lead to full, rather than empty, trains. However, in most circumstances, my constituents would recognise that it would be a more sensible choice for them to fly, rather than to take a regional train service, were it available.

The matter must be addressed in a commercial sense. By that I mean not that the profit element should be put first, but from the perspective of demand for the service. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to the environmental benefits of train travel over aviation travel. That may well be true if the train is full, but not if the train is empty or nearly empty.

I shall not detain the House for long, as I know that there is little time. I want simply to bring the House back to the sensible contribution from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, who sought to focus the debate on whether demand exists. There may well be demand in West Yorkshire, Stoke-on-Trent, Carlisle and Liverpool. 1 have no difficulty with that possibility, but the debate should focus on the real question of whether there is demand and whether the services will be used, not whether people feel angry or let down. That may be a legitimate feeling, but it should not be the motivation for creating a new rail service.

12.3 pm

I am pleased to have been called to speak in the debate. I am not a member of the Select Committee, but Eurostar regional services are a matter of great interest to my constituency and my region.

I have a copy of the front page of the Wolverhampton Express and Star on 9 December last year, the day after the announcement about the feasibility or otherwise of Eurostar services. The headline states:

"Rail link for the chunnel hits buffers—midlands route to Europe shunted into siding".

The article goes on to reflect accurately the frustration and disappointment with which people in Wolverhampton and the surrounding region greeted the news that the long-expected services might not take off.

The other reason why I pointed out the article is that there is great interest in the regions. People are following the debate, and we should not underestimate that.

The key recommendation in the report is that the Government should carry out a review of the economic and social impact of a regional Eurostar service on the regions. The report acknowledges the alternative of upgrading Watford and running passenger links to Watford. I believe that that would be a good alternative.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was spot-on when she said that the issue was the economic development of some of the regions. It is not just a matter of how profitably or otherwise passengers can be shunted round the rail service to Europe. It is a matter of economic development. I shall use Wolverhampton as an example.

Wolverhampton is the rail gateway to Staffordshire, Shropshire and Wales. In the 1980s, its economy collapsed. It has worked hard to restructure its local economy, but there is no doubt that a decent transport infrastructure is vital to its future growth. People who want to travel to Paris and Brussels have the choice of Birmingham airport or a complex and time-consuming journey involving several other modes of transport. The midland motorway system is so congested in parts that it is a liability, rather than an asset.

The business community of Wolverhampton wants the rail link. More than half of the new firms moving into Wolverhampton since the 1980s recession are from the European Union. They form the economic base of the town, and European trade is vital. The business community is asking for a direct rail link into mainland Europe.

Wolverhampton is a visitor centre. It has 3.5 million visitors a year, which may come to some people as a surprise. Wolverhampton has a growing tourist industry, but it needs a rail link into mainland Europe to realise the full potential of attracting visitors to the town.

A Eurostar link or a link through Watford would be a major asset in attracting inward investment. New companies that want to relocate to the area have pointed out that the congestion on the M6 north of Birmingham is a major barrier to economic development in Wolverhampton and the surrounding region. An alternative direct link to mainland Europe would be a significant factor in the economic regeneration of Wolverhampton and the region.

Finally, the report states that the regions have been cheated. They most certainly have. They are being cheated out of realising their full economic potential. As a matter of some urgency, the Government must carry out a review of the economic impact of regional Eurostar services. I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that the majority of people living in this country who are likely to use those services live south of Scotland, east of Wales and north of the Watford gap.

12.7 pm

First, I apologise to the House for arriving a little late for the debate.

Rail problems?

I cannot blame the train. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) fairly had a dig at my slightly late arrival, so perhaps I may reciprocate and wonder where he has gone, as he does not seem to be in the Chamber to hear—

I shall say why.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's apologies will be conveyed by the Minister.

I congratulate the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), on the report, which raised issues of concern to all parts of the House. When her Committee, which was unanimous, says that it feels cheated, we should all feel that.

It is not just a matter of the important emblematic issues involved. The fact that the promise was made to the regions and to Scotland but not delivered rather reinforces the unfortunate impression that the south-east does not care about the rest of the country. That is a sad indictment of the accretion of economic forces in the south-east.

There are important strategic issues for areas such as Wolverhampton, which were described by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones). It is not the great volume of people who will use the service, but the key decision-makers who need access to the continent for their business. They need to be attracted to places such as Wolverhampton, Manchester and ultimately to Glasgow and other parts of the United Kingdom. They attract the business, so they are crucial for economic development. We share those concerns.

I shall keep my remarks as short as possible, as the House deserves a comprehensive reply from the Minister—[Interruption.] I shall do my best. I take the House back to the statement about the channel tunnel rail link on 3 June last year, when the Deputy Prime Minister said:

"1 can assure the House that LCR remains under an obligation to provide the infrastructure for regional Eurostar services. The trains for those services are currently lying idle. I have therefore asked the consortium to review urgently the feasibility of such services, and to put proposals to me before the end of the year. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review in due course."—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 369.]

The Deputy Prime Minister did not promise to make an announcement before the end of the year, but there was a clear impression that the matter was urgent. However, those trains have been lying idle during the two years in which the Government have been in office. No decisions have been made and, understandably, people are becoming frustrated.

The first point that I ask the Minister to address is why, in the 1997 bidding process for the Eurostar services that included the regional services, did the Government accept the consortium bid when it was subsequently announced that that bid did not include an obligation to run the regional services? The alternative—the original Virgin bid—seemed to be—

That was the situation that the Conservatives left us.

Order. The Minister must not reply prematurely from a sedentary position.

It gives me nothing but satisfaction to have riled the right hon. Gentleman already. However, that is not my intention; I genuinely want an explanation. Virgin was firmly under the impression that it was bidding with a clear obligation to run regional services. The consortium bid was accepted, and the Government then announced that regional services were not an obligation.

There was a second red herring in relation to running services to London Heathrow when, technically, that will not work. We have all seen the picture in Rail magazine of a Eurostar train standing at a platform at Heathrow, but the only way to get that train to that platform to take such a picture would be to alter the platform or to remove bits of the train. That service is not a viable option until terminal 5 is constructed; that is some way off—too far off for most Members of the House.

Thirdly, what have the Government done since last year's statement on the channel tunnel rail link? We have received the reports of Mercer Management Consulting Ltd. and of the Transport Sub-Committee, and the Government have now commissioned another independent review. That looks suspiciously like a stalling exercise. However, during that period there has been another offer from Virgin. As the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) pointed out, there are great virtues in Watford acting as a hub for regional services and in starting a service from Watford through the channel tunnel to Paris. The Waterloo service takes three hours; the Watford service would take three hours and 20 minutes.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, there may be problems about the viability of services running as far north as Manchester and Glasgow. However, that does not apply to Watford. The tracks and the train paths are in place. I understand that Virgin has even discussed with Eurostar (UK) Ltd. the possibility that Virgin should run such services.

Virgin's real interest is in adding critical mass and viability to its services running into Watford and down the west coast main line. I want to correct the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who said that it is not viable to run Eurostar services up the west coast main line. I understand that it is viable to do so and that that is Virgin's intention in the fullness of time.

I said that Virgin's proposals are to run trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh down the east coast line—not down the west coast line from Carlisle.

I may have the wrong information; I am prepared to stand corrected on that point. However, the question whether those trains could be used to improve the services on the west coast main line is not in doubt. At present, the trains are sitting idle—that might be the information to which I referred.

In paragraph 21 of the Government's response to the report, they half accepted the key recommendation of the Committee, but have merely handed the matter back to the British Railways Board. Paragraph 22 states that the board

"should prepare a plan stating measures which ought to be taken by any person in the United Kingdom or France with the aim of securing the provision or improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom."

We want a decision from the Government. Have they merely put the matter into the box labelled "Too difficult"? Transport Ministers come and go; I remember that there was some criticism that were too many Transport Ministers under the previous Conservative Government. The same disease seems to afflict the Labour Government. Perhaps the officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions hope that the Minister will not have time to grapple with the matter before he moves on and they can start on the education of a new Minister. On the other hand, perhaps the Government are imprisoned by their interest—the financial stake that they have taken in the Eurostar consortium. They have a 10 per cent. stake, a 35 per cent. share of the profits and a potential 35 per cent. share of the sale proceeds. Has the Treasury told the DETR that the viability and the profitability of the existing Eurostar service should not be compromised because the Treasury has made a financial investment that is tied to the channel tunnel rail link deal?

One of the reasons why the services are in doubt is that there is no obligation on the company running the channel tunnel rail link to build phase 2. We are left with a most unsatisfactory situation. I want to leave one final thought with the Minister, although I realise that he is not the Minister of Transport, but has responsibilities for the regions. Any solution would be better than the present situation. That is a plea. We share the difficulties that he faces in resolving the situation, but it is absurd that seven good train sets should be lying idle. The right hon. Gentleman's Government have been responsible for that during the past two years; we are anxious to give him any possible assistance and support in resolving it. It is time that the Government took some decisions instead of setting up more and more reviews.

12.16 pm

First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the sedentary intervention that I made earlier. It was not becoming to a Member on the Treasury Bench.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on initiating this important debate. Although the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said that I was not the Minister of Transport, I was a member of the Committee when the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 passed through Parliament. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Opposition at that time forced the Conservative Government to include section 40 of the Act. Labour forced that Government to take on board our belief that the asset of the channel tunnel rail link should be for the whole nation and not merely for part of it. The nature of the Bill was such that financial responsibility could not be placed on its sponsors, so we had to deal with the matter by including section 40. That measure dealt not only with passengers, but with freight as well. It was an extremely important section of the Act that dealt with the well-being not only of the English regions, but of Scotland and Wales.

The inquiry held by the Transport Sub-Committee and its report echoed the views expressed by hon. Members today. The Committee's recommendations have been invaluable in informing the review that the Government are commissioning. We have already announced that we intend the review to be wide ranging. Its terms of reference were drawn up in the light of the Sub-Committee's thinking and encompass a broad range of issues—including consideration of routes, stopping patterns, operational issues, demand for services, impact on the construction of the channel tunnel rail link and, of course, the wider socio-economic benefits of such services. That is set within the broad context of section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

My hon. Friends were the main participants in the debate, which shows the interest of Labour Members in the regions and in Scotland and Wales. Some of that information about the origin of passengers, for which my hon. Friends asked, is confidential, but I assure my hon. Friends that it will be available to the consultants. The consultants' report will take into account Railtrack's modernisation programme for the west coast main line. Services for Watford and the Watford hub will also be considered by the review. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a number of points and I hope that they will also be factored into the review. We want to factor in all those matters, but we want to ensure that there is no delay in the work of the review.

As the House will know, on 12 April, we announced that we had invited five firms to bid for the appointment as consultant to undertake the review. Those firms are Arthur D Little, Booz Allen and Hamilton, Colin Buchanan and Partners, PricewaterhouseCoopers and WS Atkins. The bids were received today, and we expect to make the appointment in June. We shall instruct the successful firm to undertake the broad-ranging study that I have outlined. I hope that that report will be with us by the end of the year. The hon. Member for North Essex shakes his head, but he knows that we inherited one hell of a mess in respect of the financing of the channel tunnel rail link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we hope that the taxpayers and the travelling public are in for a nice surprise, because the first surprise that we gave the taxpayer was to unravel the mess that the Conservatives had left. We would not be having this debate had the channel tunnel rail link itself failed, and that was a high possibility because of the give-away mentality of the previous Government. We had to get a better deal for the taxpayer by unravelling the mess and making sure—

Will the Minister give way?

I shall not give way to hon. Members who, having only just come into the Chamber, decide to intervene. Only Members who have sat through the debate are entitled to intervene.

We are entitled to point out that the forecasts for the financing proposals for the original channel tunnel rail link were thrown out of kilter by the fire—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. To be fair to LCR, it should be emphasised that, until the fire, the company was broadly on track in financial terms, but the financing arrangements were thrown off by the fire.

I shall not respond to that intervention, except to say that I think that the hon. Gentleman is being slightly economical with the truth. I shall let hon. Members arrive at their own judgment.

We are determined to ensure that the review takes proper account of the views of all interested organisations. We shall therefore instruct the firm of consultants appointed to consult, among others, the Local Government Association, the regional development agencies, and the Fast Tracks to Europe Alliance, to ensure that the views of the regions are properly represented.

There has been concern about Eurostar's reported plans for the regional trains sets and the drivers whom Eurostar employed to operate regional services. The Government understand and share the disquiet that has been expressed about Eurostar taking decisions that might pre-empt the Government's review. However, I assure the House that, although the trains are owned by Eurostar (UK) Ltd. and decisions on their use fall to the company, the Government have agreements in place that prevent assets from being used outside the Eurostar business without the consent of the Secretary of State. That power may well be used.

The Eurostar business is defined as the operation of international passenger services. We have made it clear to Eurostar that any plans it has for alternative uses of the regional train sets must be within the terms of the agreements that it has with Government and that it must not pre-empt the Government's review. Eurostar clearly understands that.

One alternative use of the regional train sets that I understand Eurostar is considering is their lease to domestic train operators—a point made by several of my hon. Friends. That option was encouraged by the Sub-Committee in its report, and I understand that Eurostar has already approached Virgin, Great North Eastern Railway, Connex, South West Trains and GB Railways to see whether they would be interested. As I have said, under the agreements we have with LCR, the lease of the regional rolling stock to domestic rail operators would be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. However, I can say now that if Eurostar can come up with a commercial arrangement that would enable the stock to be put to use on the domestic network, pending the outcome of the Government's review, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would not stand in their way.

Decisions on the deployment of Eurostar drivers are, of course, a matter for the management of Eurostar (UK) Ltd. However, I have been assured by the company that its action in no way prejudges the outcome of the review. I understand from the company that, as a result of the delay in the introduction of a regional Eurostar service, it is incurring costs estimated to be about £250,000 per month—getting on for £3 million a year. To ameliorate those costs, the company has decided to offer a voluntary—I repeat, voluntary—severance scheme to the 32 regional Eurostar train drivers.

That decision was taken following consultation with the regional drivers themselves and with their unions. Eurostar tells me that 12 drivers have now accepted the offer of voluntary severance, at a cost to Eurostar (UK) Ltd. of £266,000. Those costs will not be met by the Government; they are rightly the responsibility of Eurostar.

As I have mentioned, the Government are keen to ensure that actions are not taken that might prejudice the outcome of our review. We have therefore asked Eurostar's management whether the loss of those drivers would affect the company's ability to run regional services, should that be decided. I am glad to say that we have received an unambiguous assurance from Eurostar (UK) Ltd. that, in the event that our review leads to a decision to start regional services, any requirement for additional drivers could be met and would not delay the introduction of those services. The professionals estimate that it would take only two to three months to recruit and train a driver to run a regional Eurostar train.

I know that many hon. Members remain concerned about the time that it is taking for the regional train sets to be cleared to operate on the west coast main line and east coast main line. I understand their concern. However, Eurostar regional rolling stock is technically complex, because it must be able to draw from four different traction current supply systems. Early testing revealed significant electro-magnetic induction problems when regional train sets interfered with the operation of track circuits. In lay person's language, that could affect all the signalling on the tracks, which would be extremely dangerous. Neither the Government nor Eurostar will act until we have clear confirmation that it is safe to use the rolling stock. We hope that clearance can be given sooner rather than later, but uppermost in our mind is passenger safety.

Several hon. Members raised the question of regional Eurostar trains carrying domestic passengers, and I am happy to confirm that security is not a bar to Eurostar running regional services. The Government have always said that, provided procedures are in place that satisfy security requirements, there would be no problem with regional Eurostars carrying domestic passengers, and that remains the case. The Government's review will include consideration of the costs and benefits that might be incurred by Eurostar if domestic passengers are carried.

The decision to abandon European night services was made in 1997 by European Night Services Ltd.—not by the Government—following a commercial review of the services. ENS is a joint venture company comprising Eurostar (UK) Ltd and several European railways. The reason the Government became involved was because the lease agreed by ENS and Metro Cammel in 1992 was underpinned by a Government guarantee, given by the Conservative Government. ENS took the view that it would cost too much to complete the building of the stock; and, as there were no plans to use it, the company decided to leave the partially built stock with the manufacturer and allow the lease to terminate. The lease automatically terminated as none of the rolling stock had been delivered to ENS by the manufacturer.

The problem was that, at that point, LCR, which owns Eurostar (UK) Ltd., had just told the Government that it could not continue with the channel tunnel rail link project, and Eurostar did not have sufficient money to fund its portion of the lease termination costs. Payment would have led to the insolvency of Eurostar (UK) Ltd., which would have caused the collapse of the channel tunnel rail link project. The Government decided to allow the guarantee to be called and, on 1 June 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions paid out £109 million for the security left to us by the previous Administration. However, the Government are entitled to recover the payment as part of the restructuring deal agreed with LCR, the owner of Eurostar (UK) Ltd.

Although the rolling stock is now the responsibility of the manufacturer, Metro Cammel, part of the deal in allowing it to keep the trains involves a profit-sharing arrangement if they are sold on. ENS will get a 50 per cent. share of the profits if Metro Cammel—

Order. Time is up for this debate.

Primary Schools (Bury)

12.30 pm

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. It is the first time in parliamentary history that the town that I have the privilege of representing has had a debate to itself in this place. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) would be here to share it, but urgent business has prompted his return to his constituency. However, my hon. Friend and I speak with one voice about all education matters in Bury.

The purpose of this debate is essentially twofold. First, I want to draw attention to the excellent performance of primary schools in Bury, whose reputation is growing as time passes. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the other noticeable feature of education in Bury: chronic funding inadequacies. That is not a recent phenomenon. If time allows—I know that this is a short debate—I shall give some feedback to my hon. Friend the Minister from teachers in Bury whose views I canvassed recently during a series of visits to primary schools.

Let me outline the nature of the local authority and the schools in Bury. The local education authority, which serves a population of a little more than 180,000, is one of the smallest in the country. Therefore, it has a proportionately small education budget that does not allow for the economies of scale common to larger authorities. It has a little over 60 primary schools and a coherent 11-to-16 system of secondary education, which feeds into two highly regarded colleges—a general tertiary college and a Catholic sixth form college. Although this debate focuses on primary schools, I also pay tribute to the performance of Bury's secondary schools, which are equally well regarded. Their performances to GCSE, in terms of passes at A to C, and particularly A to G, feature at the top of the annual league tables.

The local authority was inspected by Ofsted last year and its report was published in the first week of this year. I shall comment briefly about some of the remarks in it. The chief inspector of schools—whose comments I would not necessarily always quote with such gratitude—described Bury as an authority that

"delivers … without rhetoric and fuss".

He said that the schools are doing very well and getting steadily better and that the authority

"makes highly effective use of money achieving high levels of service efficiency … plans well … supports literacy and numeracy, behaviour and attendance very well".

Following that report, the Secretary of State referred to Bury's schools in his speech to the north of England conference on 8 January, praising Bury's effective use of the performance data and baseline assessment to help identify the development needs of individual pupils. More recently, the Department for Education and Employment has particularly praised Bury's educational development plan, saying that it reveals an exemplary process of establishing targets for the LEA and for individual schools.

The message is that the local authority and its schools are regarded highly. I pay tribute to the teachers in Bury's schools, without whose skill and dedication those results would not have been achieved. I pay tribute also to the governors. Being a school governor is a thankless task in many respects, but Bury is fortunate in having a large group of dedicated and experienced governors who support their schools particularly effectively. That has enabled the schools to develop and advance on a wide range of fronts, particularly in their literacy and numeracy strategies, the use of the national grid for learning investment and in many good examples of community involvement.

The facts relating to performance in Bury's primary schools are straightforward. At key stage 1 last year, in all aspects assessed—reading, writing, spelling and mathematics—Bury's primary schools were about 2 per cent. above the national average. By key stage 2, it is significant that Bury was rated as the second highest scoring metropolitan district and the eighth highest scoring local authority in the country. That is because the scores of pupils achieving level 4 and above were 8 per cent. higher than the national average.

In that context, I shall mention some individual schools from my constituency—if my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South were present, I am sure that he would quote many good examples from his constituency. I must draw attention to the results achieved at Hollymount school, where 100 per cent. scores at level 4 and above in maths and science were achieved as well as scores of 93 per cent. in English, and at Greenmount, St. Mary's, Lowercroft and Our Lady of Lourdes school, which also achieved 100 per cent. in one subject.

Those schools serve catchment areas that are comfortable and, in many cases, very affluent. However, I also draw attention to schools such as Sunny Bank and Guardian Angels, which serve mixed areas, whose scores in English and maths were exceptionally good. I draw attention also to East Ward school and St. Thomas's school, which serve some of the most deprived wards in Greater Manchester. Both those schools obtained results of about 95 per cent. at level 4 and above in science. Some exceptional work is being done in schools that serve very deprived communities: the message is that there have been enormous improvements in various primary schools from key stage 1 to key stage 2.

Having cited the league tables and scores as evidence, I should add a note of caution. Teachers, head teachers and school governors in Bury are a little sceptical about the way in which league tables operate. They know that a small difference in the number of pupils taking the tests each year can result in a disproportionate difference in the end results. They know also that the league tables as currently published reflect mostly the nature of the school's catchment area rather than the value added by an individual school. I plead with the Government to move as quickly as possible—I know that the Minister is aware of this point—to introduce a value-added concept into the league table system. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Bury's primary schools have out-performed schools with similar catchment areas that serve similar local authorities and similar populations in other parts of the country and have shown particular progress between key stages 1 and 2.

On finance, Bury local authority has suffered historically from a low standard spending assessment. That is particularly evident in the impact on education. The aggregated schools budget per capita spend is £100 below the national average for primary schools and £150 below the national average for secondary schools. That is despite the fact that, based on population, Bury comes in the middle of the social and economic indicators that are used to describe local authorities. The effect on a large primary school of 400 pupils is a deficit of about £40,000 a year and the effect on a small secondary school—a typical 11-to-16 school in Bury—is about £120,000 a year.

The SSA for primary education in Bury is £2,200 and £2,800 for secondary education. That contrasts markedly with the London SSA—I do not want to reopen the debate about SSA differentials between London and the rest of the country, but I must make this point—of about £2,800 for primary schools and about £3,600 for secondary schools. If we compare Bury and London—we all accept that London has special needs and difficulties—we find that a primary school in Bury is worse off to the tune of about £250,000 and a secondary school is worse off by about £640,000.

I know that Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are highly conscious of the inequities of the SSA system. I know also that a considerable amount of work was done on that last year and that a change to the children's social services criteria was introduced which benefited some of the poorly funded authorities such as Bury. However, I again draw attention to the fact that we must wait a further three years for the next review of SSAs. The contentious issues of the area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs criteria remain to be resolved. In those three years, Bury and other small local authorities will continue to be funded by a system that is widely regarded as being unjustified and methodologically unsound.

For many years, Bury spent about 11 per cent. above its SSA, which was a measure of the local authority's commitment to education. Unfortunately, that could no longer continue because of the severe budget cuts by the previous Government in 1996–97 which forced the local council to impose cuts of £12 million on the authority. That is not a large sum compared to the budgets of some local authorities, but for a very small authority such as Bury, it is huge. The effect on the education service was cuts of about £5.5 million, of which more than £3 million came directly out of school budgets.

The teachers in Bury's schools, the parents and the local authority welcome the new investment that my Government have introduced since 1997, particularly the total of about £4 million from the standards fund and about £1.8 million from the new deal for schools. That has enabled our primary schools to reduce almost all their infant class sizes—which, before 1997, were among the highest in the country—to 30 or below by the end of the forthcoming school year. That investment has also enabled primary and secondary schools in Bury to start a long-overdue programme of repair and new build.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the interest that he has taken in education in Bury, following his recent visit to Holy Trinity primary school, and his particular interest in the local authority's attempts to get funding through the new deal for the East Ward primary school. I must now declare an interest because that is the school which I attended, but more importantly, it has operated on a split site for 40 years. It serves one of the most deprived areas in Greater Manchester, and the local authority's project for developing the school on one site is part of a much wider community regeneration project, which can now proceed as a result of the funding under the new deal for schools.

The failure to make significant changes to the SSA system this year means that even the 5 per cent. annual increase projected for the next three years will barely restore the core level of funding to that which applied before the cuts made during the previous Government's last year in office. The difficulty is that even though the SSA will now increase year by year, part of the additional funding received by the local authority must be set aside for the matched funding that it hopes to receive from the standards fund. Even though Bury passports to the schools all the funding that it can, the amount of money that goes to the schools is inevitably reduced.

I do not say that Bury is unique, because I know that many other local authorities in metropolitan districts and shire counties have a similar struggle, but I am not sure that schools in Bury can wait for another three years before there is comprehensive reform of the SSA system. I know that the system is not my hon. Friend's responsibility and that DETR Ministers must grapple with it, but it seems to me that there is now a powerful argument for using the funding that the DfEE has at its disposal—the standards fund and the new deal—to compensate for the inadequacies of the core funding from DETR. There is a powerful argument also for establishing the concept of a minimal level of core funding, below which no local authority and no school should fall.

The 5.4 per cent. increase in Bury's SSA this year was higher than the average increase for metropolitan districts, but that average was lower than the average increase in SSAs for inner and outer London. We welcome this year's increase for Bury and the 5 per cent. increase next year, but for small local authorities, percentage increases serve simply to increase the cash differential. That is why small authorities need a cash injection to compensate for the inadequacies of the percentage increase.

Will my hon. Friend monitor closely the financial situation in Bury, particularly in primary schools, and make representations to his colleagues at DETR about the reform of SSAs? Will he find out whether there are ways in which the standards fund and the new deal for schools can be used to support local authorities, particularly small ones with the lowest levels of funding?

I have been fortunate enough to be able to visit about two thirds of primary schools in my constituency. The messages from teachers, governors and head teachers are clear.

First, the continually low funding makes it difficult to maintain the high standards that have been achieved in Bury. Secondly, the local authority has set demanding new targets to which the schools, after some arm-twisting, have agreed. I should point out that the literacy target for primary schools in Bury is now set at 90 per cent. of pupils by 2000, which is 10 per cent. above the national average target. The numeracy target is set at 80 per cent. of pupils by 2000, which is 5 per cent. above the national average target. It is disproportionately difficult for schools and local authorities that are already performing extremely well to achieve that extra increase. If only 20 or 30 per cent. of pupils are obtaining level 4 or above, it is relatively easy to increase that number by 5 or 10 per cent. The higher the starting point, the more difficult it is for schools to attain those final few percentage points. There is, therefore, a concern about the demanding new targets.

There is concern also about the proposals to reform teachers' pay and the way in which that will be linked to pupils' performance. If the budget is cash-limited, what are the implications for schools that already have a high level of pupil performance? Will they sweep up a disproportionately large share of the overall budget, or will there be discrimination between teachers who, by any national standards, are performing extremely well and wish to go through the threshold?

There is continuing concern about future funding, but there is massive support for the Government's actions through the standards fund, particularly on pupil improvement strategies and the national grid for learning, and the extra investment from the new deal. There is also a welcome for the Government's other initiatives, particularly the numeracy and literacy strategies, but there is concern about the pace of change, especially on the literacy strategy. Having gone through that process, however, most teachers feel well equipped to take on the introduction of the numeracy strategy from this September.

I repeat my point about league tables, about which schools are concerned. Schools at the top of the league tables in Bury express the most concern because they know that their position is due not only to dedicated, skilled teaching staff, but to their privileged catchment area.

I shall summarise my points about Bury's schools. The first related to high performance. The success that has been achieved, particularly in primary schools, between key stages 1 and 2, has been bought at the human cost of stressed, exhausted teachers. There is a question mark over how much more teachers in those schools can give. According to socio-economic data—whether we are comparing levels of unemployment, numbers of single parent households or other indications of poverty—Bury is always somewhere in the middle of the list, yet our funding is always in the lower quartile. The Government need to think of interim measures to help the local authorities with the lowest funding prior to completing the next review of SSAs.

I want to focus on the need to recognise high performance not only in Bury's schools but in those of other local authorities. How will the Government reward and recognise those schools and, in particular, what can be done to help to disseminate that good practice?

That brings me to my final point, which relates to the recent Ofsted reports on other local authorities. We have all read the reports on Hackney and Islington, and I imagine that we shall all read that on Liverpool. It seems odd that, when there is such expertise in certain parts of the state sector, we have not used it in the past to help those parts of state education that are not performing as well.

I am not suggesting that Bury should take over the schools of Islington, Hackney or Liverpool, but the expertise that exists in the schools in my constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and in other primary schools across the country could be used to help our colleagues in Islington, Hackney and elsewhere. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister commented on that.

12.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment

(Mr. Charles Clarke)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing the debate; I had not realised that this is the first time that the affairs of Bury alone have been debated in the Chamber.

Everyone in the House knows of the personal commitment, energy and expertise that my hon. Friend brings to bear on behalf of his constituents and the children in his constituency's schools. As he said, I was fortunate enough to visit a school in his constituency where I met people from the local education authority and many teachers and discussed many of the issues that he has raised. I know that he has accurately reflected the feelings of his constituents and I congratulate him on continuing to prosecute his case.

The first issue raised by my hon. Friend, and the one with which he concluded, was the Ofsted LEA inspection report for Bury. As he said, that report was very positive. Ofsted held a press conference to announce the report's publication, and to give an example of what LEAs can achieve and how well they can support their schools. Bury's report says that the education service has shown itself to be a highly effective organisation which is providing excellent support for schools and value for money. It is well led and has good relationships with its schools. It provides excellent support for literacy, performance data to support target setting and strong support for pupils with educational and behavioural difficulties.

My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards wrote on behalf of the Government to commend Bury on that inspection report, so I am happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's positive remarks about the role played and contribution made by the teachers, governors, pupils and officers of his local LEA in the metropolitan borough of Bury. That outstanding achievement deserves public recognition, which he has secured today.

I believe that LEAs across the country can learn many things from Bury, which is one reason why Ofsted publicised the report. I am not sure that that goes quite so far as taking over the schools of Islington and Hackney, although we will examine with great interest the suggestion that that might happen; it is a new twist on the suggestion that what Greater Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow.

As my hon. Friend will know, our specialist schools initiative, our beacon schools initiative—another of which was announced recently—and our approach show our strong commitment to disseminating good practice in every aspect of the delivery of educational services. I heard what he had to say about Bury's achievement in key stage 2 results, which have been outstanding.

On league tables, which my hon. Friend mentioned, I agree that one should not interpret them too precisely in their various respects. They must be set in context, and we always do that, but the data to which he referred help to motivate target setting and drive educational standards upwards. They should be publicly available, not kept in some secret garden away from the public, so that will inevitably lead to their publication. My only health warning is that the league tables should always be set in context.

I note my hon. Friend's particular point about the need to develop value-added statistics for the league tables and I agree about their importance. As he knows, the Government are setting about that task. We have introduced a number of pilot schemes to see how that data might best be collected and it is our declared intention to include value-added data, as long as we can be sure that they are reliable. Reliability is a key point, because people rest judgments on league tables and must know the facts.

My hon. Friend made a range of points about funding and resources. He was fundamentally right in his description of the situation; Bury is 130th out of 150 LEAs in funding per pupil—towards the bottom end, as he said. It receives about 7 per cent. per pupil less than the national average, despite, as he rightly says, being nearer the centre of the various tables on socio-economic indices. I therefore accept what he said about the SSA formula, as will my colleagues across the Government as they consider the issues that we are addressing. My hon. Friend's comparisons with London were, as always, interesting; my LEA in Norfolk makes exactly the same point. His comparisons are not only on the record, but will be heeded by Ministers in my Department and across the Government.

Since 1997, Bury's education SSA has increased by £8 million and its primary school SSA has increased by 11.6 per cent. I commend the authority on passing on in full the increase in SSA to education, and we are keen to establish that practice across the country. As my hon. Friend said, the standards fund has made a major contribution to improving the situation in Bury and I was glad to hear about the teachers' welcome for it. I also acknowledge his point about the difficulties that can arise over matched funding. On class size, since 1997, Bury has received £1.7 million to provide additional teachers and £1.4 million is available for additional classrooms. As a result, Bury has achieved a major reduction in the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in large classes and, from January 1998 to January 1999, that number fell from 3,326 to 460. I congratulate the LEA on a robust plan for reducing class sizes, its speedy implementation and achieving good value for money.

On literacy, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, the national target is 80 per cent., but Bury has set the more challenging target of 90 per cent. We have allocated £302,000 from the standards fund to raise primary literacy standards in Bury. On numeracy, the national target is 75 per cent., but the target in Bury is 80 per cent. Again, I congratulate the LEA on driving those targets forward. Bury received £196,000 to raise primary numeracy standards.

On other standards funding, the total amount available to Bury is more than £3 million, including the funding to which I have referred and funding for the national grid for learning, school security and a range of other issues. Those resources are significant and important, and we are delighted that they are being used to such good effect in Bury. I have heard, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hear, my hon. Friend's remarks about the possibility of using the standards fund to target resources on areas of greatest need. That is precisely what we have done through capital funding.

The new deal for schools, to which my hon. Friend referred, is specifically targeted on schools with the most serious defects to ensure that they are properly addressed. That is why Bury has received a total capital allocation of almost £6 million since the Government were elected, £2 million of which is in respect of the new deal for schools. An additional £2.4 million has been made available through advance capital grant and grant to voluntary-aided schools.

I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that major improvement on past funding has enabled him to set about overcoming, with his characteristic energy and enthusiasm, many of the serious problems that he inherited when he became Member of Parliament for Bury, North.

I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made. I have listened to what he said about the contribution of parents, teachers and governors, and I congratulate the LEA on its work. The Government will continue to support education in Bury with substantial resources, working in partnership with everybody involved to raise standards. We will consider most carefully the specific points that he reported in the debate. I am delighted to have been able to highlight them, because they reveal my hon. Friend's commitment and that of his colleagues to drive forward the improvement in educational standards in Bury. The Government share that commitment.

Primary Schools (Admissions)

1 pm

Few things matter more to parents than their child's education. As a parent with a three-year-old child, I well understand parents' concern about the choice of primary school and about the need to get that right. It should be right for the family and right for the child. My reason for securing this debate is my concern that, in their entirely laudable desire, which I share, to reduce infant class sizes, the Government have introduced legislation that has proved to be unduly rigid in its application and that may be to the detriment of some of the very children that it aims to support.

I shall give a specific example, which prompted the debate, and I shall then consider the more general situation in South Gloucestershire council and in other local authorities. I should like to draw the House's attention to the case of Chloe, who is three and will be four next month. Her parents recently moved back to the village of Elberton in South Gloucestershire. Elberton does not have a school of its own: the children of the village walk to the school in Olveston, which is a popular village school. Parents buy houses in the village to make sure that they get their children into the school. I live in Olveston, and in due course I hope that my children will go to that school. To be honest, I do not need to declare an interest, because if my argument is successful I may prejudice my children's chances, but I shall leave that on one side.

The parents of Chloe Wilson applied to Olveston school, which is their local school. They also applied to Almondsbury school, which is another popular local school. Because Olveston school is popular, it is full: 30 children already have their names down to go there. Almondsbury is also full. The local authority wrote to the Wilsons to say that it regretted that their child could not go to their preferred school, and that she could go to St. Helen's school in Alveston.

I do not want to criticise St. Helen's school in Alveston, which is a good school. The question is whether it is the right school for Chloe Wilson. Without going into too much detail about this individual case, I have good reasons for thinking that it is not the right school and that Olveston would be the best school, partly because the children from the village all go to the same school and partly because it is within easy walking distance and the family have an older child with Down's syndrome whom they have to drive to a special school. Those reasons make the case of Olveston school.

Chloe goes to a nursery and she has for the first time begun to talk to other children. She is a chatty girl at home, but out in company she has been reclusive and has only just started to talk to children. The cohort of children who attend the nursery and will go on to state primary school will go to Olveston.

In previous years, the parents would have appealed, and the appeal panel would have made its judgment and may well have decided—we cannot be sure—that a 31st child at Olveston would be of great benefit to the individual child and would not unduly prejudice the other children already there. That is not longer possible, and an appeal is likely to be unsuccessful because of the rigidity of the new rules.

Chloe's parents have put her on a waiting list for Olveston, and every week they hope that the phone call will come and one of the 30 pupils will have been withdrawn so that Chloe can go to the school of her choice. Her friends from the village are visiting the school to see what it is like, meeting the teachers and buying the uniform, but Chloe can do none of that. Chloe and her family are torn, and the situation has created uncertainty.

I am sure that the Minister would not have wanted that to be the product of the legislation. Indeed, I have had the pleasure of discussing education in South Gloucestershire with her, and I know of her concerns. I should be grateful if she would tell me what to say to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson when I go back to my constituency later in the week. What can I say to them that will persuade them that the legislation was right? Better yet, how can I reassure them that future Chloe Wilsons will not be put in this difficult position? Is there any way in which the desirable goal of lower class sizes can be achieved with greater flexibility?

We obviously cannot overturn the whole of the Government's admissions policy for one child, but there are wider problems in South Gloucestershire. As the Minister would expect, primary and infant schools across the area are setting the standard number for admission at 30 or multiples of 30. That is already creating problems for some schools. The schools that have reduced the standard number to 30 are very popular—Crossways in Thornbury and Raysfield infant schools to name but two—and more parents have applied to send their children to those schools than the 30 that will be accepted.

The director of education in South Gloucestershire provided me with a briefing note for the debate. It says:

"The key impact of the infant class size reductions this year relates not to the reductions in standard numbers but to the process of appeals."

He thinks that up to 20 schools could be affected by the new regime. Appeals that might otherwise have been heard and considered on their merits now face a blanket ban. Parents tell me that they have a good case for their child to go a particular school and say, "Surely they will listen to us." I have to explain to them that the authority has a prior claim, and that they may not even have a hearing.

Why do not the schools in the area build more classes? The education department has funded extra classes in South Gloucestershire to enable class sizes to be reduced to 30. However, not all the bids that the authority believed it needed to provide the extra places have been accepted. It has had to put in an extra £600,000 to ensure that it complies with the legislation.

My hon. Friend refers to the schools in his local area, but the picture that he is painting is not unique to his local authority. Bath and North East Somerset council has similar problems. Newbridge St. John's infants school is very popular and has an intake this year of 87 pupils. Its two requests to the Department for Education and Employment for additional funds for new buildings have been turned down. As a result, the standard number will drop to 60, so that next year up to 27 parents will be denied their choice. The policy is reducing parental choice.

I learned of that case only today. I am concerned about such a dramatic swing from one year to the next, which is a direct consequence of a rigid law from central Government that is not backed up by the necessary funding to implement it.

Capital funding has been inadequate. My authority says that the figure of £85,000 per classroom is not always adequate. Some of the problems are in rural areas where there is only one village school and children cannot be shuffled around between three or four neighbouring schools. The village school may be an old Victorian building, and adding an extra classroom may not be cheap, because planning regulations have to be adhered to and it must be made with the right stone. The authority has found that the amount of money per school has been inadequate. It is not crying wolf. It has built the classrooms—brick is being laid on top of brick at the moment—so it knows that £85,000 is not enough. It has had to find the money from other parts of the education budget and from other parts of the council's budget.

Not only has capital funding been inadequate; there is also a problem with revenue funding and the rigidity of the rules. The authority dare not breach the requirement for class sizes of 30. One school is expecting 93 infants to start in May. History shows us that by September three or four of them will have dropped out—that is quite common. However, the authority is not permitted to plan on that basis, because if four do not drop out it will be in breach of the law in two years' time when those five-year-olds become seven-year-olds. In the school with 93 pupils, the authority has had to create not three but four classes. Obviously, I have no problem with four classes of 23, but that additional funding may have been better spent elsewhere in the education budget, for example to keep junior class sizes down. The rigidity of the legislation is not helping local authorities to use their scarce resources rationally.

One of the biggest problems identified by South Gloucestershire LEA is that the rigidity of the rules is forcing schools, against their will, into mixed age teaching. St. Mary's in Thornbury is a popular local school with a typical intake of about 35. It achieves superb Ofsted results, and parents want to send their children there, even though the class size is 35, because they believe that the school achieves great things. The school, however, will not be able to accommodate them, because it is going to have to move to mixed-age classes.

I am no educationist. I do not know whether it is better for a child to be taught in a single-year class of 35, perhaps with additional teacher support, or for that child to be taught in a mixed-age class of 30. I am not convinced that the answer is obvious: I am not convinced that it is obviously and automatically true that to have a class of 30 is better than avoiding mixed-age classes. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.

It is fairly clear that the knock-on effect of the focusing of resources on children aged five, six and seven is to the detriment of those aged eight, nine, 10 and 11. The Minister has said that that should not and will not happen, but it is happening. The number of children in South Gloucestershire who are being taught in large junior classes is rising.

And nationally.

Yes, nationally as well. My local authority already spends substantially more than its standard spending assessment on education. It is already taking money from other areas on which the

Government think it should be spending in order to support education, yet it has had to increase junior class sizes.

The director of education wrote to me:

"I do worry that, unless the Government is prepared to tackle the class size issue at KS2 also, the problems of KS2 are only going to be exacerbated".

The authority receives good reports from the Office for Standards in Education for key stage 1, but is concerned about key stage 2. That may get worse, and I am not sure that such a development would do our children a service.

Having voted for the Bill that became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I must take a share of responsibility for its consequences. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made the following prescient comment:

"I am genuinely concerned that there may be insufficient flexibility in the approach to class size reduction to take account of local circumstances. We shall still need to know how the Government expect a local education authority to deal with the arrival of the 31st child of a particular age group, hoping to attend a small village school. Will he"—

or she—

"be sent a long distance to another school to meet the requirements of the class size ban, or will there be some flexibility?"—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 701.]

My hon. Friend might have known the Wilsons, but he did not. In any event, he made his point to the Government, and—having looked at the record of the debate—I am not convinced that he received a response. I hope that, in replying to me now, the Minister will tell me what I can say to the parents of Chloe Wilson, and to other parents who say to me, "The rule is too rigid. It is denying our children a place at their local school. We support small class sizes, but must the rules be so strict? Can this rule be relaxed?"

It may not be possible for the rule to be relaxed by September, because plans have been made; but will other children have to go through what Chloe Wilson has had to go through? Can the Minister reassure us that she is aware of the problems, and intends to do something about them?

1.13 pm

Wednesdays are becoming a time for regular meetings between Liberal Democrats and me—and so they should be: education is an exceptionally important issue. I feel that I am getting to know the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) quite well, as this is certainly not the first occasion on which we have exchanged views.

I know that the Liberal Democrats support our policy on reducing class sizes, and that they were as cross as we were when, under the last Government, the number of children in classes of not 30 but 40 rose and rose. A generation of primary school children have suffered because that Government were not prepared either to act or to commit money. That is, I think, a common starting point between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

On the whole, the Liberal Democrats have supported not only the extra resources that we have put into key stage 1, but the determination with which we have approached the policy. According to our own criteria, we will meet our targets early.

I acknowledge that the admissions issue is incredibly difficult. All that matters to parents is their children, and long may that continue, because if the parent does not bat for the child, the system often will not do so. The system has to provide education for all the children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. This may sound harsh, but when he returns to his constituency at the end of the week, what he must say to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson is what I have to say to a bundle of my constituents who are currently not getting their children into first-choice schools.

By coincidence, this morning I signed three letters to constituents whose 11-year-old children had not got into their first-choice schools. As all hon. Members will know, at this time of year our postbags are heavily laden with letters from parents who have not secured their first choice. We are torn: we know that we cannot deliver to all those parents, but we know the importance to them and their children of securing the first choice. The hon. Gentleman will have to explain the situation in the same way as he has had to explain it every year since he has been a Member of Parliament.

I say that because, when we are talking about children not getting into the schools of their choice, we must not—I must not—allow class-size policy always to be the reason for that. I accept that it is the reason in this instance, but there are many other reasons why people do not secure their first preference. I do not think that we do our constituents a service by allowing them to latch on to that one reason.

Let me give the context of the progress that has been made in class size policy. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Northavon should say that there is not enough money, given that his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), his party's education spokesman, keeps saying that we spend more than we said we would spend. They cannot have it both ways. [Interruption.] I know that the Liberal Democrats always want it both ways, but my logic tells me that that is not possible.

We have spent more than we said we would. In fact, the cheapest option is to fill up the empty schools. We have adopted the more expensive option for two reasons. One is speed: we will fulfil our pledge 18 months ahead of time. The other is our wish to guarantee parental choice.

We have provided 12,000 extra places at popular schools. The places may not be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon, but they are real places in real schools that are currently oversubscribed. In many cases, especially in rural schools, that has meant the introduction of two classes. If the figure of 23 had been achieved, rather than 30, rural schools could probably have taken more children.

In deciding class size policy, I have sometimes made expensive decisions in order to prevent a child from having to travel what I consider to be an unreasonable distance. That is why our policy has been more expensive. In all our allocations, we have tried—within what it is reasonable for any Government to do—to accommodate particular pressures, and the wishes that parents may have.

The Minister will recall that, during the Committee stage of the School Standards and Framework Bill, she made a number of pledges—as did her right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. She is right to say that a number of additional places have been made available, and that is welcome; but in some parts of the country parental choice is being reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has given examples, as have I, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House could do so as well. I hope the Minister will agree that it is not good enough to say that overall there have been additional places, when in many parts of the country choice has been restricted and the situation is worse than it was under the last Government. That is totally contrary to the promise that was made during the passage of the Bill.

I will come to that. It is an important point: indeed, it is almost the crux of the argument. There are 12,000 extra places in popular schools, but it is true that some parents who might have obtained not a 31st but a 35th or 36th place will now not obtain that place. This is about hard political decisions. We were determined to implement the policy and make it work, and, to some extent, to change the culture.

Year after year, numbers have crept up. The figure of 31 sounds fine; for Chloe to be the 31st child sounds fine; but what will the hon. Member for Northavon say when he returns to his constituency next Friday, and Mrs. Smith tells him that she wants her daughter to be the 32nd? Over time, the numbers have ratcheted up, because parents see the needs of their children. Eventually, there will come a Friday when the hon. Gentleman has to explain to 37 constituents why there are now 38 in a class, whereas when they first applied there were only 30. That is the problem: parental choice is also about the right of other parents to demand reasonable class sizes.

As well as 12,000 extra places, we have given a cast-iron guarantee to all parents—millions of people—who have an infant-aged child that their child will not be in a class of more than 30. Those are not the parents who write to us or go to advice bureaux: they are people whose children will be brought up under a Government who have said that class size matters—a Government who take the flak in Adjournment debates such as this but who have made it happen. That is what we are determined to do.

I now refer specifically to South Gloucestershire. Hon. Members will be pleased to know what our guiding aim has been. Although we have been prescriptive over the class size limit because we are accountable to the electorate for that, we have tried to allow local authorities to plan their provision as they see fit. Let me run through the figures. We have made available £1.5 million to take on 48 extra teachers and £704,000 to build nine extra classrooms.

The hon. Member for Northavon says that some places on the plan have not been funded. Since I announced the latest round of class size plans, we have gone back to local authorities where there have been complaints and talked to them. We want to make the system work, but as reasonably as possible. There of course comes a time when our money is spent, but I have been careful to ensure that we are open to reasonable argument.

South Gloucestershire, which I gather is now Liberal Democrat controlled—having gone from no overall control—will be able to say by September 1999 that, whereas in September last year, 3,391 children were in classes of over 30, this year, the number will be 326. That is cause for celebration.

The hon. Lady gave me those figures, or corresponding ones, a little while ago in a written answer, but the other half of the written answer was on junior class sizes in South Gloucestershire. Does she accept that they have gone up? Can anything be done about that?

What I do know is that the teacher:pupil ratio has fallen for the first time in 10 years nationally. I cannot not give the figures on that ratio for South Gloucestershire, but, nationally, they have fallen for the first time in 10 years. As I have said before, when we have approved class size plans, we have ensured that there will be no consequences for key stage 2 class sizes and that extra money is going to local authorities to accommodate key stage 2.

The hon. Member for Northavon asked—and we could have another interesting debate about this—whether 35 with a teacher and an assistant was not better than 31. That is a point that the Tories make. Once they are in train, the 20,000 extra classroom assistants—I do not put it forward as a better alternative—will mean that there will be a better adult:pupil ratio within key stage 2.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the half-hour Adjournment debates are the property of the Member who introduces them, who is guaranteed a ministerial reply. They are not general debates. They are certainly not platforms for exchanges between those on the Front Bench.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will cheer up the hon. Member for Bath. Let me go back to the point about our willingness to listen and to try to get it right for local areas. Since we announced the first round of extra money, we have gone back to areas where there have been complaints. I have asked officials to talk, to look at builders' reports, to visit the schools, to measure classrooms and to come back; we want to get it right. As a result, we were able to give £110,000 extra to Warmley primary school.

I am delighted that, today, I have written to the hon. Member for Bath to say that I have made available £73,925 for Newbridge St. John's infants school, a Church of England school, which shows that the case that it made, following our decision not to privatise, was a good one. The reason why it did not get the support first time round had to do with something in the paper application not ringing true. Sometimes, figures do not match up, or the school has not made the case on paper sufficiently.

Where local authorities have come back and said, "You have got it wrong," over the past few weeks, I have been asking officials to talk to them. That is why there is extra aid in the South Gloucester area and in Bath and North East Somerset. At Castle primary school, £17,265 has been made available.

I hope that hon. Members will accept not only that we are determined to deliver our pledge to the electorate, but that the line of accountability is important to us. We will deliver the pledge early—by the time of the next election, but we want to do it as sensitively as possible.

Chloe is Mr. and Mrs. Wilson's second child. I know that their eldest child has special needs and that the education of that child will have been of paramount concern to them; they want to ensure that that child receives the support that is needed. I understand that it is disappointing for Chloe that other children in her village are going to the school of her choice. What is ironic is that, had the family moved in before 23 October, class size policy would not have stood in their way. Chloe lives close enough to the school and most children in the village get a place. What is happening is that people who live further away are taking those places because of late entry.

I say as gently as I can that that is a consequence of the family having moved in since admissions closed in October last year. It is a matter for local decision. The local authority has taken a decision that the school that 2.65 miles away that is offering a place is of good standard and is not so far away that it makes life impossible for Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and Chloe. If it had not been of good standard and would have made life impossible, I feel sure that the local authority would have come back to us and asked for an extra teacher at the school, even at that stage. It did not.

Locally, the solution to the problem of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and Chloe was to offer a place in a good-quality school that was 2.65 miles away. I accept that that is a disappointment, but I hope that, when she starts in September, Chloe will settle down and succeed. I hope that, in years to come, the family will look back at this time as one that was traumatic for the children, but made no difference to what I hope will be a happy and fulfilling career for Chloe.

Boundary Walls (Scotland)

1.27 pm

I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak on this subject. The situation started with a dispute between Mr. Thom and his neighbour, Mrs. Hetherington, who are both constituents of mine, concerning the single brick boundary wall between their respective properties. I have represented Mr. Thom for many years, and the case was raised on the Adjournment on 13 March 1996.

The case went to the Court of Session, where it hinged on whether the wall was jointly owned by both parties, more commonly known as "common property", or whether each party owned half of the wall up to the mid-point, which is known as ad medium filum. The court decided to opt for the ad medium filum option, meaning that Mr. Thom lost his case. However, there were two conflicting lines of legal theory and precedent, and the matter was thus referred to the Scottish Law Commission. The subsequent handling of the case is at the crux of Mr. Thom's complaint. At all points, the SLC has taken a long time to resolve the matter. Nine and a half years passed from the original referral to a report finally being produced.

The commission issued a discussion paper, to which Mr. Thom made lengthy submissions, pointing out that the decision by the court was irrational as there was no way in which to divide a single brick wall and, thus, the ad medium filum approach was inoperable. The same would be true if a fence were used, rather than a boundary. That much was conceded by the commission, which declined Mr. Thom's invitation to visit such sites as it was instead convinced by written and verbal representations.

Since the matter was first referred to the SLC, its composition has changed radically, and a committee of three has been set up to investigate the situation.

One new member of the committee was a Professor Reid, who had written the article on boundary walls for "The Laws of Scotland Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia". In that article, he stated that the law was clear and that the ad medium filum approach was correct. As my hon. Friend the Minister should know, the Stair encyclopaedia is treated as a definitive statement of the law. It was thus irresponsible of Professor Reid to publish such an article while the SLC was considering the matter.

The second new member of the committee was Lord Gill, who was at the time a judge in the Court of Session. It would be astonishing if he were to find that his colleagues were in disarray on the matter. It appears that there are clear conflicts of interest in both cases and that both men should not have taken their places on the committee as they could not approach the issue with an open mind.

Last year, the SLC issued a short, summarised report of four pages. A longer report was impossible as the SLC would have had to deal with Mr. Thom's objections, showing the deficiencies of the ad medium filum solution. The original commission put the matter out to consultation and received an informative range of replies. However, the new commission ignored those responses which did not agree with its own predetermined position. The commission claimed that the balance of legal opinion favoured the ad medium filum approach.

The majority of all opinion—and, crucially, the majority of the construction professions such as architects and surveyors—favoured common property. That view was ignored by the SLC, as it was not what it wished to hear. When the inevitably biased opinion of the Court of Session and the support for the court from academic sources—who partially make their living from slavishly following the court and writing about it—are stripped out, the decisive balance of legal opinion is in favour of common property.

The vast majority of opinion stated that the report should include fences. No mention of fences was made in the report, as it is impossible to consider fences and maintain the desired approach. Instead, the SLC has used the responses selectively to justify a conclusion that it has already arrived at. It has failed to engage in genuine consultation. The SLC believes that the law is now settled, and that the absence of further cases shows that. Mr. Thom has demonstrated that the law is not settled, and has submitted 16 different cases where the ad medium filum approach is inoperable. These have not been refuted by the SLC.

It is my belief that so few cases come to court because the public have a great deal more sense than lawyers, and realise that they are both responsible for boundary walls. As was indicated, the original commission refused the invitation to conduct site visits as it was convinced by Mr. Thom's arguments. The present commission has refused a similar opportunity to examine the situation at all. As the SLC concedes, the law rests on the decision in Thom v. Hetherington, although it admits on page 3 of the report that common property is more suitable for fences and thin walls.

Following representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish)—a Scottish Office Minister at the time—it was made clear that the Government accepted the SLC report, and that the SLC had considered the problem of single brick walls and fences, but had decided that there was no problem, as such divisions rarely form the actual boundary between two properties. That is blatantly not the case. Thousands of title deeds specify that property ends at the appropriate division, which is either a fence or a single brick wall. One such example was the wall in the case of Thom v. Hetherington.

According to the SLC, single brick walls such as that in Thom v. Hetherington are rarely found in the boundary. We know that to be untrue. It says also that for thin walls and fences, a common property approach is the best option. The wall in Thom v. Hetherington was just such a wall, and the commission has been forced to admit that its judgment was less than perfect. The inoperability of the law in such cases—which are becoming more common as modern dividing walls are often indivisible—creates difficulties for insurance companies, as they do not know what insurance to offer. The problem has again been ignored by the commission.

It also means that title deeds that state that a single brick wall or fence forms the boundary between two properties are invalid and, as ad medium filum cannot be applied to such divisions, it is completely unclear what the legal situation is in such a case—although the law is supposedly based on Thom v. Hetherington. It is disappointing that the Scottish Office legal department has concurred with the SLC's work and appears to be no more willing to deal with the difficulties.

There is a clear failure of accountability in the SLC, whose standards as a public body on issues such as conflict of interest have been utterly ignored. This has led to an obviously flawed decision, which the Scottish Office and the SLC still support, despite the fact that the flaws have been pointed out. Neither the commission nor the Scottish Office is willing to answer queries about the report, leading to the obvious impression that they have something to hide.

Mr. Thom believes that the manner in which the commission has behaved is fundamentally dishonest. He feels that the commission and the Scottish Office have deliberately refused to deal with the matter on its merits. I would therefore ask the Minister to initiate a full inquiry into the way in which the matter has been handled. Clearly, throughout the case the SLC has not acted in the way in which a public body should.

Through its actions, and those of the Scottish Office, the commission has rendered itself effectively unaccountable. I would ask the Minister to look at the legal situation surrounding boundary walls and to make up his own mind on the basis of the evidence, instead of accepting the discredited report.

1.37 pm

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for raising the issue of the ownership of boundary walls in Scotland. I am conscious that this is an issue which his constituent, Mr. Thom—and, indeed, my hon. Friend himself—has pursued over a number of years with great energy and application. Mr. Thom succeeded in having the matter considered by the Scottish Law Commission, and the judgment in Mr. Thom's original case stands as the modem authority in this area of law.

As my hon. Friend is aware, neither the court nor the Scottish Law Commission has been persuaded of the need to reform this area of law. Ministers have accepted the conclusions of the Scottish Law Commission report, which was presented to the House in March 1998. I appreciate that my hon. Friend and his constituent continue to disagree with those conclusions, but this matter has received the fullest consideration.

As my hon. Friend has explained, this issue came up as a result of a case brought in the Court of Session by his constituent, Mr. Thom. Mr. Thom objected to a fence that was erected by his neighbour and attached to the boundary wall between their properties. He was unsuccessful in that litigation. Put briefly, the court took the view that such walls are owned by each neighbour individually up to the centre line, and each may do as he or she pleases with his or her own half of the wall, so long as the integrity of the wall is not damaged. In Mr. Thom's case, the court did not accept that his neighbour's action had in fact damaged the structure of the wall. If it had, it would have been open to the court to order redress.

Mr. Thom took the view that the court, in the person of Lord Jauncey, had got its law wrong, and that boundary walls were more properly considered as belonging collectively to both parties. There seems to have been some discussion in the course of the case as to the proper terminology for these two views, and the court ultimately adopted the term "mutual property" for the idea of individual ownership up to the middle line, but with a shared interest in the integrity of the wall, and "common property" for the collective ownership model.

Mr. Thom, with admirable persistence, and with the very proper and energetic assistance of my hon. Friend, has continued to argue that the common ownership approach is preferable, raising the matter regularly with Ministers of both the previous and the present Government. As a consequence of his representations, the Scottish Law Commission agreed to consider that area of law, complementing a much larger review of the law of the tenement.

In a 1990 discussion paper on the law of the tenement, the commission said that it was minded to recommend that shared walls between buildings should be commonly owned, but with special provision for the right to make minor alterations so that neighbours would not have to get agreement before putting up shelves or perhaps even hanging a picture. Following that train of thought, in 1992 it published a consultation paper that tended to favour a similar common ownership approach to boundary walls, but in both areas of law it concluded, after consultation, that the mutual ownership model was to be preferred.

The commission published its final report on boundary walls in March 1998, taking the view that the current common law of Scotland on the matter is clear and not in need of statutory restatement, and that, as a matter of legal policy, the mutual ownership model is not in need of change. It accepted that the approach is not without some drawbacks, but concluded that those were fewer than in the alternative approach.

Ministers considered and accepted the commission's recommendations. Following further representations from my hon. Friend, a meeting was held at which he and Mr. Thom were able to press their points with the Minister who was then responsible and with Scottish Office officials. The Minister considered the detailed representations presented at that meeting, but saw no reason to depart from the decision to accept the commission's recommendations.

Let me deal briefly with the arguments that persuaded the commission that a change in the law was not needed. The existing approach of mutual ownership gives both parties the maximum freedom to make reasonable use of the wall bounding their property, as long as they do not disturb the stability of the wall as a whole. The owner of a property could, for example, fix a trellis or other support for climbing plants to the garden wall without having to seek his neighbour's permission as co-owner. At the same time, the neighbour's interests in the wall are safeguarded, as the owner is under a restraint preventing him or her from damaging the stability of the wall, and under a positive obligation to maintain his or her own half of the wall.

The commission recognised that no solution is perfect and that the existing law is less readily applicable to thin walls or fences. The report fairly draws attention to that and to the fact that the final views diverge somewhat from those in the discussion paper, primarily because of the obvious difficulties involved when, for example, two neighbours are each theoretically obliged to maintain one half of a wire fence, or of a single thickness of brick, up to the middle line. In practice, that simply means that maintenance of the whole is a common responsibility.

The commission, in evaluating the response to its consultation, had to weigh up two conflicting bodies of opinion. The construction industry favoured the common ownership approach, but the legal profession, including the judges of the Court of Session, considered that the existing law had been helpfully clarified in the case of Thom v. Hetherington and needed no change. The commission was not made directly aware of any significant practical difficulties with the present law other than those raised by Mr. Thom in his submissions. In other words, no one else was pursuing the matter with either the commission or the Scottish Office.

It is a further advantage of the existing approach that the law on boundary walls is consistent with that proposed by the commission for adjoining walls between dwellings. In reviewing the law of the tenement, it concluded that individual ownership up to the halfway point, constrained by obligations to one's neighbours, was the best solution, and that is reflected in its report on the law of the tenement laid before the House in March 1998.

I know that my hon. Friend's constituent has some worries about the Scottish Law Commission and the way in which it went about its task. It may be helpful for me to respond to the points that he made. The commission is an independent body which exists to advise the Government on the need for, and context of, reform in the law of Scotland. It brings together considerable expertise in the law, from both practice and academic lawyers, and is chaired by a Court of Session judge, currently Lord Gill.

The Lord Advocate appoints to the commission leading experts in particular fields. Those commissioners are experts precisely because they have studied and written extensively on the areas of law that they have to address. Mr. Thom's concern about conflict of interest or lack of impartiality is misplaced because the commission is not that kind of body: it is a body of experts, not a neutral panel of adjudicators.

The commission is not in any sense a court or tribunal. In reaching its conclusions it consults widely, as it did in this instance, and the contributions of those who respond are greatly valued, but it is the content of the arguments that carries weight; the commission does not operate by counting votes, one way or the other, from those consulted.

Given Mr. Thom's concerns, as reported by my hon. Friend, it would be opportune to make it clear that, in every report produced by the commission, including the one on boundary walls, the recommendations are arrived at after detailed debate among all its members. The conclusions and recommendations do not represent the views of one commissioner or group of commissioners. They are presented to Ministers and to Parliament as the recommendations of the commission itself. We are perfectly satisfied that that process was followed for the boundary walls report, as for others. I emphasise how highly Ministers value the work done by the commission.

My hon. Friend has also expressed concern about the time taken by the commission to consider the issue. It is important to remember that during that period it addressed a range of pressing issues and produced a number of weighty reports. The issue was not accorded priority over other issues then being considered. That was explained in correspondence to my hon. Friend and to Mr. Thom. When Lord Gill took over as chairman there was a review of the work in hand and the matter of boundary walls was accorded greater priority. This led to the report being published in March 1998.

The Government are free to accept or reject the commission's recommendations in the light of such other advice as may be available. In this case, we have received no representations, other than from Mr. Thom, against the commission's approach, so we have accepted its report. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend knows, the matter is one which the Scottish Parliament could reopen at some time in the future were it minded to do so. I suspect, however, that for the issue to become a matter of priority on the Parliament's agenda, concern would have to be expressed by others, such as the construction or insurance industries.

I hope that I have been helpful to my hon. Friend. I know that his constituent may be disappointed, but I do not think that it would be proper to reopen the issue at this time. I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has taken up the issue and the persistence of his constituent.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

New Writ

Ordered,

That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Leeds, Central in the room of the right hon. Derek John Fatchett, deceased.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Oral Answers To Questions

Cabinet Office

The Minister was asked—

Publications

What progress has been made in providing Her Majesty's Government's publications in readable form for people with sight impairment and other disabilities. [83639]

Arrangements have now been put in place to enable people with visual impairment to obtain key Government publications in suitable alternative formats, including braille, large print and audio formats.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that organisations which deal with people with sensory impairments are keen to encourage the Government to provide first-class information from Departments? Those organisations have praised the Department of Trade and Industry, but have expressed some disappointment that the recent White Paper "Modernising Social Services" was not available to them. Will my right hon. Friend encourage all Departments to walk that further mile to make information available, especially in braille and on tape, to that important group of people?

Yes, I will do that. The recent White Paper "The Future Management of Crown Copyright" stated that, in future, when Departments contract for the publication of their work, they will be encouraged to make provision for the publisher to supply data in electronic form and in a form suitable for translation into other forms. The "Modernising Government" White Paper is certainly so available. As my right hon. Friend will know, the Royal National Institute for the Blind has a copyright licence, issued free of charge, to reproduce all Crown and parliamentary texts in braille, audiotape and braille-coded floppy disk formats.

People's Panels

What steps he is taking to evaluate the work of people's panels. [83640]

It is for the individual organisations that have set up people's panels to evaluate them. The Cabinet Office will carry out an independent evaluation of the people's panel.

I find that answer extraordinary. Will the Minister undertake, in this age of open government, to publish a list in the Library of those policies that have been changed as a consequence of the deliberations of people's panels? Will he also undertake to ensure that, on Second Reading of Bills, Ministers will report to the House how any provisions have been altered as a consequence of the intervention of the people's panel?

The hon. Gentleman may have found that an extraordinary answer, but it was an extraordinary question. First, it was not clear whether he was referring to the people's panel or to the current trend for establishing people's panels, or citizens' panels, by local government around the country. That is the distinction that I tried to make. Secondly, the deliberations of the people's panel do not dictate policy: policy makers decide policy and the people's panel merely informs their considerations. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman has a specific question for any of the people's panels that have been set up, it is the responsibility of the organisation that established them.

Charter Mark

What plans he has for the promotion of the charter mark scheme.[83642]

The Government are committed to developing and expanding the charter mark. At least 80 per cent. of applicants secure better performance from applying. We shall continue to promote it through a dedicated seminar programme, targeted contacts with the public sector and the use of local, trade and technical media.

May I tell my hon. Friend that the departments of Redditch borough council and Alexandra hospital which achieved the charter mark have been encouraged by it? Meanwhile, I am often struck during meetings with voluntary organisations by the extent to which they provide high-quality services and work in partnership with public sector organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would make sense to encourage those organisations to apply for the charter mark, and to extend eligibility criteria so that they may do so? Will he outline the Government's plans, or any action that they have taken, to promote the charter mark among voluntary organisations that work with the public sector?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Alexandra hospital, two units of which have applied for the charter mark and learned from the experience. From 2000, any voluntary sector organisation that provides a public service and that receives more than 50 per cent. of its funds from public sources will be eligible to apply for the charter mark.

Public Appointments

If he will make a statement on the maintenance of political balance in public appointments. [83643]

All appointments are made on merit. Political affiliation is not a criterion for appointments, except on a very small number of bodies that include cross-party representation.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. He will be aware that I have had cause to raise a concern with the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments about the large number of Labour councillors appointed to health trusts and authorities. Given that the Nolan report and the Neill report recommended that appointments should be made from lists held by the independent commissioner, not Departments, when do the Government intend to put that recommendation in place? When will the commissioner control the list, rather than the Minister and his right hon. Friends?

It is not surprising that local councillors of all political persuasions play a part in local health authorities and other organisations. The attitude of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues betrays the fact that they engaged in the systematic appointment of their friends and cronies when the Conservatives were in office. That is not our approach. The Government accept the Nolan principles, and we abide by them.

As Members of Parliament, we are asked to comment on bishops and health chief executives, but we are not always asked about regional development agency chairmen or chief executives. Where is the consistency in that?

Anyone can nominate anyone for a public appointment. Indeed, anyone can offer himself or herself. The process is perfectly open and straightforward, but if my hon. Friend has a particular complaint, I should be happy to discuss it with him.

I welcome the Government's acceptance and implementation of the Nolan proposals. The Minister said that Members of Parliament sometimes play a useful role in encouraging people of suitable qualification to go forward for public appointment. However, will he take on board the fact that the responses of different Departments are extremely variable? It may be helpful if the Government went beyond merely signalling adherence to the Nolan principles by indicating that they would be willing to accept such advice and help as is offered.

Yes, we are open to advice and help from all Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. I have recently encouraged colleagues in the north-west to put up suitable candidates for nomination for appointment to the Bench in the Duchy of Lancaster area for which I have responsibility as Chancellor.

Will my right hon. Friend take great care to consider the political balance of many existing lists? Some of us are increasingly concerned by the number of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and, in particular, ex-members of the Social Democratic party who now sit in the other place who are being appointed to positions of considerable importance. It worries some of us very much indeed.

It just goes to show that you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time. In the Duchy of Lancaster, it is important to achieve political balance not only on the Bench but in the membership of the advisory committees for appointments to the Bench. I am pursuing that agenda with the appropriate people.

But in an attempt to satisfy some of the people some of the time, will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library, and tell me when he has done so, a list of all those who have been appointed to public office since 1 May 1997, together with their known political affiliation? May we also have a list of those who have not been reappointed, with their affiliation?

By definition, all names of people appointed to public office are already in the public domain. I am not sure that I intend to go to extraordinary, costly, bureaucratic lengths to republish all their names. The reason people are not reappointed these days is either that they choose not to continue or that, according to the Nolan requirements, their time is up.

What does the right hon. Gentleman have to hide? Why can we not have the political affiliation of these people? Their names may all be published in various places, but can we not have a list of them with their political affiliations?

We have absolutely nothing to hide. The appointment of people to public positions since May 1997 is far more open and balanced than it ever was in the 18 years of Conservative Governments.

Better Government

If he will make a statement on the progress made by the ministerial group on better government. [83644]

We set up the ministerial group on better government to develop and implement the Government's programme for public service reform. The group oversaw the work leading to publication of the "Modernising Government" White Paper, and will oversee the implementation of the whole modernising government agenda.

NHS Direct is a fine example of a public service that has been modernised using information technology. Does my right hon. Friend propose to apply that example to other public services, and ensure that they are similarly modernised and that people have access to them 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

Yes, we shall do that. As the "Modernising Government" White Paper makes clear, we have set ourselves targets. By 2008, we intend that all Government services will be accessible using information technology. Where there is a demand, let us say to fill in self-assessment forms for the Inland Revenue, people should have access to services via their own equipment at home. Similarly, small businesses and others should be able to complete their VAT returns at their leisure and send the information electronically to the appropriate Government Department.

When the ministerial group on better government next meets, will it reflect on the plea for pay restraint made last night by the Chancellor? Will it reconsider the huge increases that Ministers have given to their special advisers—increases far more substantial than those same Ministers have given to teachers or nurses?

I have already published the figures for the average increase in specialist advisers' pay. In the current financial year, special advisers have not yet been paid their annual increment, let alone had any regrading. I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.

Service First Programme

What recent representations he has received on the service first programme. [83645]

We have received no representations, but there has been a great deal of interest in and support for the service first programme, which is an important part of our modernising government initiative.

Now that the service first programme can be seen for the public relations exercise that it is, amounting to a lot of codswallop, will the Minister tell the House how many of the 5,000 people on this ridiculous panel are my constituents? How will his policy improve services? It seems to me that ever since we have had this dreadful Government, services have got much worse, especially services from Ministers.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that Southend council is one of the councils interested in networking in the better government for older people pilot network, which is part of the service first unit. I hope that he will reconsider the position before he tells his local council that the process is, to quote him, a load of codswallop.

Public Appointments

What progress he has made in ensuring that people from a wider range of backgrounds are appointed to public office. [83646]

The Government are committed to ensuring that public appointments are open to candidates from all backgrounds. We are making progress in increasing the numbers of women and ethnic minority people who hold appointments.

I am also taking forward work to mainstream equality of opportunity issues into all Government policies.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am glad that progress is being made on appointing more women and more members of ethnic minorities to public bodies. However, I am still concerned about the appointment of young people to public bodies. The most recent report of the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments revealed that in the year before the election of this Government there had been no appointments of anyone under 38 years of age to a public body. I was struck by a report published last week by Demos and Save the Children Fund, which showed the degree to which young people feel alienated from a political system that they feel has turned its back on them. Is my right hon. Friend able to do more to appoint young people to public bodies?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. She is right to say that it is a recurring weakness in the system. We can do much better than has been done in the past. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be devoting some time and attention to trying to make better progress in the aspect of public appointments to which she has referred.

Does this approach extend to the appointment of special advisers, and has the Minister discussed it with the Lord Chancellor?

I certainly will not make any public comment about the impending court case involving my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. As the right hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends, especially the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)— incidentally, he was a special adviser for six years and was one of the architects of the boom and bust policies of the previous Government—have had much to say about special advisers, I would point out that, in the last two years of the previous Conservative Government, Ministers and their special advisers spent far more on travel abroad than has been spent by Ministers in the first two years of this Government.

Is it not a fact that for 18 years we saw public appointments filled by Tory lapdogs? In the past two years, have not the present Government made appointments based on merit, involving people living in the local community who use services such as the local NHS?

Yes, indeed. It is because of the abysmal performance of the Conservative Government that we have the Nolan principles and the Neill committee report on these matters.

Drug Misuse

If he will list the initiatives taken by the anti-drugs co-ordinator over the past 12 months in relation to reducing the level of drug misuse in prisons in England and Wales. [83647]

The prison drugs initiative, launched in May 1998, operates within the framework of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. The comprehensive spending review for anti-drugs activities included £76 million between 1999 and 2002 for the implementation of the prison drugs strategy in England and Wales. The Prison Service is taking forward the implementation of the strategy.

The Minister will be aware that, last year, 88,304 mandatory drug tests were conducted on prisoners and that 20,152—almost a quarter—tested positive. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although some prisoners may have been tested more than once, these figures illustrate the severity of the drug problem in prisons? Will he suggest to the Home Secretary that if we are to assess the true position more accurately, mandatory drugs tests should be carried out on the entire prison population in selected prisons when least expected, perhaps, for example, during or after a weekend? Without more accurate statistics, the effectiveness of the measures undertaken cannot be gauged. Will these matters be covered in the drugs co-ordinator's first annual report, and when may we expect publication of it?

I hope to make a statement on the first annual report on drugs shortly. The hon. Lady is certainly right to say that the baseline information throughout this aspect of policy is exceedingly fragile. Some of it, as she implied, is not particularly reliable. That is why we are using some of the money in the drugs programme to create databases in which we can have confidence. With the £76 million that the Prison Service has been allocated, as I mentioned earlier, it is working closely with the Home Office, the probation service and the police to try to improve the situation in prisons. The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to do much better than we have done in the past.

Although every step should be taken to deter staff and visitors to prisons from bringing in drugs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem starts earlier, at ports of entry? How does he react to complaints that those manning controls at our ports have neither enough staff nor the right equipment to do that job as effectively as they would wish?

My hon. Friend is right to say that Customs and Excise is an important part of our defences against the importation of illegal drugs. It is a matter of record that between 1989 and 1996, 500 front-line members of Customs and Excise were cut from the service. When we came to office, we took action to prevent a further reduction of 300 Customs and Excise officers. In the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided an increase in support for Customs and Excise, precisely because it has such an important role to play in these matters.

The Select Committee on Home Affairs is conducting an inquiry into drugs in prisons. We recognise that it is an extremely serious problem. A number of prisons are doing some good work. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on three possible remedies—first, sniffer dogs in all our prisons; secondly, the appropriate equipment for screening all staff and visitors to prisons; and thirdly, suitable punishments for all visitors who are found to be bringing drugs into our prisons?

Prison governors are taking new initiatives and introducing new measures to control a serious problem, as the hon. Gentleman points out. I will study the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee with interest, but principally it will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to respond. I will consider with him the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Electronic Information

If he will make a statement on progress in increasing the amount of Government information available to the public by electronic means. [83648]

The "Modernising Government" White Paper restates the 25 per cent. target for electronic service delivery set by the Prime Minister for 2002. We have also set a new target of 50 per cent. by 2005 and, subject to limited exceptions, 100 per cent. by 2008. We will publish six-monthly progress reports against these targets, and the first report will be published shortly.

In the interests of candour and in a spirit of openness, will the Cabinet Secretary arrange to put on the internet on each working day details of the hopes and aspirations of the Government for that day, together with their likes and dislikes, instead of imparting that information to the clandestine Lobby briefing from which we, as elected Members, are excluded? As part of that exercise, will he issue a communiqué on each day that the Cabinet meets, setting out the information that would otherwise be imparted to that Lobby briefing, or the sultans of spin—namely, what has been discussed and the duration of each Cabinet meeting?

I cannot speak for the Cabinet Secretary, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, I shall relay my hon. Friend's wishes to the Cabinet Secretary. I shall certainly relay my hon. Friend's remarks to the Prime Minister's official spokesman who, in the estimation of virtually all Labour Members, does an estimable job in keeping the Lobby informed on a day-to-day basis of the hopes and aspirations of the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most deplorable releases of Government information by electronic means was the posting on the internet of more than 100 names of alleged officers of the Secret Intelligence Service? Although those names were posted by the convicted US fraudster and fantasist Lyndon LaRouche, does the Minister know whether any links have been reported between LaRouche, Richard Tomlinson—the former SIS officer—the publicist Max Clifford and the egregious Mohammed Fayed? If any of them is within the jurisdiction of this country's courts, will the Minister take action?

No, I have no such knowledge, but I am not a conspiracy theorist. No one could expect me to comment on allegations that have been made on the internet—a notoriously difficult medium to control in any shape or form.

Public Services

10.

What steps he is taking to improve access to public services by older people. [83649]

The Government have set up 28 pilots under the better government for older people programme to improve services. In March, we also launched a new network, which already involves more than 100 local authorities and central Government agencies. This month, we begin the first of our listening to older people events with a "virtual conference" of older people on the internet.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I believe that one of those pilot schemes is taking place in Devon. I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's points about the internet. Older people are often thought of as being less able and less willing to use the internet, but in fact they are one of the fastest growing age groups in their use of the internet. Will he tell us a little more about how the internet is being used to give convenient access to public services?

I happily agree with my hon. Friend that there is much misinformation about the facility with which older people take to the internet. Older people who use the internet are a fast-expanding group. Some of the pilot schemes that we have set up under the better government for older people programme enable older people to acquire internet skills to access local and national information. Last, but not least, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about Devon county council's participation in the pilot studies, which involve a broad range of urban and rural areas, different sizes of local government units and different cities. There is a wide geographic spread.

Given that the Cabinet Office has an interest in the co-ordination of the range of Government policies, and that it has an interest in the progress—or lack of progress—of Government policies in respect of public services, can the Minister tell the House what proportion of those people who have been waiting for hospital treatment for more than 12 months are of pensionable age?

The honest answer is that I cannot; I shall have come back to the hon. Gentleman with that number. I do know that, because of the successful programme that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are able to allocate an extra £21 billion this year to ensure that those waiting lists are further reduced, so that we can maintain all 177 manifesto commitments that we made.

Chancellor Of The Duchy

11.

In what circumstances the Chancellor of the Duchy's flag is flown on public buildings. [83650]

The Duchy banner is flown on a variety of occasions, including when the Vice-Chancellor is sitting in the Crown courts and during the installation of a Duchy high sheriff.

Is the Minister proud or slightly embarrassed that he is the only member of the Cabinet with his own flag? Does that not dramatically underline what a terrible anachronism the Duchy of Lancaster is? [Interruption.] Splendid though the Minister is, he should not be responsible for the appointment of magistrates, for example. Such appointments should properly lie with the Lord Chancellor.

This year, as my hon. Friend knows, is the 600th anniversary of the Duchy's link with the Crown. It is a bit presumptuous to suggest that the banner is mine; it is the Duchy banner. Unlike one of my Conservative predecessors, I have not tried to insist that the pennant be flown on my car as I go about my ministerial business.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Q1. [83669]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 May.

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

As Slobodan Milosevic continues his campaign of terror, genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, is not our first priority to care for those refugees who have been forced from their home; and our second to ensure that they can return home in peace and safety to rebuild their lives?

That is precisely what the refugees want, and having been to one of the camps yesterday only redoubles my determination to ensure that they are allowed back. Each and every one of the stories that are now being told by the refugees and all the evidence that is being compiled by the United Nations and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees are appalling—tales of the most terrible acts committed inside Kosovo, of families divided, young men disappearing, young women being raped and whole villages being razed to the ground. The NATO campaign will go on until our basic demands are met: that Milosevic's troops go out, our troops go in and the refugees go back.

On that subject, the whole House agrees that what we have seen in Kosovo is a humanitarian disaster, and that we cannot and must not walk away from that, but must now do everything in our power to redeem the promises that we have made to the refugees. Does the Prime Minister share our concern about newspaper reports in recent days which have alleged that there is division between our Government and that of the United States—reports that are damaging to NATO and can only provide encouragement to Milosevic? Will he take the opportunity to deny those reports, and specifically deny that he and the Government want to use ground troops to fight their way into Kosovo, when the American President has decided that he does not?

There is absolutely no difference. As was made clear by the President of the United States yesterday, all options are under review; that is what he has always said. I know the President well and I know that he will always do the right thing by America and by the world. He is as committed to this campaign as anybody else. The NATO demands and NATO's unity behind those demands are absolute and will remain.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. May I also ask him about the comments made earlier today by the German Chancellor, who, after talks at NATO headquarters in Brussels, insisted that any change in current strategy would require unanimous agreement, and that Germany would never back sending in soldiers before a ceasefire? Do those comments place any restriction on the development of NATO policy in future?

No. As we have said before, the Secretary-General of NATO is tasked with planning and updating all assessments. The German Chancellor is right to say that the air campaign is working, for there is no doubt that Milosevic is weakening. There were reports yesterday of riots in Yugoslavia and reports today of desertion, and the fact that there has been huge damage done to the Serb military machine shows that the air campaign is working. However, as we have said and as we have tasked the Secretary-General of NATO with doing, we review all options.

We very much hope that the Prime Minister is right and that air strikes will succeed. However, if NATO is to achieve its objectives, as it must, the Government may soon face some extremely difficult decisions. The Government will have the support of the Opposition in making difficult decisions, provided they clearly justify them by having clear and militarily achievable objectives. We have made a lot of promises to a lot of people in a dire situation. With the pressure of time growing with every day, does the right hon. Gentleman remain confident that NATO is ready to face up to the very difficult decisions that may soon face it?

We have had to make difficult choices and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support in making them. However, the basic NATO demands have remained exactly the same throughout. They do not alter, and neither does our determination to achieve them. We demand that Milosevic withdraw his troops and his paramilitaries, that an international military force go in and that the refugees be allowed to return to their homes in peace and security. That is why we began this campaign, and we were right and justified in doing so. For the sake of the refugees, for the sake of NATO's credibility and for the sake of the safety of the outside world, we must continue until we succeed.

Q2. [83670]

May I change the subject to welfare spending? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed amendments to the Finance Bill would blow a £19 billion hole in public finances before the next general election, wiping out my right hon. Friend's plans for extra spending on the national health service? Given that those proposed amendments emanate from the Tory Front Bench, does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows that the Tories' claims to support Labour's plans for the NHS simply do not add up?

Of course, we have put the extra £40 billion into schools and hospitals precisely in order to ensure that we get that additional investment. However, it must be paid for, and we will not return to the huge borrowing requirements that we saw under the Conservatives. For the Conservatives to claim that they support our spending plans—which they used to call "irresponsible"—while tabling vast amounts of costly amendments to the Finance Bill, shows, I am delighted to say, that they are now behaving like an Opposition.

Is not the true situation in Kosovo simply this: only if NATO is prepared to use ground troops can we be sure of victory? If NATO is not prepared to use ground troops, it may have to be satisfied with compromise.

I could not have made it clearer in the past few weeks that there is no question of compromise in our basic demands. We have said—I repeated it a moment ago—that we keep all options under review. There cannot be any compromise in our demands, and I shall explain why. It is for the simple reason that, in the end, the Kosovar Albanians must feel safe and free to return to their homes. They cannot do that unless the international military force is credible and unless Milosevic's troops, who have done them so much damage, are withdrawn.

I have never wished to be wrong more enthusiastically than over my assessment of the necessity of sending ground troops into Kosovo. Is it not true that, by ruling out the use of ground troops at the beginning—as NATO did—we left ourselves with only one means of prosecuting the war: by bombing? If bombing does not succeed and if we now rule out ground troops, we will leave ourselves with only one means of prosecuting the peace. That is—whether the Prime Minister likes it or not—compromise.

I have just made it clear that we have all options under review. That was our position and it remains the position today. I believe the bombing campaign is working and is weakening Milosevic. As I said in my speech the other day, I have no doubt that we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that we succeed and that there is no compromise in our basic demands. That has been our position throughout and it remains our position. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be proved wrong, but I believe that I will be proved right and that NATO's demands will be met.

Post-16 Education

Q3. [83671]

What plans he has for reform of the funding mechanisms for post-16 education and training.

We have consulted widely with businesses, colleges, the voluntary sector and others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce his proposals for post-16 education and training in the summer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) will know that we want to increase the opportunities for young people and adults to undertake high-quality education and training that allows them and us to have a fully competitive work force for the 21st century.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The post-16 review is welcomed throughout the further education sector, as is the record investment of £700 million in further education due to commence next year. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing problem of differential funding of further education institutions, whereby some institutions receive up to £1,500 per student more than others for an identical course? Will he assure the House that the post-16 review will resolve that problem once and for all and achieve a level playing field for further education?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have backed our statement that we attach importance to further education with a record settlement of over £700 million over the next two years. The review aims to get value for money and make sure that we attach proper importance to education, including further education, and training. We shall do that in a way that does not disadvantage sixth-form colleges and people who are still at school. We are conducting the review, and the results will be announced soon, and my hon. Friend will then realise that his concerns have been taken into account.

rose—

Order. This is a closed question.

Engagements

Q4. [83672]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the employment and unemployment figures, published today, which reveal that there are more people in work than ever. The claimant count reveals an annual national reduction of 72,000 and a reduction of 4,000 in my own region of the north-west. Is not that good news for, and a function of, the economy and is not it especially good news for those who are finding work? Do not those figures entirely repudiate the claims of the many merchants of gloom on the Opposition Benches who, since the election, have consistently and regularly tried to talk down this country's economy?

The figures published today are excellent news. They demonstrate that, since the election, more than 400,000 new jobs have been created. Just as important is the news that long-term unemployment has fallen by over 50 per cent. and youth long-term unemployment has fallen by over 60 per cent. That gives a great deal of hope to young people and the longterm unemployed. Of course, the Conservatives were predicting disaster and recession a year ago. Today's news may be bad news for them, but it is good news for the country.

Q5. [83673]

The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that last week the Secretary of State for International Development promised that the Kosovan refugees who had family contacts in this country would be given priority among those who were given temporary leave to stay. The Prime Minister will not be aware that, for the past five weeks, I have been trying, on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Merita Lumley, to get her father, mother, brother and sister out of Macedonia, where they are currently refugees. I have not yet received a single answer about that from any Department. Is not it time that action replaced rhetoric, or will this be just another empty promise?

First, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have done an awful lot for the refugees whom we have taken in. I am not aware of the individual case of his constituent; I shall look into that today and ensure that he gets a reply about it this evening.

Q6. [83674]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Labour party's victory in the Israeli elections? Does he agree that the results represent the best chance of a just and long-standing peace in the region? Will he use his best efforts to ensure that all parties agree on a speedy introduction of the Wye agreement?

I am delighted to endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I spoke to Ehud Barak yesterday and gave him our congratulations. His victory offers the middle east peace process a chance to move forward, and I know that that will be done on the basis of the Wye River memorandum, which offers a tremendous opportunity for rebuilding the middle east on the basis of security for Israel and justice for the Palestinian people.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the leader of his MEPs, Pauline Green, who said that we should abolish Britain's veto over asylum, immigration and every aspect of foreign and security policy?

No. We have set out clearly the position on the veto and we believe that it is important that we keep it for areas such as defence and taxation; but we do not agree with the Conservative party, which says that it is now opposed to any extension of qualified majority voting in any circumstances.

The leader of the Prime Minister's MEPs said on 12 January:

"We believe in the extension of majority voting on everything except changes to the treaty, the membership of new countries … and taxation".

Labour MEPs have specifically voted for majority voting on asylum, immigration and foreign and security policy. Should not we be arguing not for giving up Britain's veto, but for maintaining it and—when the interests of the country are at stake, as with the withholding tax—using it?

The right hon. Gentleman has a little difficulty with that, because I have just been informed that his own Tory MEPs have voted for the Conservative Euro manifesto, which argues for exactly the same abolition of qualified majority voting. He should get his facts right first. We have made our position quite clear; I do not, however, accept that we should rule out qualified majority voting in any set of circumstances. I remind him that the largest ever extension of qualified majority voting was made by the previous Conservative Government.

The trouble with the Prime Minister on Europe now is that we cannot take him at face value. Sometimes his MEPs take him at face value; he told them to clean up Europe and one put a hoover and his dry cleaning on his expense account. For years, he has tried to have it both ways. He says he stands up for Britain, but he wants to diminish the veto. He says he loves the pound, but he wants to abolish it. He says he is against a federal Europe, but the socialist manifesto that he has launched today prepares for a federal Europe. Is not it true that the veto is vital for Britain and his party cannot be trusted to keep it safe?

First, in relation to the veto, as I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, the party that surrendered the veto more times than any other party in government was his. It is, however, entirely sensible, in certain areas, to have qualified majority voting—we would not have got the beef ban lifted and we would not get the single market completed without it. People have a simple choice at the European elections—one Government party with one manifesto or two Tory parties with two manifestos. After the lack of influence and weakness in Europe to which his party reduced us, I believe that people should stick with the Government and the party that knows what it is doing in Europe.

On average, 40 children are abused before a paedophile is convicted. What can the Government do to address that problem and will they consider changing the burden of proof to ensure that those awful people cannot harm children in the way that they currently do?

As my hon. Friend will know, the Protection of Children Bill makes a number of significant advances in that area, particularly in the way that we vet criminal records and make sure that the people who are looking after children are only suitable people. We of course look at all other potential aspects of that, but I believe that the work that is being done now to provide, for the first time in a Government, a cross-departmental view of how we look after, nurture and protect children and provide them with proper education is the best hope for the future our children have.

Q7. [83675]

We have become accustomed to the Prime Minister bypassing the House of Commons. On how many occasions this year has he cancelled Cabinet or delegated chairmanship to a colleague? Does he still believe in collective responsibility and accountability to Parliament?

In relation to Parliament, I did a little bit of research on that the other day. I have answered more parliamentary questions in my first two years than my predecessor answered in his last two years. I have spent more time at Prime Minister's questions than he did. I have made double the number of statements to the House on which I can be questioned. Those are the facts. As for Cabinet, recently-and obviously, with the war on-I have not been able to attend the two or three Cabinet meetings to which the right hon. Lady refers, but I believe in collective responsibility. What is more, and unlike the Cabinet of which she was a member, I have my Cabinet behind me.

Returning to the topic of the European Parliament, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that the British and other European Governments press for increases in the democratic accountability of the European Parliament and for it to be shown that expenses are being met according to what people spend? Is he concerned about the fact that Conservative MEPs last week rejected the reform package that would have greatly increased confidence in the European Parliament?

We support the independent auditing of accounts and expenses. We also support the new European statute that introduces far greater transparency. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Conservative party has refused to support the package that would give us the best opportunity to ensure that we root out fraud and inefficiency in the European Union.

Q8. [83676]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the total salary paid to an individual who is a Member of the House, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, and is also Secretary of State for Wales and First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales is £187,122?

I have just been informed that the hon. Lady is wrong about that figure, and the individual does not get the amount to which she referred.

Q9. [83677]

This morning, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published an excellent report on the staging of international sporting events. It gave the organisers of the next Commonwealth games a clean bill of health. Its recommendations went further: it said that if this country is to get the most out of the next Commonwealth games, there will have to be direct ministerial involvement and more resources. May I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the Commonwealth games, and ask him to consider those recommendations with a view to giving a positive response?

I welcome the report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We shall carefully consider its recommendations. The Manchester Commonwealth games is a tremendous opportunity for Manchester and for the country, but it is evident that questions of resources must be given careful consideration.

Q10.[83678]

A little while ago the Prime Minister told the House that it would be his particular pleasure—I think those were his words—to introduce legislation to implement Lord Neill's recommendations on the fair funding of referendums. Why is he intending to ask his troops—as we understand—to kill off tomorrow the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)?

We are about to introduce our own draft Bill, which implements the Neill committee recommendations. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Labour party set up the Neill committee on party funding when the party that he supports refused to have any inquiry into the matter.

One in four men aged between 60 and 65 are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is inconceivable that such a proportion of men in that age group are incapable, and that that figure reflects the extent to which incapacity benefit was used under the previous Government to keep people off the unemployment register? Would not it be fairer and better if incapacity benefit reverted to the purpose for which it was intended, if people who can work were helped to find it, and if really disabled people, adults and children, got a much better deal than they currently get?

Everybody knows that in the 1980s the Conservatives used invalidity benefit to transfer people off unemployment benefit. That is the truth of what happened. We now have triple the numbers on incapacity benefit. There are more people on it than on unemployment benefit. Conservative Members are now complaining about that. Last week the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted welfare spending to be cut to deliver tax cuts, but the first opportunity the Conservatives have for proper welfare reform they refuse it. Instead, the Government are taking the money that is saved and getting it to people who really need it. Those people who talk about welfare reform should have the courage to see it through.

Constituency Visit

Q11. [83679]

What plans he has to visit Southend, West.

I have no plans to visit Southend—and I rather think that the hon. Gentleman did not either, until he saw the writing on the wall in Basildon.

There you are, Madam Speaker. Labour has never got over the fact that we kept Basildon for the Conservatives—and today half my old constituency is still represented by a Conservative. Anyway, it is just as well that the Prime Minister is not going to visit Southend, West, given the anger that is felt there about the way in which he has broken up the United Kingdom.

If the Prime Minister did visit my constituency, however, he would learn at first hand about the effect of reducing class sizes to 30 and under. That policy means that parental choice will be ended this autumn. Why do the Prime Minister, his party and his Liberal partners in crime despise working-class people so much that they want to prevent them from having the choice that he and his colleagues have as a result of their power and money?

The hon. Gentleman says that working people in Southend will not support the Government's policies. I believe that they support the statutory minimum wage introduced by us, the 20 per cent. rise in child benefit introduced by us and the £40 billion of investment in schools and hospitals introduced by us—and they certainly support the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years.

Engagements

Q12. [83680]

Why should a Member of the House of Commons who has a Scottish seat and represents some 52,000 people be paid the same as a Member of this House who has an English seat and represents some 100,000, given that after 1 July, when the Scottish Parliament starts to act, the Member with a Scottish seat will have only half a job? Is that the Prime Minister's idea of fairness at work?

I do not agree with what the hon. Lady says. I think that it would be wrong to have two classes of Member of Parliament. When Stormont was sitting in the 1960s and before, we had precisely the same arrangement in relation to Northern Ireland. The argument used by a then Conservative Prime Minister is the argument that I use now: it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that we have devolution, it is fair that we have devolution, and to have two classes of Members of Parliament would be wrong.

Given the Government's pledge in advance of the election to reduce class sizes for every five, six and seven-year-old in the country, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Telford and Wrekin council and Shropshire county council, which have delivered on that pledge to infants in my constituency—not on schedule, not one year ahead of schedule, but, because of Government funding, two whole years ahead of schedule?

The fact that more than 130,000 five, six and seven-year-olds are now in classes of under 30 who would not be otherwise, and the fact that the size of primary school classes is falling for the first time, underscore this Government's commitment to education. Once again, every single one of those measures has been opposed by the Conservative party.

Q13. [83681]

Is it all right to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban in one part of the United Kingdom, but not in another?

That, of course, is what devolution provides for. I hope that that was a statement of support from the hon. Gentleman.

We introduced the ban because of the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. The reason why the issue of any ban on British beef has arisen is, of course, BSE—and the hon. Gentleman will know who was responsible for introducing BSE. That is, I am afraid, an outstanding example of the rare combination of incompetence and financial profligacy that was the true legacy of the last Conservative Government.

Jury Trial

3.30 pm

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House as to his proposed restrictions on trial by jury.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sends his apologies. He has a longstanding commitment to speak at the Police Federation conference. I am sure that hon. Members would want him to keep that commitment.

In response to a written question that appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper, the Home Secretary has announced—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I ask Members who are leaving to do so less noisily. We still have business to do here.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Home Secretary has announced that the Government propose to change the way in which the mode of trial is determined for those cases that are triable either way.

In 1993, the royal commission on criminal justice and, more recently, the 1997 Narey review of delay in the criminal justice system recommended that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried in the Crown court in either-way cases where magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear the case.

We have considered that recommendation, along with the responses to the consultation paper that the Home Secretary issued on 28 July last year. Today's answer to the parliamentary question indicates that we will be introducing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to abolish the ability of defendants to decide for themselves whether to be tried in a magistrates court or the Crown court in either-way cases. Magistrates should decide whether the trial should properly take place in the Crown court.

Some believe that to remove the defendant's veto on the magistrates' decision that they should hear a case would erode fundamental individual liberties that were established in the middle ages, if not by Magna Carta itself. However, although trial by jury is ancient, a defendant's ability to choose to be tried by a jury rather than by the justices was introduced in 1855.

The Government agree that jury trial is right for certain sorts of case. The question is whether it should be available on demand by a defendant, or whether it should be restricted to business that objectively warrants it. In the same way as defendants do not have a choice of which magistrate, judge or jury hears their case, we believe that defendants should not be able to choose where their case is tried. In Scotland, there is no ability to elect for trial. Indeed, the prosecution decides the venue. I know of no other country in which such an ability to elect is allowed on this scale.

The majority of cases in which the defendant elects for Crown court trial result eventually in guilty pleas, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, and at considerable extra cost, sometimes using up valuable police time to little effect. Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 people who elect to be tried in the Crown court have previous criminal convictions. It is clear that some persistent offenders are abusing the system of election. The Government's proposal will end the practice that many rightly regard as a manipulation of the criminal justice system: defendants demanding Crown court trial for no good reason other than to delay proceedings and the evil day when they should be sentenced.

There will be safeguards for those of good character. When determining the mode of trial, magistrates will be required to have regard not only to the defence's representations, but to such features as the gravity of the offence and the complexity of the case, as legislation already requires. There will be an added safeguard, in that the effect of conviction and the likely sentence on the defendant's livelihood and reputation should be taken into account.

In addition to the automatic right of appeal to the Crown court against conviction, defendants will be given an extra safeguard—a right of appeal to the Crown court against the magistrate's decision on mode of trial. We believe that our proposals will ensure that justice is delivered in a fair, just and efficient way.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. Does he understand the concern in this House that the Home Secretary should have failed to make a statement in this House with regard to a matter of this magnitude, but rather preferred to announce it outside on the radio this morning, and—as I understand it—in a speech this afternoon? I hope that proposals of this importance will be made the subject of a White Paper and, thereafter, that a Bill will be published early and then referred to the Special Standing Committee procedure.

Is it true that the proposals are motivated primarily by considerations of finance, not by considerations of justice? Will the proposals apply to persons of previously good character? If so, does the Minister understand the real concern that will be felt in the House? In respect of the right of appeal, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that any proposals to that effect will give the trial judge an unfettered discretion in the matter of the decision of the magistrates court, that there should be no presumption in favour of that decision, and that the trial judge should have a right to take into account the damage to the reputation and good name of the defendant?

Finally, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely the class of offences to which the present proposals relate?

As for the way in which the matter was announced, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Home Secretary has a reputation for being scrupulous about the prerogatives of the House. He certainly intends no discourtesy and would regret it if anyone believed otherwise. The Home Office consults on a wide range of issues, and normally reports the results—if there is a wide-ranging series of conclusions—in a statement. However, a more narrowly based statement of a broad intention is often given in a written answer, as it was today. In due course, perhaps a consultation paper or a White Paper on the detail might be the time for a statement.

In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was to speak to the Police Federation conference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Police Federation conference—like party conferences and other events—is a place where broad-based statements can be made. My right hon. Friend was anxious to be scrupulous about the way in which he dealt with the House. He wanted to be sure that a parliamentary answer was given today, before he made the statement, so that he could be sure that the House was aware of the situation—even though all the detail was not in this statement.

During yesterday afternoon, it became clear that the press had been alerted by a question on Tuesday's Order Paper, and was making inquiries of the Home Office press office. I am assured by the press office and officials at the Home Office that they did not actively brief, but reacted to inquiries in broad terms. However, there was a concern this morning that some of the press might mislead in their reports, so the Home Secretary decided to clarify matters on "Today". However, he is scrupulous in the way in which he deals with this House.

The change is not motivated primarily by finance: it is a recommendation of the royal commission and the Narey report. There will be safeguards for people of previous good character, as I set out in my original reply. There will be a right of appeal on venue, and the judge can take into account the effect on the reputation of a person of good character. That will apply to either-way offences.

What evidence is there that the existing arrangements are widely abused? My hon. Friend says that many people who have elected for a jury trial plead guilty at the door of the court. Is not that in many cases because the charges have been substantially reduced?

My hon. Friend is right: some defendants seek Crown court trial for all sorts of reasons. I have already said that Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 are not persons of previous good character. People choose Crown court trial to apply pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the seriousness of the charges, as he suggested, and they think that it is less likely that prosecution witnesses will attend, because of the elapse of time—which could also make memories more vague—and because those witnesses may be fearful of the Crown court. They also do it simply to put off the day of sentence, so that they can be held in a local prison, perhaps close to their friends and partners in crime, enjoying the privileges of being unconvicted prisoners for a longer time.

I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in protesting at the way in which this announcement has been made. Over the past two weeks, we have had important announcements on refugees from Kosovo, on privatisation of the Tote, on the Macpherson leak inquiry, and now on trial by jury, and in not one of those cases has the Home Secretary volunteered a statement to the House. Indeed, he is not even here to offer a response today.

There will be a strong feeling among Government as well as Opposition Members that that is an entirely wrong way to treat the House. Does not the Minister realise what resentment is caused throughout the House when self-evidently important announcements are first leaked and then announced outside Parliament?

Does not the Minister feel that there is a particular obligation on the Home Secretary to volunteer a statement when, as in this case, he has totally reversed the position that he set out two years ago? Is not it a fact that on 27 February 1997 the Home Secretary spent half his response to the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on criminal justice attacking the very proposals that he is now making? Did not he say on that occasion that time was needed to see whether the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 improved the position? In so doing, he put his finger on one of the reasons why we will oppose the proposals.

Do not the Crown Prosecution Service figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) show that, whereas in 1988 46 per cent. of those charged with an either-way offence elected for trial in the Crown court, the figure for 1998 was down to 28 per cent.? On the radio this morning, the Home Secretary suggested that some other European nations regard the English and Welsh system as unusual, but surely the view of other countries is not remotely the deciding factor in changing our law. By and large, our system of justice has worked well; above all, it has the confidence of the majority of the public.

The Home Secretary made his announcement to the Police Federation conference in Blackpool, where I was yesterday. Many will feel that if he wants to tackle crime effectively, he should concentrate on strengthening the police rather than changing the jury system.

I have already dealt with the way in which the announcement was made. I gave a full explanation, and I will not take the synthetic anger that the right hon. Gentleman displays, after everything that we have seen in the House from his party over the years.

The Home Secretary properly gave a written answer to a question, so as to give notice of a view that he had taken following a consultation. He did that in the proper way, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are justified. However, my right hon. Friend does not wish anyone to think that he is less than scrupulous in his approach to the House. He always seeks to do things in the proper way, which is why the question was tabled.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about people changing their minds, but the Conservative Government were committed to taking away the right to jury trial. They made an announcement to that effect, without putting in the safeguards that my right hon. Friend now wishes to see included.

Wrong.

It is true that my right hon. Friend changed his mind. He has considered the evidence, and the possibility of other safeguards that were not proposed by the previous Government.

Those safeguards include a right of appeal to the Crown court on venue, and the fact that magistrates will have to consider the issue of reputation before deciding at which venue the trial will take place. My right hon. Friend believes that, with those safeguards, the proposals of the royal commission and the Narey report should be supported.

Is there not something seriously wrong when the Home Secretary does not even recognise that this issue is sufficiently important to require a Minister to appear before the House and answer questions? Is there not also something seriously wrong with arguing that a right that has been an important principle of the justice system of England and Wales should be removed simply because it does not apply in other countries, however different their jurisdictions may be? In Scotland such cases are tried before a professional judge, not by magistrates, so that comparison is not appropriate.

Will the Minister confirm that the consultation elicited many expressions of concern about the proposal, not least from representatives of the ethnic minorities, who had particular fears about its effect? What will be the grounds on which people can appeal against magistrates' decisions? Will there be legal aid for such appeals? Does the Minister not realise that the Government will create a new bureaucratic complication, just to take away a right exercised only by a limited and falling number of people?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman dismisses with such cavalier disregard both the report of the royal commission on criminal procedure and the Narey report. Those reports fully considered the issues surrounding the right to choose the venue, and dealt with the arguments in a sound and reasoned way. We should have due respect for the views of the royal commission and of Mr. Narey.

There have been some suggestions that the ethnic minorities will have concerns, yet according to the statistics, ethnic minority defendants tend to be given longer sentences, partly because disproportionate numbers of them elect for Crown court trial—and following conviction, Crown courts can give longer sentences.

The Lord Chancellor is engendering greater confidence in the magistrates courts among ethnic minorities by appointing more magistrates from ethnic minority communities. That process is under way; we are also putting in additional safeguards to help to build confidence among ethnic minorities. Not only will more magistrates come from such communities, but they will be able to consider the impact on the reputation of a person within those communities before determining the venue.

There will be a right of appeal on venue to a Crown court, where all those issues can be considered, if necessary. There will also be an automatic right of appeal to the Crown court on a sentence or a finding of guilt. Those safeguards will be sufficient to ensure that ethnic minorities are satisfied with the way in which the decision has been made.

May I say, with a heavy heart, that I agree immediately with the observations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who asked the private notice question? The way in which this fundamental matter has been brought before the House is a disgrace, and shows contempt for hon. Members on both sides.

I shall make one or two observations and ask questions in respect of the matters that my learned Friend—or rather, my hon. Friend—raised. First, does he not understand—from his experience, or anecdotally—that the vast majority of people elect for trial by jury on advice because they believe that they will thereby obtain a better standard of justice in a more judicial arena?

Secondly, does my hon. Friend seriously advance the proposition that those of bad character—that is to say, those who have had the misfortune, probably justly, to have been convicted in the past, and sentenced and punished—should now be rewarded with the further penalty of the loss of their rights in perpetuity to jury trial?

Thirdly, and while we are on the subject of saving money—because we may suspect that the proposal is Treasury driven—how will it save money to have three hearings instead of one? If the proposal is adopted, a Bench of magistrates will have to decide whether someone has a right to be heard in the Crown court. That Bench of magistrates cannot later try the trial, because they will have heard all about the defendant's antecedents. The trial will have to go to another Bench of magistrates, but before that it will have gone to the Crown court on appeal, no doubt on legal aid, for the benefit of the profession.

If a person with a string of previous convictions is convicted in the magistrates court, he will be sent back to the Crown court because that is the only place where he can be sentenced. That would make four hearings instead of one. How much research has been done into how many people would arrive at the Crown court in any event but will now, under this procedure, spend so long getting there?

My hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, and he is obviously concerned that the issues that the legal profession holds close to its heart are safeguarded. I, too, am a lawyer and like him I have represented people who sought to go to the Crown court merely to delay the point at which they would have to go to prison. They wish to remain on bail for longer, or to remain on remand for longer with the privileges of remand prisoners. I find it difficult to believe that he has not had clients who have taken that view and pleaded guilty at the door of the court, because throughout they have sought to abuse the system of election for trial. That has unduly wasted the time of prosecution witnesses and the police, and given rise to costs for the Exchequer.

Police time would be better spent on catching criminals than on sitting outside a court door waiting for banisters and their clients deciding to plead guilty after all. It is about time it was recognised that nine out of 10 defendants who elect to the Crown court have previous convictions and many are simply abusing the system.

rose—

Order. I felt as if I was in court during the last questions. Now may we have brisk questions, and only one from each Member?

Quite apart from the bizarre way in which the matter was announced, the Minister has overstated his case. More than 90 per cent. of criminal cases are already dealt with in the magistrates courts. Are not those people the Minister describes as manipulating the criminal justice system exactly the people who will appeal each and every time and clog up the Crown court with needless appeals?

No, we do not believe that there will be needless appeals. The hon. Gentleman is right that most people who are accused of offences are dealt with in the magistrates courts. Indeed, when given a choice, most people of previous good character choose to be dealt with in the magistrates courts.

There is much hot air and theory, particularly among some lawyers who believe in an ancient view of the protection of the right to election. Once we cut away from the stories and fairy tales about the right of election, we get down to reality. The magistrates courts are capable of delivering efficient and effective justice. We have had faith in them for many years—since the middle ages, indeed—and we should continue to have faith that they will be able to deal with appropriate cases and that matters that should be referred to the Crown court will be referred there.

I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the radio this morning when he implied that some new evidence had emerged that had caused him to change his mind. Exactly what new facts have emerged in the two and a half years since we heard my right hon. Friend give his statement, to great approval from the Labour Benches? Will my hon. Friend also accept that some of us are less than enchanted with the idea that we are going back only 150 years rather than to the middle ages?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he had re-examined the issue and considered whether new safeguards could be introduced which the previous Government had not suggested when they supported change. My right hon. Friend had felt that there were insufficient safeguards for defendants, but now takes the view that an additional requirement that magistrates should look at the reputation of a person who is convicted and the impact on his or her livelihood would provide an extra safeguard. A right to appeal to the Crown court on the issue of which court—venue, as the lawyers call it—the case should be tried in would provide the additional safeguard that would allow my right hon. Friend to support the views of the royal commission on criminal procedure and the Narey report into dealing with delays in the criminal justice system.

Is not the protection afforded by the right of appeal illusory when one considers that magistrates will have the discretion to make a decision and that appellate courts rarely interfere with the discretion of the lower courts? While the Minister may pump up his story about the protection of the appeal, there is no such protection in reality.

I am sure that magistrates will exercise their judgment in a considered and proper manner. If there is no such due and proper consideration, a Crown court will, on appeal on the issue of venue—a new procedure—be able to make an alternative decision if appropriate. That is a good and effective safeguard.

Having been a magistrate rather than a criminal lawyer who might benefit from cases taking a much longer time, I very much welcome my hon. Friend's statement. He is right to say that nine out of 10 of those who elect to go to Crown court are people with previous convictions. In my experience, the vast majority of the people who turn out to be innocent want their trial to take place as quickly as possible. The adage that justice delayed is justice denied is one that hon. Members on both sides should consider carefully.

My hon. Friend is entirely right and her welcome for the proposals is justified. I suspect that constituents of Members on both sides will feel that our proposals are about delivering a system that puts the criminals where they ought to be while safeguarding the rights and interests of the individual.

Has the Minister no shame at having to give the House a preview of what seems to be a Queen's Speech, at seeming to defend clauses in a Bill that the House has not seen and at arguing for something that we will address in due course, perhaps next year? Is this the Queen's Speech? Will he publish the draft Bill so that we may read it? Will he accept that for many of us, the constant tilting at the interests of the innocent—those whose interests are the first that our system was designed to defend—is deeply disturbing? The Government, in their bureaucratic rigour, are increasingly squeezing out some of the classic freedoms of this country.

The hon. Gentleman rather overstates his case. A majority of the people who elect for crown court trial plead guilty. They are not innocent; they plead guilty. Nine out of 10 are not of previous good character. The hon. Gentleman has to be careful about over-egging the pudding. The matter has been the subject of a royal commission, a report, and a consultation paper. We are merely announcing now the results of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman is just overstating things.

As my hon. Friend said in his answer, there is no right of election in Scotland. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I practised for 20 years in that system. The choice of forum—as we call it in Scotland, not venue—lies with the prosecutor. Only 2 per cent. of criminal cases in Scotland are prosecuted before juries. It is instructive that the system in Scotland has enjoyed the consistent support of both the House and the Scottish people. Does my hon. Friend believe that the system of criminal justice in Scotland is inherently less fair than the system in England and Wales?

The system in Scotland is not inherently less fair. As my hon. Friend says, there is broad support among the Scots people for the criminal justice system. It does not include the right of election, which some criminals have been able to abuse. We are now cleaning up some of the problems in our legal system. Far from undermining public support for our legal system, I suspect that we shall restore confidence among the English and Welsh people in our criminal justice system.

I shall put to one side for the sake of brevity what has already been said about the way in which this announcement has been handled—I agree with those remarks. I have been in precisely the same business as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), probably for the same number of years. I urge the Minister to reject comprehensively everything that he said.

The Minister has referred on four occasions now to the effect that a court case can have on reputation, and he has said that reputation will be an aspect of his proposals. If a thief with a long criminal record were convicted of the theft of £100, his conviction would make little difference to his lifestyle or his reputation in his community. However, if many people, including the Minister or me, were convicted of stealing just £10, our careers would be wrecked and destroyed for ever.

I do not ask for a definitive reply to my question, but will the Minister at least consider that, where a person of previous good character is tried for the first time for an offence in which there is an essential ingredient of dishonesty—in which dishonesty is the mens rea—there should be not just a discretion to allow that person to elect a Crown court trial but an absolute right to do so? Who knows?—the Minister may then find that support for his "disgraceful" proposals is rather wider than he thinks.

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that will no doubt be the subject of debate when the matter comes before the House as a Bill in due course. We currently intend that magistrates will have to consider the impact of conviction and sentence on the reputation of a person of previous good character in their community, and perhaps on their livelihood too. We believe that magistrates are able to make an informed and reasoned decision and to make the best judgment as to where the case can be dealt with.

I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but having heard protestations on behalf of what I can only describe as the lawyers' party rather than the party for which Opposition Members were elected, may I ask my hon. Friend to put the matter in context? Does he agree that someone who appears before a court accused of an offence as serious as assaulting a police officer, which could well carry a sentence of six months' imprisonment, has to be tried before magistrates; yet someone who steals a Mars bar from the corner shop has a right to trial by jury and can cost hundreds of pounds and many months of delay by making an election?

My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and is well able to understand that the courts are able to deal with these issues effectively. The magistrates courts deal with many cases involving people of previous good character and many others in which people have many serious issues before them. The magistrates court adjudicates on these cases and is a perfectly good venue for dealing with them. My hon. Friend is right.

We shall now move on.

Points Of Order

4.5 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not the first time important changes of Government policy have appeared in the press before they were announced to the House. That has the effect of undermining the role of the House and making it more difficult for Parliament to hold the Executive to account. What steps are open to you, Madam Speaker, perhaps in consultation with the Procedure Committee, to ensure that this insidious practice comes to an early end?

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a consideration that you might like to bear in mind. I have noticed that this practice tends to happen most often when the policy announcement to be made involves a reversal of the Government's previously declared policy. I wonder whether you would bear that sort of case in mind as one for which oral statements are particularly appropriate.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Is it related?

Yes.

I did not call the hon. Gentleman in Question Time, so let me hear it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The explanation given for why the issue turned up on Radio 4 this morning and on the front page of the Daily Mail is pathetic. The wafer-thin explanation was that the newspapers telephoned and asked for an explanation, or for answers to their questions. I ask many questions of the Government and receive no straight answers from them. Why should the Daily Mail get a straight answer?

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government have been caught red-handed in a particularly blatant case of abuse of Parliament. An attitude of slight contrition might have been rather more appropriate from the Minister, rather than one of defiance coupled with multiple and unconvincing excuses.

What can we do about this? What can you do about it, Madam Speaker? I am afraid to say that if nothing is done about this systematic abuse very soon, you will be seen in retrospect to have presided over a period of fundamental erosion of Parliament.

That is a very serious allegation.

It is no criticism of you, Madam Speaker. I am simply saying objectively—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. He must remember that I granted the private notice question today. The House knows that I deprecate statements that are made in the written press or in the media before they come to the House. I do so very much again today. I have been asked by right hon. and hon. Members to do whatever I can to ensure that the leaks or information given to the media cease. I have been involved in this for very many months and I shall continue to use my best endeavours.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. So that we have a little balance in these matters, will you confirm that there were similar practices hundreds and hundreds of times under the 19 years of the previous Government?

Yes, I am aware that Governments of all colours tend to use the media when they feel that it is to their advantage to do so. I am quite wise to what happens in the House; I have been a Member for a quarter of a century.

Bells On Pedal Cycles

4.8 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the fitting, maintenance and use of bells on pedal cycles.

Among the Bill's virtues is simplicity, and I will take 10 seconds rather than 10 minutes to describe it. The current law permits the Secretary of State to require bells to be fitted on bicycles. The Bill simply amends the law to make it mandatory, thereby restoring the position as it was until 1983.

The Bill has generated considerable interest, not least because the Government are currently brooding on the results of a consultation exercise. In May 1997, Baroness Hayman informed another place that the question was being considered with priority. In August 1997, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions wrote to the Lakes parish council, which has campaigned on the issue for some years, to say that an announcement was expected "in the near future". In September the Department wrote to the Lakes parish council again, stating that a decision was anticipated "very soon". In April 1998 the Government completed a consultation exercise in which 150 responses were collected, and said that they hoped to make an announcement "soon". The baby seems to be somewhat overdue.

The Bill is intended to stimulate the debate and encourage an early, favourable decision. I am aware that the black hand of Bromley and Chislehurst will close its clammy grip on the Bill, as it has on so many others, but I hope to influence the Government's decision.

The originator of the initiative was a constituent and newly elected councillor in Broxtowe, Janet Thorley, who typifies the indomitable spirit of so many poorly sighted people. When her guide dog was hit by a bicycle, her response was to organise a petition for the restoration of bells on all cycles, for which she amassed no fewer than 2,487 names, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and myself. I shall present that petition, by leave of the House, this evening. I was delighted to receive support from Maureen Colloquhon, whom many hon. Members will remember from her time in the House.

I am extremely grateful to all those who have written to me, in particular the environmental campaign Sustrans, which sells more cycle bells at £3 than any other product and warmly supports the proposals, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which has given me strong support in the context of a major new transport and mobility campaign, which it is launching this week.

It is important to stress that all the organisations supporting the Bill are also strongly in favour of cycling. The Bill is not a veiled criticism of cyclists, as we recognise that only a small proportion of road accidents are due to cycling. We are seeking to achieve a reinforcement of cycling's image as a safe, environmentally friendly form of travel that threatens no one.

The RNIB's briefing notes that bells will also help cyclists to avoid collisions with each other, as well as the injuries incurred in collisions with pedestrians. I am encouraged that whereas in 1984 nearly all cycling organisations opposed the idea, on this occasion the Bicycle Association has no strong view against bells being fitted.

Is there a real problem? In 1997, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents reported that there were 329 cyclist-pedestrian incidents, in which there were 427 injuries. Fourteen cyclists and 86 pedestrians were seriously injured, and three cyclists and three pedestrians were killed.

The RNIB notes that accidents and near-misses are frequent enough to be a factor in discouraging poorly sighted people from going out. A survey of 500 active blind and partially sighted people showed that 73 per cent. were worried about cyclists, and that that was the strongest reaction on transport issues in the survey.

It is, of course, possible to shout instead of ringing a bell. Sometimes that will be the best action in an emergency, as the highway code points out. However, shouts tend to be intimidating and cause poorly sighted people to freeze, whereas a bell gives a clear directional indication that can enable the pedestrian to step out of the way.

The figures mentioned are dwarfed by those for car accidents, but they are sufficient to suggest that there is a problem. If a £3 add-on to bicycles will make a useful difference, should we not take that step?

In summary, the Bill will help to reassure elderly and blind people, the cost to individual cyclists will be minimal, and the image of cycling will be enhanced. If, as we all hope, cycling becomes increasingly popular in the years to come, interaction with pedestrians will increase further. The measure will help to preserve good relations between the cycling and pedestrian communities, to the benefit of all. I commend it to the House.

4.14 pm

It gives me no pleasure to speak against the Bill, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) brings it to the House with the noblest of motives. I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, which now has a record membership. I cover about 200 miles a week by bike, both in my Exeter constituency and in London.

Although the Bill is well intentioned, I speak against it because I do not think that forcing people to fix bells to bikes is the most effective way either to improve pedestrian safety or to reduce accidents. My hon. Friend has already mentioned that the number of accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is remarkably low; in fact, bicycles are involved in only 0.07 of accidents in which pedestrians are injured. That is seven in 10,000.

My other objection to the Bill is that anyone who knows about bicycle bells knows that they are extremely unreliable and rather quiet. Indeed, my hon. Friend pointed out that it is often much more effective to shout. In my experience, on occasions when a bell might be useful—for example, when one is cycling along a road and a pedestrian is about to step off the pavement without looking, or when a pedestrian is meandering across a cycle path where he or she should not be—in fact it is worse than useless, especially in urban areas. Pedestrians cannot hear a bell. I find it far more effective to give a loud shout or a scream as a warning. The pedestrian can hear that. In the unfortunate case involving my hon. Friend's constituent and her guide dog, I am not sure how the guide dog's movements would have been affected by the rather quiet tinkling of a bicycle bell.

I do not believe that the Bill will improve the atrocious behaviour of a small, but regrettable, number of idiotic cyclists, who will disregard it—as they already disregard far too many of our traffic laws. To burden responsible cyclists and the parents who are trying to encourage their children to use bikes with even more requirements and legislation will be a deterrent. Cycle use is extremely low and the Government are committed to doubling and redoubling cycle use in this country by 2012. The Bill would be yet another impediment to achieving their admirable aim.

Our aim should be to improve the behaviour of all road users. The most effective way of protecting pedestrians is to concentrate on the proper separation of pedestrians and cyclists. In recent years, there has been a regrettable move to encourage pedestrians and cyclists to share the same pavement space. That is not the way forward and I am glad that the Government are not practising that system.

In conclusion, I regret opposing the Bill; it is well intentioned, but it will not help pedestrians and it might deter cyclists.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Ms Margaret Moran and Mr. Alan Simpson.

Bells On Pedal Cycles

Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the fitting, maintenance and use of bells on pedal cycles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 105].

Opposition Day

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

European Union Fraud

We now come to the main business of the day. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.18 pm

I beg to move,

That this House notes that for four successive years the European Court of Auditors has declined to provide assurance that the transactions underlying payments from the European budget are legal and regular; regrets the failure of the UK Presidency to achieve any concrete measures to tackle fraud and mismanagement in the EU budget; congratulates Mr. Paul Van Buitenen on his courageous action in exposing the incompetence and unwillingness of the European Commission to tackle fraud; condemns the action of Labour MEPs, urged on by the British Government, in seeking to protect the Commission from censure; notes that, despite the vote in the European Parliament to censure the Commission, no Commissioner has yet left office; believes that confidence will only be restored if all existing Commissioners are replaced forthwith; and calls on the Government to ensure that genuine and effective measures to tackle fraud in all of the institutions of the European Union are taken as a matter of urgency.

The debate falls only five months after the Chancellor unveiled his plan for a head of fraud investigations. At the time, the Government said that the proposal was well received. That may have been the case, but the proposal was speedily buried. Each year, according to the Court of Auditors, 5.5 per cent. of the European Union budget mysteriously disappears. That is about £3 billion this year; by coincidence, it is equivalent to the United Kingdom's annual net contribution. It is about £53 for every person in this country.

It is now absolutely clear that there have been cases of mismanagement, wastage and outright fraud, which increase each year as the budget grows. That scandal will not solve itself. For the fourth year running, the Court of Auditors has refused to clear the EU's accounts. It describes the incidence of substantive errors affecting payments as "unacceptable".

Fraud against the EU budget is daily defacing the European Union, which is why it must be a major issue in the European Parliament elections. It is significant that today it is we, the Conservatives, and not the Government who have decided to focus on fraud. The debate gives us a chance to scrutinise the Government's record, because Labour's posturing on fraud in the EU is a matter that, to be frank, it would prefer not to expose to closer scrutiny.

If the Conservatives intend to make fraud an issue in the European elections, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us with what record on stopping fraud the Tories can go to the electorate?

We have a consistent record of putting forward coherent proposals, which began to make a difference—indeed, I did so myself. We secured some improvements in the Maastricht treaty, which my signature adorns, as Ministers are always keen to remind the House. I am glad to be able to assure the House that that treaty ensured the taking of some steps, albeit not enough, to improve scrutiny. One of the crucial elements, which is just beginning to bear fruit, is the elevation of the Court of Auditors to the status of a proper institution; that was a Conservative Government initiative.

May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that one of the great speeches of my 20 years as a Member of the House of Commons is one made in 1985—nearly 15 years ago—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), now Home Secretary, on the issue of fraud in the EU? Nothing happened as a result of that speech, and every year thereafter, for the next 10 years, we had conversations about how so little was happening. Only since the election of the Labour Government has the issue gone up the agenda.

It is not especially kind of the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the lack of influence wielded by his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was not present to answer questions on the private notice question earlier today. It is also significant that, yet again, the Chancellor has failed to come to the House of Commons to answer for the conduct of his Department.

The issue is not only one of securing better management of the EU's finances.

"It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility"

inside the Commission—not my words, but those of the independent experts who were eventually given the task of investigating the allegations raised earlier this year by Mr. Van Buitenen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I want to make some progress. We were late in starting the debate and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends want to speak on this important issue.

We want to tackle fraud head on, by dealing with the vacuum of responsibility that originates in the fundamental lack of accountability within the Commission. That absence of responsibility was illustrated by the auditors' discovery that certain Commission officials working overseas had used the interest accrued on their budget funds in the PHARE programme—Poland and Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy—to buy themselves 26 new cars. It is that lack of responsibility which breeds arrogance and carelessness. Where else can one find Commissioners who, two months after having been dismissed, have yet to clear their desks and leave? Where else can one find a development operation that left behind 1.3 million ecu in the National Housing and Savings Bank of Liberia—a sum that, after nine years, has yet to be reclaimed; or a 600,000 ecu budget for buying flagpoles?

Instilling a sense of accountability is the first, crucial step, but it is not surprising that it has not yet been taken. Is not the problem the Commission's ambitions, which constantly outreach its capacity, its endless drive to arrogate more and more powers to itself, and its constant drive to do more but doing it worse? In its 1997 report, the Court of Auditors noted that

"the Commission committed at least 330 million ecu for operations which lacked a legal basis"—

which were not even legal—and that it overspent on its legitimate activities by 750,000,000 ecu. As the Select Committee on International Development observed:

"there are huge discrepancies between political priorities and administrative capacity"—

in other words, doing more and doing it worse.

No one has made that clearer than Mr. Prodi, the Prime Minister's personal choice for the new President of the Commission. He was brought in precisely to clean up the scandals and the fraud. What was Mr. Prodi's first great initiative? Was it a grand anti-fraud campaign, bringing in clean, new Commissioners or perhaps reinstating the man who blew the whistle and who was outrageously suspended on half pay while the sacked Commissioners kept their first-class seats? Did Mr. Prodi do any of those things? Forget it. His top priority was to expatiate on the absolute necessity of a European army. He is planning not how he can save our money but more ways in which to spend it. The Commission should be doing less, not more—and doing it better. It should not pursue a dogmatic, federalist agenda that taxpayers do not want, let alone want to pay for.

At every turn, there is evidence of an institution that is out of control and is over-reaching itself. For example, its Russian nuclear safety fund cannot account for £100 million of the nearly £600 million that it has spent since 1991. Its Mediterranean fund does not know where £40 million of its budget went in 1997. The European Community Humanitarian Office has already written off much of the £420 million it lent but failed to secure guarantees for. Not only is the Commission over-reaching itself, it is covering up its actions with impunity. Let us consider another example from ECHO, which is run by Commissioner Marin, who was also dismissed but is still there.

rose—

No, I will not give way at this stage. I will give way later. The debate started late and many hon. Members wish to contribute.

"In some cases they even made financial allowance for people who don't exist. Here the Commission simply told us untruths."

That is not some scare story by The Sun, but a comment by the President of the Court of Auditors. Only under pressure, did the Commission release a document on its humanitarian projects—and, even then, it was so "heavily censored" as "to render it illegible". They are also the words of the President.

It seems that there is only one thing these days with which the Commission is economical: the truth. That is why we are pressing to introduce a new and fully independent anti-fraud office in Brussels. That is a positive commitment that contrasts with the Government's studied evasion of the issue. We are not alone in that call. There was widespread support among Members of European Parliament for James Elles's proposals for the reform of the Commission—except from one quarter, the European parliamentary Labour party. It did not want that. The Conservatives in the European Parliament raised the possibility of an independent fraud office early on, but, as usual, Labour came late to that debate.

rose

I will not give way as I must make some progress.

The Chancellor eventually got around to proposing something at the January ECOFIN meeting, but his proposals showed that he had not been paying attention. The Conservatives had campaigned for an independent fraud office precisely because Commission interference in corruption investigations had come to light. Labour just did not get it. Its so-called head of fraud investigations could not have fought his way out of a wet paper bag. He would work in a fraud office that was staffed by Commission officials and based inside the Commission, yet, according to the Prime Minister, he would be somehow independent. We all know the Prime Minister's definition of independence: about as independent as a Labour Back Bencher.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited, so I will give way to him.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned repeatedly an independent fraud office. Is he aware that the Commission and the member states under the German presidency have already agreed to establish such a body? It is not a Conservative proposal: it is already in the system.

That intervention illustrates vividly the hon. Gentleman's concept of independence. The proposed fraud office would be based inside the Commission and staffed by Commission officials. It would not be independent, as anyone outside the parliamentary Labour party would understand.

rose—

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The fact is that Labour's cosy back-scratching relationship with the European Commission means that it will never take on the Commission. Our demands for an independent fraud office, which would have dealt with the problem, were therefore bypassed in favour of a pseudo-proposal, which would have done nothing to change the status quo.

In January, the Chancellor proclaimed proudly—he is not, of course, here to defend his remarks—

"We need to move quickly to tackle fraud in the EU."

Quickly? We have seen quicker snails. It is not as though the Government did not know about that fraud.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. Paul Van Buitenen, enraged by the complacent inertia around him, blew the whistle early in January, explaining why he was speaking out. On 6 January, he said that he was

"disappointed about the attitude of the Socialist faction, and notably Mrs. Green … because she seems to support the Commission."

He continued:

"Perhaps they have a higher agenda in the Euro."

That is right. The socialists are going with the flow in Europe and they do not want to upset the Commission; it is mutual back-scratching.

The subsequent treatment of Mr. Van Buitenen differed considerably from that of the Commissioners, whose downfall his revelations precipitated. That is funny. He was smeared as a religious fanatic. I suppose that the definition of a religious fanatic is one who is able to tell right from wrong. He was suspended on half pay, whereas the Commissioners who were found wanting by the independent experts were left on full pay, full rations and a first-class return ticket on the gravy train.

Mr. Van Buitenen was not the only person to notice that Pauline Green was slow to get on the case. The budget spokesman for the Party of European Socialists resigned in protest at Pauline Green's dilatory stance on fraud. She was not the only one to find Mrs. Green's argument tortuously contrived. First, Mrs. Green tabled a censure motion on the Commission after a majority in the European Parliament agreed with the conclusions of the Elles report. She then declared that the Party of European Socialists would oppose the motion in a vote, since the only way to register confidence in the Commission was to call for censure and then vote against it. Only a trusty double negative would do for that stout upholder of Britain's interests.

How delightfully intimate it all was: the thumbs up; the celebrations, and Commissioner Kinnock gratefully kissing Mrs. Green's hand. It was not, therefore, too surprising that Mr. Santer announced proudly that the Commission's escape from censure amounted to a vote of confidence. Cover-ups, back-scratching and cosy deals to avoid the frightful embarrassment of being held accountable are the story of Labour's brave battle against fraud.

Let us consider the legendary Mrs. Cresson and her cosy ménage, including her live-in dentist, who is employed as an adviser. What did Labour do about that? It supported her. According to Mrs. Green, that was a principled stance—I suppose that, by her standards, it might have been—which helped

"to achieve a seismic change in the balance of power from the Commission to the Parliament".

Well, the earth did not exactly move under Mrs. Cresson that day. What a cop-out that was. Most of Labour's MEPs had not voted for the very report that described the problem of fraud in the first place. They did not vote for the motion withdrawing support from Mrs. Cresson two weeks after she and other Commissioners had resigned and after the independent experts had found her guilty of favouritism.

There has not been much evidence of Mrs. Green campaigning for a new Commission to be appointed, because that would mean the removal of the very people whom she hoped to protect. Her credentials on clean financial management took another tumble when it was revealed that, three years ago, she had—no doubt, coincidentally—arranged a conference outside the EU, in Cyprus, for a number of MEPs and their advisers in the same week in which her adviser was getting married on the island. We are utterly confident that the taxpayer was absolutely delighted to be helping with those travel expenses.

How sensible Mrs. Green was to send her driver out to Cyprus three days before the conference began. He said:

"We always go early to places, otherwise we get stopped in traffic".

He went three days early—that is some traffic jam, particularly as he flew there. [Laughter.] That's right, he flew there, and the taxpayer paid.

We do not even need to dwell on the complex affairs of Mr. Glyn Ford, which bring a new dimension to the phrase "money laundering". We assume that Labour has instituted an urgent inquiry into the extraordinary allegations made in today's edition of the Daily Express. No doubt the Chief Secretary will comment on that when he responds. We assume also that, pending that inquiry, Mr. Ford will be removed from his position at the head of Labour's list of candidates for the south-west region. After all, those at Millbank tower parachuted him in there. If they mean business, they will airlift him out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not.

Labour Members' claim to be tough on fraud is pretty thin, and now they have admitted it. The Economic Secretary said

"we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that the Commission … take action".—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 24 February 1999; c.6.]

She said that not once, but a further five times in all. We were all agog to know what the "everything" of which she boasted would amount to. Sadly, not very much, which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), was forced to admit only two weeks later. Days before the Commission resigned, she made the shameful admission that

"the Council has not formally discussed the way in which the Commissioners have performed their duties".

What did the Government do? What was the "everything" of which the Economic Secretary bragged? We know that there were no formal discussions, because that admission has been dragged out of the Government. Were there informal discussions—perhaps a little light conversation over lunch? What was said and what was done, or is the truth that, despite all their protestations, they did nothing and said nothing on this crucial matter? The only thing that they agreed was a cut in the anti-fraud expenditure of 16 per cent. in the 1999 draft budget when fighting fraud was meant to be at the top of their presidency wish list only a year ago.

In the European Parliament, Labour denies that a problem ever existed. In the Council of Ministers, Labour sits on its hands and stays stumm. Is that what Labour Members call leading in Europe? Unlike Labour, Conservatives mean what they say—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I am coming to the end of my speech, because this is a brief debate.

Unlike Labour, Conservatives mean what they say about fraud. People have a clear choice in the European Parliament elections. The Conservative party is determined to be in Europe, but not run by it; the Labour party is so committed to going with the flow in Europe that it is incapable of taking any real steps to combat the fraud that defaces the European Union. It is a simple choice. I commend the motion to the House.

4.37 pm

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the efforts of the Government to work with fellow Member States and European institutions to crack down on fraud against the EU budget; notes the real practical progress made in this regard by the Government during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU; welcomes the Chancellor's initiative for a strong head of fraud investigations heading an independent fraud prevention office; welcomes the role played by Labour MEPs in securing the establishment of the Committee of Independent Experts; joins the Government in calling for recent events to be used as an opportunity for root and branch reform of the Commission; calls on Romano Prodi, following his recent nomination as President-elect of the European Commission, to place the fight against fraud at the top of the new Commission's agenda; and believes that the only way of reforming Europe is the Government's strong leadership and constructive engagement rather than the Opposition's weak leadership, division and isolationism."

I always welcome the opportunity to debate Europe with Conservative Members and, before I come to the substance of my speech, I thank them for the contribution that they made to our general election victory by debating the issue in the campaign.

Today's debate is not only about the level of fraud in Europe or the fact that fraud is wrong and must be stopped—we can all agree with that. It is about how best we can go about tackling fraud. That takes us to the fundamental issue underpinning the debate: if we are to tackle fraud in Europe successfully, we must do so as part of a wider process of reform in Europe. That requires strong leadership and constructive engagement in Europe, and, unlike the previous Government, that is precisely what we are providing.

On the subject of criminality, what is Government policy on corpus juris?

I do not know the answer to that question, I am afraid.

I think the Chief Secretary used the expression "strong leadership in Europe". Is he aware that the leader of the Labour party in Strasbourg, Pauline Green, tabled a motion to sack the Commission in December 1998, which she withdrew in January 1999? Did Millbank ask her to do so? She then voted against the motion tabled by the centre-right parties. Does he agree that that is hardly strong leadership in Europe?

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come precisely to the sequence of events that led to the appointment of the committee of experts—the so-called committee of wise men—and to the subsequent resignation of the Commission and the President. The shadow Chancellor alluded to that in his contribution, and it is right and proper that I should respond.

If we are successfully to tackle fraud in Europe, we require strong leadership and constructive engagement. That is precisely what we, unlike the previous Government, are providing. That approach is delivering the goods for Britain: the lifting of the beef ban; the successful retention of the United Kingdom's abatement; an excellent deal for the regions of our country thanks to the Agenda 2000 negotiations; real progress on reform of the common agricultural policy, and the commitment in principle to join the single currency if it is in the British economic interest to do so. Those developments show that this Government, unlike the last, are a player rather than a spectator in Europe.

Those developments also show that the leadership that we are giving in Europe to tackle fraud and deal with other issues, and to drive forward the modernisation of European institutions, brings direct benefits to our country and our people.

The Minister may be paying a high price for some of his alleged achievements. May I return him to the question that he was asked a moment ago, and offer him a second opportunity to answer it? Does he agree that introducing corpus juris into our own system, alien as it is to habeas corpus, is far too high a price to pay for dealing with fraud in the European Union?

According to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who, as hon. Members can see, is whispering in my ear, some Conservative MEPs voted against what the hon. Gentleman is advocating. I shall develop that theme in a moment. What the Conservative party says in the Westminster Parliament is very different from what it says in the European Parliament. With the European elections coming up, it is important that we show unity and clarity on European issues.

The approach advocated by the Conservative party would jeopardise all the benefits that the Government have won for Britain in Europe. Weakness, division and isolationism are no way to get the best for Britain from Europe, and they are no way to win the war against fraud in Europe.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and then I shall make some progress.

The right hon. Gentleman proudly lists the Government's achievements in Europe, but three of them have not yet been accomplished: they are the lifting of the beef ban, joining the single European currency and the final negotiations on the common agricultural policy, which will run into trouble with the World Trade Organisation. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the House what the Government have done—particularly when they held the presidency of the European Union—to control fraud in the European Commission, as exposed by Van Buitenen, the whistleblower, given that the committee of experts will be abolished in October.

I shall first deal with the common agricultural policy, and then I shall set out our record on winning the battle against fraud. I shall give a long list of achievements in that regard.

The negotiations in Europe on reform of the CAP produced the most radical reform in the policy's entire history. We wanted to go further, and we shall continue to press for that. I hope that Conservative Members will support the Government in that aim. We all know that the CAP is rotten and does not give a good deal for British taxpayers and consumers. The hon. Gentleman should not negate the achievements that we have managed to win, which have resulted in massive improvements in the CAP and a £65 gain for every consumer in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Let me make it perfectly clear that the UK Government take the issue of fraud extremely seriously. The current level of fraud is unacceptable. There should be zero tolerance of fraud wherever it occurs, whether it be in the European Union's budget or elsewhere. Taxpayers should be protected from fraud, and from those who perpetrate it. People who help expose it, such as Mr. Van Buitenen, deserve our congratulations.

That is all self-evident, or should be. The Government know that real actions rather than tough words are needed if we are successfully to prevent fraud. That is why we are taking a leading role in Europe in the establishment of a fraud prevention office, which will be strong and effective in fighting fraud.

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

I must deal with this point first. It consumed much of the shadow Chancellor's speech, and I want to reply in detail.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the key requirements for a fraud prevention office at January's ECOFIN meeting. His proposals were warmly welcomed by fellow member states. As a result of the initiative that this Government took—that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took—the next ECOFIN meeting, at the end of this month, will, I hope, agree to the establishment of an office with a strong independent director, with statutory protection from dismissal, and appointed only after consultation with both the Council and the Parliament.

The director will be debarred from taking or seeking instruction from any Government or Community institution. The office will be able to open investigations on its own initiative. It will have access to buildings and documents, and it will be able to draw up reports, including recommendations for follow-up. The director will report regularly to the Council and the Parliament, and so will be able to alert those bodies if the office's reports are not being acted on. There will also be a supervisory committee, whose members will be appointed by common accord between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, and which will give the director advice and support. If that is not independent, I do not know what is.

rose—

I will give way first to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis); then I will give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Let me ask the Chief Secretary a simple practical question, which arose when my Committee went to Brussels. It seems to be being proposed that the head of the fraud prevention office should be up for reappointment after five years, for a potential two terms, which strikes me as a weakness in terms of the maintaining of his independence. Has the Chief Secretary considered that?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have the greatest respect for the Public Accounts Committee—not least because I used to have the pleasure of serving on it—and I listen carefully to what he has to say about this issue. I can tell him that the director can be appointed only after full and proper consultation with both the Council and the Parliament. This is not purely a Commission appointment. I hope that that will help to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Committee members about the integrity and independence of the office.

Does the Chief Secretary agree with the assessment of the Economic Secretary, who has said:

"An independent institution"—

of the kind that the Chief Secretary has described—

"would have less understanding of how the Commission functions and would be likely to encounter barriers in obtaining information about possible fraud—it would not have access to 'inside information"'.

Does the Chief Secretary not regard that as a bit thick?

This is an important and interesting question. I think that there are advantages in the location of the director and the office. Let me draw an analogy, in order to reassure Opposition Members.

No hon. Member claims that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not independent, although he is responsible for auditing the procedures and accounts of the House, and although he is an official of the House.

rose—

No one claims that the CAG is not independent—unless the shadow Chancellor is about to produce a revelation.

rose—

I will give way to the shadow Chancellor in a moment. Let me finish my analogy first.

In similar vein, the director and the office will be independent of the Commission, although they will be located within the body of the Commission, with all the safeguards that I have described.

The right hon. Gentleman is making precisely the wrong point in terms of his case. The Comptroller and Auditor General is accountable to the House of Commons—to Parliament—not to the Government. The Government's proposal, to which the right hon. Gentleman says ECOFIN is about to agree, is that the fraud prevention office will be based in the Commission, staffed by Commission officials. It will therefore not be independent. Indeed, the Economic Secretary's words, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), suggest that the Government accept that it will not be independent in the way that we think it should be.

The right hon. Gentleman continues to make those allegations. I have tried to set out in detail the various guarantees of independence that we have negotiated in proposing that new protection for taxpayers in Europe. I do not believe for a moment that I will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman because I suspect that, again, there is a triumph of ideology over the facts in the Conservative party.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would take a number of years to make the new fraud office institutionally independent owing to the requirement to change the treaty? The impact of that, alongside the impact of the office being outside the Commission, would be discontinuity of investigation and more fraud. The current proposal for the statutory independence of the director, along with the other changes that have been described, is the optimal course.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. He, too, is a member of the Public Accounts Committee.

rose—

I will give way in a moment or two. May I deal with one intervention at a time? Then I must make some progress.

I take precisely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has made. I think that the position that we have reached, which I hope will be endorsed by ECOFIN, will get the balance right. Conservative Members are rightly agitated about the level of fraud in Europe. They want something done about it now, yet they rail against a measure that will allow us to do precisely that while maintaining the integrity and independence of those who will be charged with investigating fraud.

rose—

I cannot remember which hon. Member was first, but I give way to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I will then make some progress.

Transparency of information is crucial in stopping fraud. Where within the proposal is the mechanism for asking searching questions, as happens under our constitution? It is all very well having an auditor—we have an auditor already—but if one cannot get to the truth from outside, there is scope for continuing corruption.

The hon. Gentleman has either not been listening or is determined not to listen to what I have said on the issue. The director of the office of fraud prevention will have all the powers that he wants. He or she will have the powers to demand documents, to enter buildings, to summon witnesses and to report independently. He or she will be accountable more widely than just to the European Commission, which is what the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about. On all those tests, the criterion of independence that the hon. Gentleman rightly seeks is satisfied.

In my and the Government's view, the changes are radical and will make a real difference in tackling fraud.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

As it is my hon. Friend.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend.

I have sitting been through these debates for 15 years and they are very interesting. I presume that the director of the new office will produce an annual report. Will that annual report be presented to the House of Commons? Will it be presented at the same time as the report of the European Court of Auditors? Will we have an opportunity to debate the contents of the director's report?

That is a good question. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"] Amazingly, I do not know all the answers to all the questions, but I am happy to listen to what my hon. Friend has suggested. I am happy to listen to the Public Accounts Committee's views on the issue. I assure my hon. Friend that, when the director and fraud office undertake their work, they will report not just to the Commission but to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The question that my hon. Friend asks about reporting to the Westminster Parliament is important. We shall explore it, if that is helpful.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I will make some progress because many Members want to speak in the debate and it is right that they should have an opportunity to do so.

The publication of the report of the independent experts—and the subsequent resignation, rightly, of the Commission and the President—provides the opportunity for a more radical overhaul still of the style of Europe's institutions. The report of the committee of wise men was damning, revealing complacency, a lack of accountability and nepotism. It revealed, as the Prime Minister said, systemic failings in the Commission which had been tolerated for too long.

That brings me to an important issue. Before the Conservative party gets too high and mighty about the problem of fraud in Europe, it is worth remembering that it was in power and in government for 18 years. The Conservatives had the chance to act and failed to do so because, on Europe, they were weak, divided and isolated. All the tough words from the shadow Chancellor and in the motion count for precisely nothing because, in opposition as in government, the Conservatives remain weak, divided and isolated on the question of Europe.

Let us not forget that the man responsible for overseeing the chaos in the Commission, Jacques Santer, was the choice of the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Indeed, Mr. Santer was the choice of the Conservative party. When he was a Treasury Minister, the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—I note that he is not here today—said:

"we are happy with Mr. Santer and we wish him well. He shows every sign, based on his record, of running an efficient and effective Commission."

He was wrong.

There were one or two exceptions, as always—but the party that now condemns Mr. Santer was responsible for putting him there in the first place.

This Government are getting on with the process of reform and modernisation. We have proposed rootand-branch changes to improve the Commission's financial management, accountability and transparency. We now look to Mr. Prodi to drive the reform process forward.

Our reform proposals build on the success that we have achieved to date in tackling fraud. The shadow Chancellor alleged that we have not achieved much. I have a long list which I will run through for his benefit and that of the House. During our presidency, we strengthened anti-fraud operations in Europe. For the first time, European Finance Ministers dealt with fraud in a concerted way. For the very first time, member states reported to ECOFIN on their responses to the Court of Auditors report as it affected their countries. That is a welcome development which we want to continue.

We have used the Agenda 2000 negotiations to push for more effective, better-managed expenditure, with tighter EU spending limits than ever before. On structural funds, the Government have supported the simplification to reduce irregularities and to improve project management. On the common agricultural policy, we have strongly supported moves away from market intervention in favour of direct support for farmers where that is necessary for social or environmental reasons. Each and every one of these reforms will help encourage sounder financial management. That is what the Conservative party appears, at least, to be so concerned about.

This Government have been delivering in the war on fraud in Europe. Nobody pretends it is easy—it is not. It will be a long and hard battle, but we are determined to protect the interests of UK taxpayers.

The Minister made it clear a moment ago that he felt that it was quite right that the Commission, which had performed appallingly, should go. Do the Government support the fact that, several months later, the members of the Commission are still in their offices?

The work of the Commission continues, and it is important that we have somebody who can take decisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible this time round if we actually got the right people to do the job. It will take some time to secure the best candidates, as I am sure we will. Since the hon. Gentleman is so keen on transparency and accountability, I hope that he will recognise that it is important that the European Parliament has its say about the appointment of the new Commissioners. It is also important that Mr. Prodi, as the new President of the Commission, has a hand in shaping a team that will help drive forward the modernisation and reform programme that we all want in Europe.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way for a moment. I have given way on umpteen occasions and I really must make progress.

The contrast with the record of the Conservative party when it was in Government could not be clearer. The Conservatives stood out against the introduction of qualified majority voting in the area of fraud prevention. To pretend, as the shadow Chancellor has, that fraud in Europe has somehow only just been invented flies in the face of the facts.

The annual statement of assurance by the European Court of Auditors shows that the level of substantive errors, including fraud, on EU payment transactions rose from 4 per cent. in 1994 to 5.4 per cent. in 1996. According to press briefings, it fell to 5.1 per cent. in 1997. Nobody pretends that such a level is in any way acceptable, but the figures give the lie to the claim sometimes made by the Conservative party, that the problem is not being tackled.

The shadow Chancellor alleged that spending on specific anti-fraud measures in the 1999 EC budget is falling. In fact, spending on those measures is about 4 million euros higher than in the 1997 budget, which was agreed when the Conservatives were in power. The Labour Government are putting our money where our mouth is on tackling fraud in Europe.

The Tories failed to tackle the problem of fraud when they were in government and their party is still failing to take a clear and concerted stand on the issue in Europe. Here I come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), and to the shadow Chancellor's allegations about the events leading to the resignation of the Commission and the President.

It is worth reminding the House of the real sequence of events. In early January, it was the leader of the European parliamentary Labour party, Alan Donnelly, who first proposed setting up an independent group of experts to make comprehensive improvements in financial management and accountability. It was Edward McMillan-Scott, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs, who refused Mr. Donnelly's invitation to take a cross-party approach to investigating fraud allegations in the European Commission.

When the European Parliament voted later in January to set up a committee of experts—the so-called committee of wise men—to investigate fraud and mismanagement, of the 17 Conservative MEPs, three abstained on the issue and 12 voted against.

Will the Minister give way?

No. The hon. Lady had her chance and she blew it.

What is more, after many months of detailed work by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, Conservative MEPs voted against a Members' statute with detailed rules on MEPs' pay and conditions. Only this month, they voted against a cut in MEPs' salaries and against MEPs having to provide receipts for expenses. The record of the Tory party on fraud in Europe, either in government or in opposition, does not stand up to scrutiny. The party is isolated in Europe, talking tough but failing to act in Britain's national interest. On fraud, as in so many other areas, the party says one thing to the people of Britain and does another thing in Europe.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a serious matter to raise. I put a question to the Minister, to which he was kind enough to listen. It was a very specific question, and I am worried that the House is being misled on the point. Pauline Green tabled a motion for resolution, calling for the resignation of all the Commissioners and—

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.

The Leader of the Opposition, perhaps in recognition of the chaos in the Conservative party on these issues, has called for what he describes as a mix-and-match approach to European policy. Mix-and-match it certainly is. Here in the Westminster Parliament the British Conservative party rails against fraud, yet in the European Parliament the Conservative party votes against taking action on fraud.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to me, and I hope that the House will not engage in the low politics that the Opposition spokesman adopted earlier, especially his refusal to allow others to respond to his comments. I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the manifesto of the European People's party, which says:

"EU citizenship should be further developed as an expression of a sense of belonging to the Union. The European Union needs a constitution."

Does that contradict the policy of the British Conservative party?

I am sure that the Opposition will be interested to hear what their colleagues in the European Parliament have signed up to. Perhaps it is worth reminding them that five Tory MEPs sit on the executive committee of the European People's party that drew up the manifesto. Two Tory MEPs are vice-presidents of that grouping, and one is its chief whip, so they can hardly disclaim the manifesto on which it will fight the European elections.

Today's debate is revealing. Nobody pretends that fraud in Europe is not an important issue. It is. But there are a host of other important issues in Europe that the Conservative party would prefer to avoid. It cannot debate the single European currency, it cannot debate social reform in Europe and it cannot debate economic policy in Europe—because the Tory party is split from top to bottom on Europe. It says one thing in Europe and another in Britain. It cannot agree on fighting fraud, it cannot agree on the single currency, and it cannot even agree on taxation policy.

The Conservative party in Britain is so extreme that it cannot even agree with its own European MEPs. It is no longer a party that engages with Europe but a party that opposes Europe. Such a party cannot deliver the goods for Britain in Europe, and all the tough talk from the Opposition Benches—

rose—

I am winding up now.

All the tough talk cannot disguise the fact that the Conservative party is weak and isolated, whereas the Government are strong and engaged. The Conservatives have no credibility on fraud or any other European issue. All their double-talk about cleaning up Europe fools nobody. The Tories cannot agree about waging the war on fraud because they are too busy waging war on each other. It is this party and this Government who are heading the fight against fraud in Europe. It is this Government who are now playing a leading role in Europe, and it is the Labour party that is shaping a new Europe that will benefit Britain and its people. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition motion and back the amendment.

5.8 pm

The motion invites us to condemn fraud and calls for stronger action against it. I am happy to support that, so far as it goes, whatever the original motives behind its being brought before the House. The fundamental issue at stake, which concerns many of us who are broadly in support of the European project—I think that that includes many Conservative Members, as well as Members from my party and the Labour party—is the fact that fraud is not merely undesirable in itself, but undermines the legitimacy of Europe.

We therefore demand that action against fraud be taken not only at the level of the lowest common denominator of European Governments and at the average level of enforcement, but that best practice should be followed. The Chief Secretary rightly used the phrase "zero tolerance". That is exactly the philosophy that should inspire action against fraud whether in the Commission or in the Parliament, and we support it.

It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman claims that his party thinks highly of Europe, but he is the only representative from his party present for this debate.

I expect that my colleagues are happy for me to carry the banner on their behalf. We strongly support a firm policy on fraud, but it should be put in context. Those of us who sit on European Standing Committee B see the work of the auditors, and I am always struck by the use of the phrase "fraud and irregularities" to describe malpractice in Europe. Some 90 per cent. of the cases that the Court of Auditors uncovers are irregularities—incorrect form filling and failure to follow proper procedure—and do not involve criminal fraud. Irregularities are of course unacceptable and financial procedures must be tightened up, but there is a big distinction between that and fraud. The headline figures for fraud and irregularities are frequently used to exaggerate the extent to which fraud exists in the European Union.

Much of the fraud in European budgetary activities takes place in member states. It is useful to compare the behaviour of individual member states with the behaviour of Commission institutions. Before the debate, I looked at the Customs and Excise figures on criminal fraud in the British system. Our estimates are that around 5 per cent.—or £2 billion a year—of the total domestic excise budget is subject to fraud, which is a similar figure to that for European budgets, especially on the revenue side. Therefore, there is nothing specifically European about fraud. The Conservatives are presumably aware of that which is why they have proposed cutting cigarette duty—one of the main sources of fraud.

This country has an effective value-for-money unit within the National Audit Office. It is not only fraud that is pulling the European Union down, but the fact that money is not spent as effectively as possible to achieve its objectives. We should pay great attention to both aspects.

That is an excellent point. One of the issues on which my colleagues are campaigning in the election is that the role of the Court of Auditors should be enlarged to cover fraud and irregularities and value for money, in the same way as our Comptroller and Auditor General or district auditors. That is a helpful suggestion and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it.

The level of fraud is important, but so is the trend. Some of the examples mentioned by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) were rather antique. Mr. Marin' s exploits should of course be brought to light, but the example cited took place in 1987 or 1988. The trend in fraud figures is more relevant today. The trend recorded by the Commission through its investigations in the "Fight Against Fraud" report, which is published every year, showed last year a decline of 13 per cent. in fraud and irregularities on the agricultural budget, and a 50 per cent. decline in fraud in relation to structural funds. Many of the actions being taken are beginning to bear fruit.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Commissioner by name. Does his party support the Conservative proposal to name and shame individual Commissioners, such as Commissioner Mann and Commissioner Cresson, and to give the European Parliament the power to sack individual Commissioners? The Government are not minded to support that, but will the Liberal Democrats do so?

I thought that those Commissioners had already been named and shamed, and fired. It is not entirely clear what additional value would be gained from that proposal.

I wish to suggest what action should be taken, and I believe that we should build on proposals already made. One relates to the Court of Auditors, which performs an important role and should be enlarged. The key area is the independent fraud office, and we welcome its strengthening. I believe that it is now called OLAF, rather than UCLAF. The Chief Secretary listed many additional powers that OLAF will have, and that is welcome. It will be a more genuinely investigative agency.

I have one or two questions about OLAF that I hope the Minister will answer later. Will it have the power of criminal arrest? Can people suspected of fraud be arrested by OLAF? That is an important step, because it does not currently have those powers and is shackled by the lack of them.

I can answer that question. OLAF does not have that power. It simply has the power to present a case to the prosecuting authority in the country concerned.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but its implications are perhaps uncomfortable for some of his hon. Friends. If the independent fraud office is strengthened in the manner proposed—and in the manner many of us would like to see—it would be a considerable extension of supra-national authority to a European institution. The power to arrest in the hands of a European institution, even one with such unexceptional objectives as the avoidance of fraud, would be a considerable constitutional change. We would welcome it, but I doubt whether all Conservative Members have fully assimilated the implications.

Fraud is prevented not only by institutions but by the underlying policies. The point has already been made that because half of European spending originates in the agricultural budget, many of the problems are associated with agricultural reform. The Conservatives in government and this Government have argued for agricultural liberalisations. The Liberal Democrats regret that this year we settled for a weak compromise that achieved little on dairy farming and made small cuts in cereal prices. We are making slow progress in moving European agriculture to world prices and eliminating extensive subsidies, but there is a broad consensus about the need to do so.

I suggest that the Government should campaign in Europe to eliminate agricultural support for tobacco. Fraud is endemic in that area, but there is no justification

on economic—let alone health—grounds to subsidise that crop. The Government could usefully make policy innovations in that area.

There are specific problems associated with the workings of the Commission, at both Commissioner and official level. My colleagues in the European Parliament acquitted themselves well on that issue, and people from all parties have acted honourably in calling those responsible to account. I am delighted that tough action was taken and that the Commissioners have been asked to leave office. However, how do we ensure in the long term that the Commission works as the servant of the European public instead of being self-serving as it has recently been? The problem lies not so much with the Commissioners as with the European Commission officials, many of whom are appointed on the basis of connection with member state Governments and have a poor standard of public service. There is widespread abuse of expenses, but the officials are protected by Belgian trade unions, which operate restrictive practices that are unacceptable. The implications of reform go further than many people have yet accepted, and I am not sure whether all Conservative Members would be comfortable with the suggestion that the long-term solution is the creation of a professional international civil service that is chosen by competitive selection. That would require a high standard of professional honesty, such as obtains in our own civil service, which specifically precludes national Government interference in appointments and promotions. It would be a radical step forward. Officials would be accountable, through the Commissioners, to the European Parliament.

I hope that the Government are committed to that idea as it would greatly strengthen the credibility of the Commission and the Parliament vis a vis the Council of Ministers. We have long supported in principle evolution towards that position, although I am not sure that all the implications have been fully accepted by those who complain about the lax standards in the Commission.

Would it not be equally effective and a great deal better if the disparity of emolument between European and domestic civil servants were greatly minimised and if the career pattern of national civil servants included a period in the European bureaucracy that was seen as a means of securing advancement rather than, as is frequently the case at present, a backwater to which we can dispatch the type of civil servant who so worries the hon. Gentleman?

That is a perfectly valid point. Specific aspects of how the European Commission pays its staff—particularly expatriate allowances—seem incompatible with my idea of a proper European civil service recruited in much the same way that the staff of the World bank, whose approach to their jobs is much more professional, are recruited.

In addition to problems with the Commission, the Parliament is a wasteful institution. Points have been made about a particular Member of the European Parliament, and if he is guilty of malpractice, he should be dealt with appropriately. However, that case involves rather petty sums while rather large sums are wasted by the Parliament, primarily as a result of its operating on three sites. I hope that the Government will make it clear that rationalisation of the Parliament's operations should be a major strategic matter, which could save an estimated £100 million a year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the Commissioners who resigned in March should have ceased to hold office immediately and that none of them should be reappointed beyond his or her existing term? On the conduct of the Parliament, does he agree that it is wholly unsatisfactory that there is no record in the House of Commons Library of the declarations of interests of Members of the European Parliament? Does he agree that it should be possible to obtain a copy of the register of interests from the Library?

The latter point seems perfectly sensible. When it comes to the appointment of Commissioners, however, we should recognise that some of them acquitted themselves honourably and well, including Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kinnock. Whatever people's political standpoint, we should not tar them all with the same brush. Some selectivity should apply.

I endorse the thrust of the motion as it wishes to be tough on fraud, but I accept that considerable action has been taken, particularly in the Commission. I welcome the creation of a much tougher fraud office. I regret the fact that it is not fully independent, but it is a considerable advance. However, we will continue to press our own argument. If the European Commission and Parliament is to be much tougher on fraud, we logically require a genuine strengthening of European institutions.

5.24 pm

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I visited Brussels and Luxembourg in April to look into fraud in the European Union and what was being done about it. The visit was prompted by the National Audit Office's report, "Audit of the General Budget of the European Union for 1997 and Related Developments", and by the whistleblowing of Paul Van Buitenen, an EU official, who, incidentally, ranks as fraudulent not only those on whom he blew the whistle, but everyone else connected with the EU.

To examine fraud in the EU, one must start with what the EU does. In 1997, the total budget was about £54 billion, spent under three basic headings—the common agricultural policy, structural funds and directly managed expenditure, including aid to countries in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and budget compensation to the newest member states. The United Kingdom is the third largest contributor, paying about £1.3 billion, so our visit was thought appropriate. There is clearly a huge problem.

CAP accounts for 50 per cent. of the Budget and the NAO found errors in CAP payments amounting to around one sixth of the total. Farmers overdeclared areas eligible for subsidy for cereals and set-aside. The errors were exacerbated by generous subsidy and ineffective checks by the paying agencies. Although the overpayments may be relatively small, it would be an understatement to say that the global sum was quite big. In fact, it was huge.

The NAO also detected errors in structural funds payments, which account for about one third of the EU budget. Aid is distributed to member states for operational programmes that can last up to about six years. Often, member states declared expenditure ineligible for funding. The Commission's programme closure procedures did not detect ineligible expenditures.

About £8.9 billion was spent on external aid, but much of it does not go where it is supposed to. Only 82 per cent. of aid intended for central and eastern European countries was paid out, and only 64 per cent. of that meant for southern Mediterranean countries was paid. During 1998, the Commission uncovered suspected fraud in humanitarian aid. The ECHO affair, as it was called, involved aid to Yugoslavia and the great lakes region of Africa. Since 1992, £420 million has gone missing from that project.

In 1998, the PAC reported waste, error and fraud in EU expenditure programmes. Frankly, matters are no better a year later. Four examples of the most appalling cases of fraud are contained in the NAO report.

The first deals with cigarette smuggling from Montenegro. The report states:

"One of the main routes used by crime syndicates for trafficking cigarettes was through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The cigarettes are loaded onto speedboats declared to be bound for Italy and are offloaded on the Adriatic Coast as contraband. The sole purpose of this is to divert them to the European Union black market. The Commission estimates that this activity results in a loss to the Community General Budget of some … £410 million".

The second example relates to the fraudulent import of olive oil. The report states:

"Olive oil claimed to be in transit for Israel and Turkey was in fact unloaded in the Community through an ingenious subterfuge. Two ships sailed from France with cargoes of olive oil and sunflower oil. The ships docked in Italy and unloaded the olive oil, but claimed that it was sunflower oil so that the lower level of duty was payable on it. To cover up the fraud, the perpetrators pretended to sell the sunflower oil in exchange for olive oil, even to the extent of driving around empty lorries to justify purchases of fuel. As a result of this fraud, some 5.1 million ECU (£3.4 million) of customs duties were evaded and some … £1.2 million … aid was claimed without entitlement."

The third case related to tourism. In 1990, the European year of tourism was launched. By 1999, 76 bodies or individuals were subject to criminal proceedings or additional inquiries in member states and £3.5 million had been fraudulently paid out.

The last fraud that needs to be mentioned is the Leonardo programme, a four-year youth training programme with a budget of about £450 million, headed by Commissioner Edith Cresson of France. Favouritism and irregularities were rife. All the cases that I have mentioned substantiate the view that there is large-scale organised crime across national borders.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tourism fraud was exposed by the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Mr. McMillan-Scott? That shows the seriousness that Conservatives attach to fraud.

I do not for one moment dispute that. I do not attempt to make political points.

The Public Accounts Committee went to Brussels and Luxembourg to see the problems of fraud in the EU. The situation is deplorable and something needs to be done about it.

I do not seek to minimise the terrible things to which my hon. Friend refers, but is it not a fact that about 85 per cent. of the EU budget is controlled not by EU institutions but by national member states? One of the problems with which we are dealing is something over which EU institutions do not have control. It is a problem of transfers between one member state and another, for example, as regards the tobacco scams and other scams to which my hon. Friend has referred.

My hon. Friend is partly right and partly wrong. There is tremendous irregularity and fraud within the Commission. I agree that a great deal of responsibility lies with the member states, but we cannot blame just one section of the EU. The whole thing seems corrupt. I believe that corruption and fraud are much more prevalent across the EU than in the UK. The standards of probity in public affairs in the UK are higher than in most other western European countries. The report of the National Audit Office refers to places such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal. I do not mean to be disrespectful to those countries, but their record is appalling.

Financial arrangements in the European Union lend themselves to misappropriation and misuse of funds. The structure of the EU is bureaucratic rather than democratic. There appears to be little control over those who participate in corruption and fraud and little effort or capacity to get rid of them. It appears from the examples that I have given that about 10 per cent. of the EU budget is misappropriated and not spent on the purpose for which it was designated. That mis-spend amounts to about £5 billion a year. That is an incredible amount of money.

With great respect to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I got the impression from his speech that he was complacent. We heard the same arguments from him as I heard from the European Court of Auditors. The auditors seemed to say, "There is misappropriation and one would expect that to happen with such a huge budget." I do not think that one can say that. The Commission should have high standards.

The recent disclosures by Van Buitenen were already well known before he blew the whistle. It was clear what was going on and he happened to bring it to the fore. Everyone knew what was going on. He showed that the standards of the Commissioners were anything but proper, and collectively they had to resign. The Commissioners ought to have been setting high standards, but they were not. Examples of nepotism and manipulation of funds emerged.

On our visit to Brussels and Luxembourg, we met representatives of the Commission, the EU anti-fraud organisations and the committee of independent experts set up by the European Parliament to examine the way in which the Commission detects and deals with fraud. The anti-fraud organisation, known as UCLAF, has an atrocious record and was clearly unable to do an effective job. It has now been replaced by OLAF. I was little impressed, bearing in mind the seriousness of the situation. The only thing that was apparent was complacency.

We met the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament. Although it recognised the problems and played its part in triggering the resignation of the Commissioners, the fact is that it knew for years that fraud and waste were rampant, yet it tolerated the situation. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee tolerating such a situation? I cannot, but that seems to be the way things are.

We had a meeting with the European Court of Auditors. That filled me with horror. Its members were apparently so complacent, and I told them so. One of the most disgraceful aspects of EU administration is not only that large sums of money in budgets cannot be properly accounted for but that the auditing and signing-off of EU accounts often runs years into arrears as a result of lax accounting systems, some of which are seemingly riddled with fraud. We all know that it is impossible to run any organisation efficiently without accurate, up-to-date accounts.

It seems to me that the problem with the EU Court of Auditors is the same as in so much of the rest of the EU. Those able and willing to set high standards are dragged down by those who are much more easy going. One amazing statement made at our meeting with the auditors was that fraud was a price worth paying for the Union. I may have misunderstood that because I was dropping off to sleep, but I do not think so. Well, they may think that, but I disagree with them.

After our visit to the EU, the Committee was unanimous in its conclusions. There need to be significant and urgent improvements in the financial culture governing European spending. These issues are central to public confidence and fundamental to the democratic legitimacy of Europe. The Commission must define more clearly who is accountable to whom and for what.

We found that the current arrangements for investigating and prosecuting cases of abuse were inadequate. Rapid action is required to reform the procedures for identifying and handling cases of suspected fraud within the Commission and other EU institutions. That should include a strong, independent head of fraud investigations with statutory protection from dismissal.

The National Audit Office report concludes that it is important that the Commission and member states keep up the pressure on effective implementation of the sound and efficient Management 2000 initiative, which simplifies schemes so that they can be easily and effectively managed and so that the risk of fraud can be reduced. The NAO also concludes that effective action must be taken to pursue and repress fraud across the EU budget. Better arrangements are needed for combating fraud and corruption involving EU institutions.

I intended to sit down and say no more at this stage, which would probably delight everyone, but after listening to the Opposition, I should like to add an extra item. The approach that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have taken to the debate is so sad. They have attempted to make EU fraud a party political issue. It is an important issue. The Tory record in government was hopeless. All the cases of fraud that I have mentioned started in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the previous Government were in power. It is important that this debate has taken place, but why do the Opposition always shoot themselves in the foot? It is plain daft to try to lay the blame on the Government and Labour Members of the European Parliament for allowing fraudulent activities to go on in the EU. The activities have been going on for years, and went on all through the time of Tory government.

I did not intend to ascribe blame, but after hearing the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I will. If any blame is to be ascribed, I suggest that 18 years of Tory government in which nothing was done speaks for itself.

5.39 pm

I am bound to say that until the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) came to his extra points, I agreed with almost everything he had to say. He and I both serve on the Public Accounts Committee and there is broad agreement about what has gone wrong. He and I can debate vigorously many political issues all day long, but until he came to his last item I endorsed his remarks this afternoon. When he came to his final and quickly added last point, and as he looked at the Government Whip and thought that he should score some political points, he was wrong, in that he failed to notice that the Chief Secretary seemed to have swallowed, hook, line and sinker the idea that OLAF will do a more effective job than UCLAF does now. I understand the Government's having agreed to the proposals for the amendment in the regulations that will deliver OLAF and wishing to say that all will be put right, but I believe that the Chief Secretary is absolutely wrong on that.

As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the Public Accounts Committee visited Brussels and Luxembourg last month. Several of the Committee members either were in their place or are now. I wish to make a couple of comments about the visit to place in context my remarks about the anti-fraud effort.

The Committee's object in its visit was to examine how financial control and accountability of EU funds could be improved within the Commission and in member states. In Brussels, the Committee took evidence from the Commission, UCLAF, the Commission's anti-fraud unit, the budgetary control committee of the European Parliament, Mr. Van Buitenen—the whistleblower—and the committee of independent experts. In Luxembourg, it took evidence from the European Court of Auditors.

Although the Committee's report of its foray into the heart of Euroland will not be published until after next month's European elections, I formed the clear impression—my Committee colleagues who are present in the Chamber can either confirm or deny this—that the Committee was quickly united across party lines in its criticism of the complacency, arrogance, self-interest, lack of even the most rudimentary management discipline, absence of financial controls and failure to tackle fraud that was clearly evident wherever we went.

In a press release agreed by the Committee, there was a call for significant and urgent improvement in the financial culture governing European spending, for better controls to protect the interests of the European taxpayer and for an accounting system based on robust independent and expert procedures. The Committee registered its dismay that proposals to reform UCLAF—this is where I disagree with the Chief Secretary—in the form of the new OLAF fell well short of delivering a genuinely independent anti-fraud unit.

Given the limited time for the debate, I shall resist the temptation to regale the House with the full extent of the financial shambles and the self-serving bureaucratic intrigue that masquerades as the government-in-waiting for Europe. I shall concentrate instead on the inadequacy of the attempts to protect the Community budget from fraud.

There is little doubt but that fraud and financial irregularity are rife throughout the EU spending programme. There is fraud at national level in member states, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) was allowing—for example, in the common agricultural policy. However, some of the most spectacular rip-offs have taken place under the nose of the Commission, and these were the ones highlighted by Mr. Van Buitenen.

As we have heard, the Leonardo youth training programme, worth £450 million, has been riddled with mismanagement, and blatant favouritism has been shown to certain contractors. The Commission's tourism unit, which has already been alluded to, has been defrauded of at least £3.5 million. The Med programme of economic assistance in the southern member states has been hijacked by a network of firms which has run rings round Commission officials, at huge cost to the European taxpayer. The humanitarian aid office, ECHO, cannot account for £420 million from last year's budget alone. These are only some of the horror stories.

Pitted against corruption is UCLAF, the anti-fraud unit, which operates from within the Commission's central secretariat. That location is a handicap in itself because the Commission is staffed with appointees long on horse-trading skills but short on management instincts. This means that the Commission is an establishment in which transparency and individual accountability are literally foreign concepts. That makes it unsurprising that UCLAF was doomed to failure from its inception.

UCLAF is not, as some people suppose, an internal audit service. Members of the PAC will appreciate that. It may act on audit data produced by the European Court of Auditors, which itself is not allowed to investigate suspected cases of fraud. For some reason best known to the bureaucrats, UCLAF is not allowed to pursue active fraud investigations either. It is merely authorised to assess the financial sums at risk and then draw up cases for submission to public prosecutors in the member states.

In the unlikely event that UCLAF identifies a case for prosecution within the Commission itself, under whose roof it sits, it is supposed to draw that suspected fraud to the attention of the Belgian prosecutors. In other words, UCLAF is not a fraud-busting unit but a co-ordinator of allegations of fraud for the benefit of national prosecutors in member states.

Inevitably this cumbersome and unwieldy procedure has failed to produce results or to deter fraud, and it has already been widely condemned. The Court of Auditors has complained that UCLAF has no standard system for opening, monitoring and concluding procedures. The court says that UCLAF lacks operational procedures for storing and monitoring information, cannot manage its case load effectively and causes long, needless delays.

UCLAF's procedures for dealing with internal discipline and corruption are unclear and incomplete as well. The Court of Auditors has accused it of what it delicately describes as "exaggerated hesitation" before lifting the immunity of staff suspected of fraud. That is because it is under the Commission's roof, of course. Meanwhile, the committee of independent experts has said that UCLAF's remit within the Commission is less clear than it should be and claims that UCLAF appears to be in competition with the internal audit function. The UCLAF staff lack professional skills and often slow down procedures so that the audit trail goes dead. In short, the entire UCLAF operation is a farce. The fraudsters thrive and the taxpayer loses out.

To remedy this sorry state of affairs, at the end of last year the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament drew up a proposed regulation for a new fraud prevention office—son of UCLAF, as it were—to be called OLAF, an acronym with a Nordic ring of financial rectitude and authority. This seemingly worthwhile initiative quickly became bogged down in utter confusion when the Council of Ministers resisted the very sensible idea that OLAF should be a distinct legal entity, separate from the Commission, with extra powers of investigation within member states.

After much wheeling and dealing, and to nobody's surprise, OLAF is to stay under the Commission's umbrella, but regulations will be amended to give its new director greater responsibility for the recruitment and promotion of staff and the power to ask for oral information from employees of the Community institutions.

The new director is to report regularly to the Parliament and he will be monitored by an independent external committee. In practice, however, the EU staff regulations, which have for years throttled any attempt to promote outstandingly talented officials, are so prohibitive that OLAF will inherit and be required to keep most of the old UCLAF personnel, in spite of their known lack of professional qualifications. The new director will not be independent at all. He will still be in thrall to the Commission and will have nothing like the clout which national audit offices enjoy in, for example, the United Kingdom—most especially, in Holland or in the Scandinavian member states.

So in spite of the courage of the whistleblower, the condemnation of the Commission by the independent committee of experts and the grand theatrical gesture—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not for the moment. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will have much to say, but time is short and I have nearly come to a conclusion. He always does have a lot to say, and it is always of interest.

In spite of the grand theatrical gesture of the Commission's mass resignation and the fight against fraud, that which is being proposed leaves the EU toothless in its anti-fraud effort. It is all talk and no action. The will to improve accountability and transparency simply does not exist, and the inevitable consequence will be that corruption will increase.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will allow me a moment longer. For those of us of a sceptical nature, none of this will be surprising. The sceptics might agree with me that the United Kingdom should insist on a properly functioning single market, tried and tested over a suitable period, before the Euro-zealots try to rush headlong into experiments with an unworkable single currency, and into economic and monetary union as a prelude to their real goal of a federal state.

It is essential that the scandal of financial malpractice and fraud in Brussels be adequately addressed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's cautious, step-by-step approach to further integration in the European Union is absolutely right, and why the Government's timidity in dealing with OLAF, which is not an effective successor to UCLAF, is so disappointing.

Euro-enthusiasts of an uncritical disposition ignore the failure of anti-fraud measures at their peril. If the difficulties of checking fraud seem formidable now, they will become far worse if they are not resolved before the EU goes in for more enlargement and yet further extension of treaty competence. With respect to EU fraud, a stitch in time might save nine, but those in Brussels have hidden the needle and lost the thread.

5.51 pm

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Chamber reminds me of a Public Accounts Committee meeting, but it is the stronger for that.

Tackling fraud in the European Union is an important matter. It is too important to be kicked around by the Opposition during a European election campaign. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).

I, too, am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and took part in the visit to Brussels and Luxembourg last month. I do not want to pre-empt the report that will be produced for the House, but I shall make a few observations.

I wonder how many of my colleagues recently received, as I did, a letter appealing to me to support the Conservative party in the forthcoming European election. The letter does not state which Conservative party, but it sets out one of the planks of the Conservatives' campaign, which we heard from the shadow Chancellor this afternoon. It suggests "doing less better" in Europe as one way of tackling fraud. That is an interesting phrase, "doing less better"—presumably there is a comma in it somewhere. It smacks of one of those focus groups which, we understand, are having an increasing influence on Conservative party policy.

For Conservatives to aim to do less, but better, and at the same time to cut the resources paid to Europe, raises some interesting questions. Does "doing less better" mean avoiding or scrapping EU undertakings where fraud is a problem? Given that fraud is a major problem in the common agricultural policy, does it mean scrapping parts of the CAP for British farmers? If so, they should be told about that.

If "doing less better" means that, because there has been fraud in the tourism programme, we should walk away from it, the people of the constituency that I represent should be told. We benefit from £640,000 of European help for tourism in my area. If there is fraud in the ECHO programme, as we have been told, does that mean a block on further humanitarian aid to countries such as Yugoslavia? We need to know.

A much more productive approach would be to make progress on developing a system of proper audit and accountability across Europe. That would require co-operation between member states, as well as leadership, rather than shouting from the sidelines. Listening to some of the Opposition spokesmen this afternoon, one would be led to believe that fraud never occurred during the 18 years in which they were in power, or until Van Buitenen blew his whistle. However, the evidence of fraud in the EU was well known.

In the tourism programme since 1989, more than 70 individuals and organisations have been implicated in wrongdoing, yet it took two years to get rid of the head of the unit, and the director general eventually went in October 1996 only on condition that he was allowed to retire

"in the interests of the service".

Nepotism, misuse of funds and mismanagement of the programme were taking place, yet at the end of it all, the leader of the Tory MEPs said:

"I know that what has been going on for years has now been exposed."

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) says that he played a part in exposing the fraud, and good on him, but the Tories cannot have it both ways. They cannot take credit when fraud is exposed in Europe, and deny that there was fraud there while they were in government.

Even after that, rather shamefully, Tory and Liberal MEPs failed to back Labour MEPs, as we have heard, in their efforts to set up the committee of independent experts. Progress has been made only because certain Governments, particularly our own, have been willing to take the lead and grasp the nettle.

I am trying to adopt a positive approach. Assuming that we accept that Britain's future lies in the European Union—at least half of the Conservative party accepts that—and if we acknowledge that the present Government will not last for ever, we should seek common ground, not only in the House, but with our partners in Europe. We must seize the opportunity for root-and-branch reform.

There is common ground, despite the impression given by the shadow Chancellor, and there should be common cause. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said, members of the Public Accounts Committee were united by their view of the complacency that characterised the Commission and parts of the Parliament. That complacency helps to explain the failure to act to root out fraud earlier.

However, the complacency is not universal. I did not detect complacency among the committee of independent experts or among the growing group who are proponents of what might be called a Danish-Dutch-British model of accountability and right of access in the EU. We need to build on that consensus.

Common ground is emerging on the need to develop a new and modern European accounting and audit culture which improves procedures across the member states where 85 per cent. of the budget it spent. There is also common ground on the view that the 15 per cent. of the budget that is spent by the Commission should also be properly accounted for. The Commission cannot shrug its shoulders and say that there are more important matters, such as enlargement, to worry about. I hope that both sides of the debate can unite behind the approach that I have outlined.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the first minute of his speech. As the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), our colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, has joined us, I want to put a question to him that is important in the context of the debate.

All of us who went to Brussels and Luxembourg were struck by the need for dramatic changes—the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) just referred to the Danish-Dutch-British model of accountability. Earlier the hon. Member for Croydon, Central raised as a psychological barrier the need for a treaty change. The Prime Minister has argued that we need root-and-branch reform. Treaty change is not as difficult as it is sometimes portrayed. It is often used as a barrier when it is not one. There have been intergovernmental conferences that have decided on such matters in one day. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, as I do, that we should go for radical reform, or for an interim measure?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) will want to make his own case. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) expects me to answer that question. The issue is where we start from in this debate: whether we can agree as to what can be achieved and whether we can engage in debate constructively and positively. I think that we share common ground as to how radical that reform would need to be.

I want to make one final point about the Commissioners. In future, they cannot hide behind the idea of collective responsibility. We require a clearer understanding of who is responsible for what in the Commission and to whom people should be responsible. If there is shared concern and common ground, that begs the question, which has been asked—at least by Labour Members—as to why the previous Government failed to act sooner. Change will be extremely difficult, but not impossible. There would be much less positive influences for change if a future Government were shouting from the sidelines. Some of the necessary changes will sit uncomfortably with some of the stated aims of cutting back on the roles and resources of European institutions.

I was most interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), as I, too, want to speak about employment practices in the EU. There seems to be an employment culture that encourages temporary employment and short-termism—even, as the Committee found, among posts in UCLAF itself. Although good and trusted people may be employed under temporary contracts, such contracts can often lead to delays in making appointments. That leads to the setting up of ad hoc arrangements, which in turn lead to accusations of wrongdoing. That employment culture lends itself to nepotism and, expensively, to an over-reliance on consultants and experts.

The European Court of Auditors is aware of that problem, but does not have the power to recommend that institutions should take on more staff, even if, by doing so, European taxpayers would be given greater value for money. In any case, the Court of Auditors is itself constrained by an annual budget that is £10 million less than that of this country's National Audit Office. We were told by the shadow Chancellor that that was one of the legacies of the previous Government.

We require serious debate about resources and how they are used, and about the role of institutions such as the European Court of Auditors. It will not do to try to transfer a particular national model—even our excellent British model. We need to develop a new, European model of audit and accountability, even if those words may be alien to some Members of the House. Tackling fraud relies on constructive engagement in Europe; it cannot be achieved from a position of isolation. This is a serious issue; it is worth much more than to be used as a weapon to beat an anti-European drum. It requires direction and leadership in Europe; I have seen no evidence of that from the Leader of the Opposition, in terms either of Europe or of his own party.

6.3 pm

In a rare and delicate fashion, I want to raise the debate above the party political level and move it into a more open and nationalistic mode. If any Member of the House were to go out into the highways and byways of Westminster to ask the average British citizen what he or she thought about the financial control of Europe, or what that person thought about the way in which Europe looked after taxpayers' money, there would be, first, a snort of derision, followed by a reply that could probably not be repeated in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unparliamentary."] As my colleagues advise me, the answer would be unparliamentary.

Whatever view one takes of Europe—whether one is for or against integration, or for or against the euro—it boils down to the fact that all of us in the Chamber share a unity of desire to see better accountability of taxpayers' money, so that it is more effectively spent in the European Union. I have no doubt that many of the reservations that are expressed as to the size of the EU budget and the size of the British contribution to that budget are influenced by the thought that, at present, that money is not being well spent.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who gave us a trailer for the Conservative party' s European manifesto. That manifesto argues for a reduction in contributions, something that I can support. The pressure for efficiency will become more important, especially as the EU enlarges following the admission of central and eastern European states. That will mean that even larger sums will be involved and, unless there is change, there will be an even greater opportunity for larger sums to be mis-spent and mishandled. With efficiency gains, we can have the penny and the bun. We can still achieve the same objectives, but with lower contributions.

For that reason, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee—three quarters of whose Members are in the Chamber—I supported the suggestion in our debate earlier this year that we should have an away day to Brussels and Luxembourg so that we could see exactly how the financial controls inside the Commission were implemented. Bluntly, I found a worrying lack of direct accountability, a lack of clear lines of responsibility and a lack of the use of the effective accounting and auditing mechanisms that we take for granted in the UK.

There is a divide between what happens in the UK and what happens in Brussels. The European Parliament is flabby. It must take a firm grip of the situation and ensure that the European Commission has more effective direct management of expenditure, with particular reference to its external aid programmes. At present, it is impossible to tell how fully the Commission has been able to meet programme objectives and how external aid programmes have been operated to ensure that they do not suffer from fraud. We need the implementation and control of schemes that are not susceptible to fraud; at present, the way in which those schemes are set up leaves them wide open to fraud. That is an example of all the problems that are coming from Europe.

I could spend the next half hour going through all the scams that have been running in EU operations during the past few years. I fully accept that many of those scams took place under the previous Conservative Administration. However, that does not mean that we should stop considering them now. We must try to make improvements and move on from the arguments advanced by the Conservative Government at the time of the Maastricht treaty.

I stagger with disbelief at how some of those scams could have gone through. One example is the beef export refund scheme. That scheme carried an inherent risk because the rate of refund for different countries outside the EU varied. Our National Audit Office found that we sent 5 million kg of beef to Mauritius, where there are 1 million people. Surprise, surprise—one of the highest amounts of support was paid for that import.

More recently, in relation to fishing vessels, EU funds were used as incentives for people to fish outside European waters—an objective that we all support—but what did we find? In 90 per cent. of cases, the vessels subsidised were either inactive—sunk—or those people were already fishing outside the EU. That 90 per cent. represented a slight shortfall on the programme objectives. Those who accompanied me on the away day will know what a sacrifice I make by not mentioning the cochineal beetle scam—that was a joy and a wonder to behold.

My worry is that the case of the whistleblower is not a one-off. We must remember that the whistleblower was not a civil servant acting on a whim, who took action on the spur of the moment. For month after month, he tried to persuade his superiors to take an interest in the concerns that he had raised and to take action. From what I gather, the reaction that he received was either direct hostility—that he would be fired if he continued—and threats of other consequences if he did not desist; or initial expressions of interest, only to be followed by the individuals whom he had approached saying that he should forget all about it.

That typifies my concerns about the way in which the Commission operates, that it is far too incestuous and lacking in outside direct and clear accountability. The Commissioners do not appear to own their own directorates, by which I mean that they are far too involved in the creation of policy instead of in directing policy—the tail wags the dog. In turn, the Commissioner becomes more and more a creature of the directorate, rather than the driving force of policy creation. Unless Commissioners exhibit clear independence of thought in the near future, the EU will not drive forward progressively, but will remain locked in a stifling bureaucratic circle.

We have witnessed the resignation of the Commissioners. Until that time, the investigative UCLAF unit was controlled by, and reported to, the Commission. I shall not repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). Although it might be hotly denied, I gained the impression that the careers of individuals within that unit were closely bound up with that of the Commission, so perhaps it would not have been a career-enhancing move for individuals in UCLAF to create too large a wave inside the Commission.

There does not appear to have been an adequate Commission response to the concerns expressed by the Court of Auditors. The argument that the Commission was responsible for only 15 per cent. of expenditure, with 85 per cent. being spent by member states, is totally unacceptable. I am sure that the House believes that the Commission should accept responsibility when fraud occurs and be prepared to investigate it. The report of the committee of wise men has already been quoted, but their conclusions are worth repeating: they found a

"growing reluctance among the members of the hierarchy to acknowledge their responsibility. It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility."

That is a damning indictment of anyone in charge of a directorate of the European Commission.

I know that the Commission has the ability to investigate expenditure, even though, during our visit, we heard that denied, not once, not twice, but three times. That is unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle spoke of OLAF, son of UCLAF, and I wonder whether the new unit will be as fully independent as has been promised. I wonder whether it will be able to report fully to the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament. I am not convinced that there will be established a strong enough mechanism to ensure that such concerns are properly and adequately investigated.

I have already said that there needs to be stronger supervision by EU Commissioners of the programmes under their control, but with that has to come a clear-cut policy of prosecutions being pressed when fraud has occurred. Such matters must not be swept under the carpet and the sums lost pushed to one side—that would be unacceptable. The Court of Auditors operates fairly well, but there is no European organisation parallel to our National Audit Office that carries out value-for-money audits. That brings me to the question that I put to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). There is no body or organisation that reports directly to the European Parliament to ensure that value for money has been obtained, and no equivalent of our Public Accounts Committee to investigate budgetary irregularities or weakness. Such improvements have to be installed as a matter of urgency, if the average member of the British population is to regain confidence in the European movement.

6.14 pm

The subject of our debate today is not the Public Accounts Committee visit to Brussels and Luxembourg, although I had the pleasure of participating in that, but a motion—a facile, self-indulgent motion from a party which for 18 years held a place at the Council of Ministers but consistently failed to act on reports received from the Court of Auditors and make any headway in implementing the changes the court proposed to tackle fraud and improve accountability. In sharp contrast, the Labour Government and the current Members of the European Parliament, especially Pauline Green, have acted in such a way that, for the first time, the European Parliament refused to accept the accounts for the 1996 European budget. A committee of wise men to look into fraud, accountability and good practice was set up, which ultimately resulted in the mass resignation of the entire Commission—a great blow struck by democracy against an administration, which has led to a programme of root-and-branch reform, which we shall see emerge at the ECOFIN meeting on 25 May.

The Opposition's motion calls for the replacement of all the Commissioners, irrespective of their individual culpability. I suppose that is designed to ensure that there would be no operational continuity within the Commission—an outrageous and wrecking move. In addition, the shadow Chancellor has called for the complete institutional independence of the new fraud office, OLAF. Because a new institution would require a treaty change, which must be agreed by all member states, all current investigations would have to be suspended, perhaps for years. The result would be that fraud, instead of decreasing, would escalate out of all proportion. The Opposition motion forgets that the problems of today are linked to the isolationism of the previous Government, and ignores the fact that their proposals would plunge the Commission into chaos. Presumably, that is all part of the hidden agenda of Euro-scepticism, which led to the current Government having to sort out the BSE crisis by abandoning the isolationism and impotence that characterised the previous Government.

That said, there are serious problems with budgetary control, nepotism and so on that I shall confront, instead of addressing the schoolboy motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The new Labour Government's agenda is one of transparency, accountability, good housekeeping and partnership in Europe. It is true that, in the overall budget of about £55 billion, there is roughly a 5 per cent. irregularity. That adds up to a lot of money, but it must be recognised that, in this country, when we break down accounts by different Departments, similar rates of irregularity are not unknown—indeed, the level of irregularity in the social security budget is often nearer 8 per cent. The National Audit Office would refuse that particular departmental budget, but accept all the other Departments' budgets overall. The lesson of that is that the budget of the European Commission should be broken down into spending by the Commission, and spending by member states. It might be that the Court of Auditors would say that the transport directorate was fine, but that the structural fund or the agricultural fund was not. We have to consider breaking down budgets and focusing on areas of weakness.

On several occasions during the PAC's three-day visit, I heard well-worn anecdotes—often to do with sampling errors—explaining various irregularities. We were told that, because a road that was built did not receive an environmental audit, it was an irregularity and so formed part of the 5 per cent. financial irregularity. I was told that a 12-hectare field was measured at 13 hectares, and that that irregularity when multiplied from the sample resulted in a gross distortion of 5 per cent. Those are facile and ridiculous arguments: if sampling methodology is correct, such effects will not occur; and if sampling methodology is incorrect, it should be changed. I was shocked by the extent of the complacency with which educated people accepted such excuses for non-action on the part of the Commission.

It is true that 95 per cent. of expenditure is carried out in member states, and that 98 per cent. of irregularities occur within member states. While not being complacent about the changes that must be made in the Commission, much of the problem lies with delivery on the ground. The Commission is playing its part by trying to sort out regular systems of accountability.

We have a very good system in this place. The NAO audits all Government expenditure—putting to one side that which is audited by the Audit Commission—which then goes before the Public Accounts Committee which interviews the permanent secretary responsible for the expenditure. An equivalent system in Europe would involve the Court of Auditors examining all expenditure and bringing it before the Budgetary Control Committee, which would then interview the accounting officer, who should be the director-general of the Commission.

In fact, no one accountable person appears before the Budgetary Control Committee. In Europe, there is an authorising officer for some expenditure. He goes to a financial officer who says, "It seems to be all right, so here's the money". No one knows who is accountable. That is one of the reasons why the Commission does not have the same systems of scrutiny that operate in Britain and in other north European countries. Discussions are continuing about the need to clarify who is accountable for what. I had the pleasure of conversing with Commissioner Monti last week about that subject, and the Commission wants to make such changes.

The Court of Auditors, which conducts the audit, is located in Luxembourg and there is a 280 km round trip to travel to meetings of the Budgetary Control Committee. That committee considers reports for only 10 per cent. of its meetings. What is more, the reports that it considers have already been edited by the Commission using a method called the "contradictory process". If the Court of Auditors points out where the Commission has gone wrong, it will reply, "No, we are not wrong because of this, that and the other". The two bodies must then come to an agreement and there is a filtering of information. Members of the European Parliament, those who serve on the Budgetary Control Committee and the Commission across the road enjoy a cosy relationship. After all, the Court of Auditors—which is independent—is a long 280 km round trip away. We must consider that point.

There is obviously fraud within and outside the Commission. The Naples example has been cited. It involved the discovery that 96 per cent. of applications for subsidy for olive oil processing in Naples were irregular and fraudulent. The problem is not that the Commission sent the money but whether justice was delivered via the local legal system. I assume—perhaps my view is prejudiced—that the mafia was behind those applications. If four applications out of 100 are successful, what will stop the mafia? I do not know. The point is that legal delivery systems on the ground must stop those illegal activities.

On 25 May, a recommendation will be put before ECOFIN. I want the new OLAF body to have operational independence. The director should have statutory independence and be able to approach the European Court of Justice if his or her activities are blocked in any way. As the post would be institutionally independent, the director would have direct access to the Commission.

The Commission wants a separate institution to be created. That would take years to establish and would not allow the same sort of access. At a time when the Commission is being investigated and we know that some Commissioners are culpable, we must smell a rat: who is urging the delays? The current proposals are good. The new body should have the power to investigate fraud not just in member states but in the Court of Auditors, the Commission, the economic and social committee and in the Council of Ministers. The granting of that sort of power will require a change in statute over time, obliging officials across the European Union to report to OLAF and co-operate with its investigations. As the institutions are autonomous, we would need to grant those powers via institutional agreements signed by the institutions. They would have to agree voluntarily to grant access to OLAF. I am sure that they would do so if the right pressure were applied.

We cannot allow those involved in fraud to further their careers within the Commission. There is a danger of "rubbing shoulders". We need to evaluate and audit the nature of benefits and expenditure in those countries from which the Commissioners come. I am thinking specifically of the Commissioner who is responsible for trade with South America, whose country benefited from a disproportionate volume of trade with it. We must ask questions about that sort of occurrence. We should ask also about the nature of the cabinets, and the process whereby a Commissioner appoints several political advisers who, in many instances, determine who receives jobs in the European equivalent of the civil service: the directorates-general. Those political appointees are often given top-level civil service jobs which they are not equipped to handle. We seek efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the working of the Commission.

I believe that we should create a new post of vice-president of the Commission in charge of finance, personnel and administration. At present, that work is conducted by individual Commissioners and there are enormous differences in those operations. Romano Prodi has an opportunity to shake up the Commission and its institutions and to shake out fraud. I am sure that he has our undivided support—particularly that of Labour Members—in that endeavour.

The future of Europe and of Britain in Europe does not involve carping and adopting the pathetic divided, isolationist approach that is characterised by the Opposition. We must initiate constructive engagement to ensure greater accountability, transparency and effectiveness for a new Europe in a new millennium where are children can live with pride.

6.27 pm

It has been good to listen to a constructive and positive debate across the House. In the past, scrutiny of the European Union has been paralysed by political ambivalence. Those who support it have been reluctant to expose its failings in case it damaged their case and those who dislike the EU have believed that becoming involved in its workings somehow affords it unwarranted credibility. Therefore, the European Union has escaped proper scrutiny in this place.

I begin from the position of wanting the European Union to work well. We must introduce effective financial controls—what is more, I see no reason why those controls should not apply also to Members of the European Parliament. The need for such controls is shown by our experience in this place. During my time in Parliament, I have witnessed the almost annual tightening of the controls governing our expenditure and I see no reason why we should not insist on a similar tightening for Members of the European Parliament. If they can award themselves expenses that are out of all proportion to their costs, their capacity to scrutinise the misuse of money within the Commission is gravely damaged. The temptation of any group of unaccountable men and women to spend other people's money lavishly on themselves is very great—we have only to look at the building rising above Westminster station to recognise that fact.

It would have been appropriate if the Commissioners had departed when they resigned. Nothing would have sent a clearer signal that they felt accountable, and that is a serious missed opportunity. Of course continuity of decision making is useful, but I suspect that no great disaster would have occurred if the Commission had suffered an hiatus of a few weeks. Furthermore, the argument about fraud might have been advanced further if the European Parliament had had the power to demand the resignations of individual Commissioners.

The Council of Ministers should take some responsibility for putting pressure on EU bureaucracy. The problem is that it never wants to take serious responsibility for carrying out the policies that it creates. Over the years, we have seen a lamentable picture in every EU country when Ministers return to their national Parliament to crow when they have got what they want and to whinge about unfairness when they have not. The result of such populist behaviour has been steadily to build up a view that the Council of Ministers cannot be blamed for anything that results from its decisions.

In their reply to the report of the Select Committee on International Development on the EU development budget, the Government say:

"The Government agrees that Council policy documents are rarely effectively, consistently or comprehensively translated into operation".

If the Council of Ministers cannot ensure that its decisions are carried out effectively, I do not understand how we will get very far in dealing with even the limited matter of fraud.

Much more decision making should be returned to national states. The Government support that, and say:

"The Government agrees that the Commission should concentrate its intervention on areas where it has comparative advantage over bilateral donors."

That is in relation to the development budget. Mr. Prodi states that he supports that belief, and says:

"Only a few important things should be done in Brussels".

If we consider the mess that is so frequently made of the European Union development budget, we realise that that happens because the EU has neither the personnel nor the skill to control fraud in its development programmes. It should change the structures so that a larger part of the budget is given back to the nation states or to allow individual nations to take the lead in delivering the programmes in particular countries.

Philip Lowe, the director-general of Directorate-General VIII, pointed out, in evidence to the Select Committee, that the budgetary discipline, or lack of it, evident in the EU is far below the standard expected of its peers in

"the normal budgetary mechanism which other parts of the Commission expect".

In its reply, the Select Committee said:

"We are not surprised to see such concerns emerging from a Community where there are huge discrepancies between political priorities and administrative capacity, over commitment of funds to programmes which cannot disburse them effectively, and serious delays in the payment of some accounts."

The Government say:

"The Government supports a policy of zero tolerance of fraud."

They continue:

"We also support measures to strengthen the fraud investigation capacity of the Commission."

From what I heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), it sounds as if OLAF, son of UCLAF, will leave the fraudsters with the last "laf".

There are serious defects in the European Union, particularly in its budgetary controls, but that is no reason to seek to destroy the EU any more than housing benefit or social security fraud in the United Kingdom is a reason to seek to destroy local and central Government. Member states, including the UK, seem to be slow to respond to fraud. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee when we quizzed the Department responsible for disbursing funds in this country paid out under the CAP about CAP fraud. When we asked why no use was made of multinational investigating teams, we were told that although there were 700 staff, it would be impossible to train even a few of them in the necessary foreign language. If that failure of will is common to all member states, it is no wonder that farm fraud still accounts for nearly 1 per cent. of total agriculture expenditure.

Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall now sit down.

6.34 pm

In the time that remains, I want to make the simple point that those on both sides of the House have recognised that fraud in the Commission's spending is a very serious problem. Only the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, tried to put the problem in proportion, and he was rather unsuccessful. The fraud is widespread.

When fraud and misuse of funds within an organisation occur on that scale, they reveal not that the institution merely needs a better audit committee and a system to investigate fraud, but that it is sick within and that the problem is systemic and chronic, rather than symptomatic, and can be treated only by reform from within.

There is good testimony that approximately 5 per cent. of the EU's total budget is fraudulently spent and that approximately 5 per cent. cannot be accounted for. It is believed that 10 per cent. of the total spending is mis-spent in its end use or subject to fraud. It is important to remember that 5 per cent. of the EU budget is spent on the administrative costs of the Commission alone and, according to simple arithmetic, approximately a further 5 per cent. is spent on the European Parliament. That means that approximately 20 per cent. of the total budget is not delivered to the end user but disappears in administrative cost or through misuse. In addition, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, a large proportion of the budget is wasted through the CAP and, as a result, benefits no one very much.

The problem is long-standing, and it has been pointed out several times that it predates this Government coming into power. In 1994, a House of Lords report stated that fraud in the Commission was prevalent on a monumental scale, reaching

"into every sphere of Community activity."

Its next remark, on a subject close to my heart, struck a chord with me:

"If any of the big companies in the UK had their accounts qualified in this way the banks would call in their loans, the shareholders would evict the directors and a DTI inquiry would ensue".

That would surely be correct in any culture or environment that we know of.

Fraud starts at the top and stretches to the bottom. The culture of the EU is, at worst, one of nepotism and, at best, one of extravagance and a failure to count the pennies and look after people's money well. The Commission has displayed staggering complacency about fraud over the years. Herbert Bosch, the rapporteur on fraud to the Budgetary Control Committee, stated:

"The Commission is not seriously interested in detecting fraud. It is more interested in covering it up".

There we have the problem: there is an atmosphere and culture of indulgence throughout the Commission, which comes from within. Without fundamental reform, that will not be changed.

It is no good Labour Members simply talking about the exact nature and proportions of the fraud—we can all trade points about that, although it is important—and the independence of the fraud investigative unit. That is like trying to catch the horse after it has bolted. The issue is how we change the culture from within and create better accountability and better transparency. That process must start with a new management system, a code of ethics and a new approach to the recruitment and operation of civil servants and officials within the Commission. There must be an end to formal and informal flag-marking of jobs.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I do not have much time, and I want to make three or four more points.

The second element of reform is transparent reporting, and the issue of such information must also be timely because accounts from the Commission come out disgracefully late and are of a standard that would not be acceptable in public institutions or companies in Britain.

Thirdly, there must be a strengthened finance or budgetary commission within the EU. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will agree that the pre-eminence of the Treasury in the British governmental system is good for sound government and the use of funds. No such pre-eminence exists within the Commission. If the Commission is effectively to use funds and count pennies, it is vital that the role of the budgetary commission in following, in detail, the spending through to its end use is considerably strengthened.

Finally, there must be a new atmosphere of intolerance and toughness at the top. That must start with the Commissioners, who need explicitly to be held to account for the effectiveness of the spending and any fraud that may result.

In other words, EU fraud is not a problem for which we can graft on solutions from outside or a problem of co-operation or collaboration, but a question whether we are able to grasp the nettle fundamentally to change the culture and ethics of the Commission for ever and from within.

6.39 pm

This has been an important and, given the large number of members of the Public Accounts Committee who have spoken, a well informed debate. However, it is worth saying that it has been a long time coming. It is six months since Paul Van Buitenen revealed the scale of the fraud within the European Commission. It is two months since the report of the committee of independent experts, which led to the resignation of the entire Commission.

Immediately following the report's publication, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, asked for a debate on the report and on the whole question of European fraud. He repeated that request the following week. However, only now—eight weeks later and in Opposition time—are we finally debating the matter. That is perhaps an indication of the importance that the Government attach to tackling European fraud.

There has always been a problem with fraud and mismanagement in the European budget. The previous Government repeatedly grappled with that problem. Our task was not made easier by the fact that most member states did not have to pay anything into the European budget, and so appeared to show little interest in ensuring that it was properly spent, but, despite that, considerable progress was made.

As a result of British pressure, the Court of Auditors was established as a full institution of the Community and its reports had to be followed up. British pressure forced the Commission to agree to produce an annual report on the fight against fraud for the Council of Ministers and led to the strengthening of the Court of Auditors and the financial controls exercised by the European Parliament under the Maastricht treaty.

The most recent Court of Auditors report is unable to account for £3 billion of expenditure. Not all of that is necessarily due to fraud; maladministration, mismanagement and incompetence are undoubtedly also responsible. However, that figure represents almost half the amount that Britain contributed to the European budget in the year in question. It is money that British taxpayers worked hard to earn and to pay, and they are entitled to demand that action is taken.

Unfortunately, little has been done in the past two years. Despite Ministers' claims that fighting fraud would be a key priority of the British presidency, virtually nothing was achieved. No mention was made of any concrete action in the relevant section of the presidency conclusions following the Cardiff summit. Since then, the Government have never once put fraud and mismanagement in the European Commission on the Council of Ministers agenda. The Chief Secretary talked about the Government's attitude being zero tolerance of fraud. We have seen zero action on fraud.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have only a short time in which to make my winding-up speech.

In the 1999 preliminary draft budget, overall expenditure on preventing fraud was cut by 16 per cent. To take one sector, the draft budget line showed a reduction from 500,000 euros to 495,000 euros in expenditure on combating fraud in the textile sector. Meanwhile, restaurants and canteens received more than 1 million euros. But the real scandal relates to the fraud and mismanagement that is taking place in the Commission itself.

I pay tribute to Conservative MEPs and, in particular, Edward McMillan-Scott, who has been campaigning on this issue for many years. The hon. Members for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) referred to the scandal of what had been going on in the tourism office. Edward McMillan-Scott first drew attention to it in 1990, and in 1995, when he was fed up with the lack of action being taken, he called in the Belgian fraud squad to investigate.

For a long time, Conservative MEPs' warnings were ignored. It was not until Commission official Mr. Paul Van Buitenen blew the whistle that something was finally done. However, when he first reported his findings to the Secretary-General of the Commission, he was told that he would be sacked if he passed his report on to the European Parliament. When he did so, he was immediately suspended.

Although the Commission was prepared to cover up the evidence, the Parliament was not. Given that evidence, it is hardly surprising that the Parliament voted to refuse to approve the 1996 budget. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) seemed to suggest that Pauline Green and Labour MEPs were somehow responsible for that, but the vote was carried in the teeth of opposition from Labour MEPs.

According to The Guardian, Labour MEPs were put under intense pressure by the Prime Minister to,

"let the Commission off the hook".

We know that the right hon. Gentleman wrote personally to Pauline Green to give her her orders, although he has refused to publish that letter.

The German socialist spokesman on the budget committee resigned in disgust at the attempts of the British Labour group to protect the Commission. According to Pauline Green, the group even went so far as to table a motion of censure of the whole Commission and then say that it would vote against, to

"demonstrate our confidence in the Commission".

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have very little time in which to speak.

When a vote was taken, all but two British Conservatives voted in favour of the motion and 53 British Labour MEPs voted against. No wonder Mr. Van Buitenen said that he was disappointed by the attitude of the socialist group and, in particular, Pauline Green. He said:

"she seems to support the Commission; perhaps they have a higher agenda in the Euro or what".

The report of the committee of independent experts, which was published last March, is a devastating document. It talks of fraud and corruption passing unnoticed at the level of Commissioners themselves and of loss of control by the political authorities over the administration that they are supposedly running. It also states that there is a heavy responsibility for the Commissioners individually and the Commission as a whole. Faced with such a damning indictment, the Commission had no alternative but to resign.

Extraordinarily, eight weeks later, the Commissioners are all still at their desks and behaving as if nothing at all had happened. When they finally go, they will collect substantial pay-offs at public expense. Meanwhile, Mr. Van Buitenen has been moved into a new job in the personnel department. It is outrageous that certain individual Commissioners such as Edith Cresson were not instantly sacked in disgrace, and Conservative MEPs are quite right to refuse to co-operate with her in any way.

Although most Commissioners are not personally guilty, the entire Commission is discredited. The only way to restore credibility is for them to leave their offices immediately and for no Commissioner to be reappointed beyond his term. The Commission should stop trying to extend its power ever wider and should concentrate on doing properly the things it should be doing. Part of the reason why fraud and mismanagement have been allowed to grow unchecked is that the Commission has closed its eyes to everything that does not further its aim of creating a federal state. Its only interest has been to spend more money, not to spend money more efficiently.

Our view is that Europe needs to do less, but to do it better. That is why we have proposed a 10-point plan to root out fraud and maladministration, and why we want a genuinely independent and powerful anti-fraud office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made absolutely clear, what is on the table at the moment does not involve genuine independence.

Conservative MEPs have been campaigning for such changes for many years. Labour MEPs, on the other hand, have seemed to be more interested in covering up fraud and protecting the Commission. That is perhaps less surprising when we look at their record of waste and abuse of public money. A few weeks ago, we learned how careful the leader of the socialist group is with public money when it was revealed that she had arranged that she could claim travel expenses for attending a wedding in Cyprus.

Today, we have heard that former Labour leader Glyn Ford used his office expenses allowance to pay for his laundry, his decorating, his gardening and even his log cutting. According to his former assistant, his house became a hotel paid for by the Parliament, but because of the absurd electoral system introduced by the Government, he will probably be re-elected next month and his electors cannot even vote against him if they want to. If the Government are serious about cracking down on that kind of abuse, the Minister should make it clear now that Glyn Ford will not be a candidate at the elections next month.

Fraud and mismanagement are endemic throughout the European budget and extend right to the heart of the Commission itself. Conservative MEPs have campaigned over many years to tackle the problem and we have produced a concrete programme of action to achieve that. The Government have done almost nothing, while their supporters in the European Parliament have done their best to sweep the problem under the carpet. I ask the House to support the motion.

6.50 pm

As one normally says on these occasions—and it is true in this case—this has been a good debate with some good contributions from Labour Members. The speech by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) was astonishing, because it fully demonstrated the collective amnesia of Conservative Members. I am grateful for the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), because he reminded us that fraud has been going on in the European Union for a considerable time. What did the Conservative party do when it was in government? Very little indeed. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for giving me the opportunity publicly to thank him for his remarks on the Budget. He said that it was not a bad Budget for business. I always like to give thanks where thanks are due.

The Government believe that there should be zero tolerance of fraud, which is why the Prime Minister has called for a root-and-branch reform of the Commission. We have put this matter at the top of our agenda. One of our key priorities is financial management reform to ensure better lines of responsibility and personal accountability at all levels and to improve transparency. That important point was raised by members of the Public Accounts Committee.

Other key priorities are the modernisation of personnel policy to ensure a flexible, high-quality service, and the establishment of a management structure that will deliver an effective and flexible service, including in particular a wide review of the present structure of directorates-general and mechanisms for adjusting to changing priorities. None of those measures were taken by the Conservative party when it was in power. Improving contracting, project monitoring and evaluation procedures are other priorities.

It is important that the initiative set out by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor at January's ECOFIN meeting has met with such approval. Hon. Members have spoken about the fraud prevention office, which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary outlined. It will have a strong, independent head with statutory protection from dismissal, who will be appointed after consultation with the Council and the European Parliament. The head will be able to open investigations on his own initiative, will have access to buildings and documents, will be able to draw up reports containing recommendations for follow-up action, and will report regularly. That initiative has come from our Government. I expected to receive the congratulations of Conservative Members: I was sadly disappointed and let down when they were not offered.

In the time left, I shall deal with some of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether the fraud office's reports will be available for debate in Westminster. That is an important point, and the answer is yes. Reports from the fraud office to the Council and the European Parliament will form part of our parliamentary scrutiny process. All hon. Members know how vigorous that process is, and we are looking forward to that happening.

The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether the fraud prevention office will be able to arrest fraudsters. Only national and judicial police authorities have such powers, but it is planned to give the fraud prevention office powers to investigate and to pass on the results of its investigations. That is analogous with our National Audit Office.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) rightly gave some important examples, about which we share his concern. He also referred to structural funds. The United Kingdom has been concerned about that area, which is why we not only obtained a very good deal for the UK in the negotiations on structural funds but negotiated—especially during our presidency—procedures to deal with the funds. When I had the pleasure to be a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry I took part in a conference organised in conjunction with the National Audit Office to examine this important area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) made an important point about the need for a new culture of accountability. He is absolutely right, and we are determined to achieve that. I was also delighted to hear the contribution of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who reminded us of what the Prime Minister said.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) spoke about the European Union, and I was a little disappointed in what he had to say. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Government on the excellent deal that we obtained for the United Kingdom in the Agenda 2000 negotiations. Once again, I feel let down by Conservative Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a measured speech. His analysis of the problem was good, and he made some sensible, practical suggestions for reform. We have been working with the Commission on phase 3 of the "sound and efficient management 2000" initiative, which has resulted in welcome reforms.

The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to the development budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares his concerns and is monitoring the situation closely. The hon. Gentleman made a good joke or a bad joke, depending on one's preferences. I thought that it was not bad at all, so I must break ranks with my hon. Friends who said that it was.

It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to initiate this debate. Let me remind Conservatives of what they have done. They initiated this debate, but what did their MEPs do? The Tory MEPs voted against producing receipts for MEPs' expenses. They voted against a wage cut for British MEPs. I know this will shock my hon. Friends, but I must tell them that Tory MEPs opposed the panel of fraud busters that forced the Commission to resign. I am sorry that Conservative Members are not taking this matter seriously, because this strikes me as an indictment of the record of Tory MEPs.

In January last year, Edward McMillan-Scott, the leader of the Conservative party in Europe, refused Labour MEP Alan Donnelly's invitation to take a cross-party approach to investigating fraud allegations in the European Commission.

This is a serious matter.

I agree, and it is a great pity that Tory MEPs did not take it seriously. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of a fact that his hon. Friends did not mention. Spending on specific anti-fraud measures in the 1999 budget is 4 million euros higher than in the 1997 budget, which was agreed in late-1996 and negotiated by the Conservatives.

I am not surprised that there is a division between Conservative MPs and MEPs. After all, as Edward McMillan-Scott, their leader, said:

"Neither I—nor other Parliamentarians—are bound by Shadow Cabinet responsibility."

What an indictment. That shows a party that is split from top to bottom.

Much more needs to be done. I can reassure the House that the Government will be working with the new Commission, and with its new President, to ensure that the root-and-branch reform outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is achieved, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will back the Government wholeheartedly in that endeavour.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 326.

Division No. 185]	[7 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Brazier, Julian
Amess, David	Breed, Colin
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Browning, Mrs Angela
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Burnett, John
Baker, Norman	Burns, Simon
Ballard, Jackie	Butterfill, John
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Cable, Dr Vincent
Bercow, John	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Body, Sir Richard	(NE Fife)
Boswell, Tim	Cash, William
Bottomley, Peter Worthing W	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	(Chipping Barnet)
Brady, Graham	Chidgey, David
Brake, Tom	Chope, Christopher
Brand, Dr Peter	Clappison, James

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Collins, Tim	Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael	McLoughlin, Patrick
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Malins, Humfrey
Cotter, Brian	Maples, John
Gran, James	Mates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Day, Stephen	May, Mrs Theresa
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Duncan, Alan	Moore, Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Moss, Malcolm
Evans, Nigel	Nicholls, Patrick
Faber, David	Norman, Archie
Fabricant, Michael	Oaten, Mark
Fallon, Michael	Öpik, Lembit
Fearn, Ronnie	Ottaway, Richard
Flight, Howard	Page, Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Paice, James
Foster, Don (Bath)	Paterson, Owen
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Pickles, Eric
Fox, Dr Liam	Prior, David
Fraser, Christopher	Randall, John
Gale, Roger	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward	Rendel, David
Gibb, Nick	Robathan, Andrew
Gill, Christopher	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gray, James	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Green, Damian	St Aubyn, Nick
Greenway, John	Sanders, Adrian
Grieve, Dominic	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Shepherd, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Soames, Nicholas
Hammond, Philip	Spicer, Sir Michael
Hancock, Mike	Spring, Richard
Harris, Dr Evan	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Harvey, Nick	Streeter, Gary
Hawkins, Nick	Stunell, Andrew
Heald, Oliver	Swayne, Desmond
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Syms, Robert
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Horam, John	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Townend, John
Hunter, Andrew	Tredinnick, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Trend, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Tyler, Paul
Jenkin, Bernard	Tyrie, Andrew
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Viggers, Peter
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Walter, Robert
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Wardle, Charles
Key, Robert	Waterson, Nigel
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Webb, Steve
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Wells, Bowen
Kirkwood, Archy	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Whittingdale, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Lansley, Andrew	Wilkinson, John
Leigh, Edward	Willetts, David
Letwin, Oliver	Willis, Phil
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Wilshire, David
Lidington, David	Woodward, Shaun
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Yeo, Tim
Livsey, Richard	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Loughton, Tim	Tellers for the Ayes:
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Sir David Madel and
	Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ainger, Nick	Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Alexander, Douglas	Darvill, Keith
Allen, Graham	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Davidson, Ian
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ashton, Joe	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Dawson, Hilton
Atkins, Charlotte	Dean, Mrs Janet
Barnes, Harry	Denham, John
Barron, Kevin	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Battle, John	Donohoe, Brian H
Bayley, Hugh	Dowd, Jim
Beard, Nigel	Drew, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Drown, Ms Julia
Begg, Miss Anne	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bennett, Andrew F	Edwards, Huw
Benton, Joe	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Berry, Roger	Ennis, Jeff
Best, Harold	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Blackman, Liz	Fisher, Mark
Blears, Ms Hazel	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Blizzard, Bob	Flynn, Paul
Boateng, Paul	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Borrow, David	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Foulkes, George
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Fyfe, Maria
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Gapes, Mike
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon	Gardiner, Barry
(Dunfermline E)	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Gerrard, Neil
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Gibson, Dr Ian
Browne, Desmond	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Buck, Ms Karen	Godman, Dr Norman A
Burden, Richard	Godsiff, Roger
Burgon, Colin	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Butler, Mrs Christine	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Grogan, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gunnell, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hain, Peter
Campbell—Savours, Dale	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Cann, Jamie	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Casale, Roger	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Caton, Martin	Hanson, David
Cawsey, Ian	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Chaytor, David	Healey, John
Clapham, Michael	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hepburn, Stephen
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Heppell, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hesford, Stephen
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hill, Keith
Clelland, David	Hinchliffe, David
Clwyd, Ann	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Coaker, Vernon	Hoey, Kate
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hood, Jimmy
Coleman, Iain	Hoon, Geoffrey
Colman, Tony	Hope, Phil
Connarty, Michael	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Corbett, Robin	Howells, Dr Kim
Corston, Ms Jean	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cousins, Jim	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cox, Tom	Humble, Mrs Joan
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hurst, Alan
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hutton, John
Cummings, John	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack	Illsley, Eric
(Copeland)	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Merron, Gillian
Jamieson, David	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Jenkins, Brian	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Miller, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Moffatt, Laura
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Morley, Elliot
Jones, Ms Jenny	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Mountford, Kali
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Mullin, Chris
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Keeble, Ms Sally	Norris, Dan
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Kemp, Fraser	O'Hara, Eddie
Khabra, Piara S	Olner, Bill
Kidney, David	O'Neill, Martin
Kilfoyle, Peter	Organ, Mrs Diana
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Palmer, Dr Nick
Kingham, Ms Tess	Pearson, Ian
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Pendry, Tom
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Perham, Ms Linda
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Pickthall, Colin
Leslie, Christopher	Pike, Peter L
Levitt, Tom	Plaskitt, James
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Pollard, Kerry
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Pond, Chris
Linton, Martin	Pope, Greg
Livingstone, Ken	Pound, Stephen
Love, Andrew	Powell, Sir Raymond
McAvoy, Thomas	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
McCabe, Steve	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Prescott, Rt Hon John
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian	Primarolo, Dawn
(Makerfield)	Prosser, Gwyn
McDonagh, Siobhain	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Macdonald, Calum	Quinn, Lawrie
McDonnell, John	Rammell, Bill
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Rapson, Syd
McIsaac, Shona	Raynsford, Nick
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
MacShane, Denis	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Mactaggart, Fiona	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McWalter, Tony	Rooker, Jeff
McWilliam, John	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Rowlands, Ted
Mallaber, Judy	Roy, Frank
Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter	Ruane, Chris
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Ruddock, Joan
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Salter, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Sarwar, Mohammad
Martlew, Eric	Savidge, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Shaw, Jonathan	Temple—Morris, Peter
Sheerman, Barry	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Shipley, Ms Debra	Tipping, Paddy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Todd, Mark
Singh, Marsha	Touhig, Don
Skinner, Dennis	Trickett, Jon
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford)	Truswell, Paul
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Miss Geraldine	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Vaz, Keith
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Walley, Ms Joan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Ward, Ms Claire
Soley, Clive	Wareing, Robert N
Southworth, Ms Helen	Watts, David
Speller, John	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	(Swansea W)
Steinberg, Gerry	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stevenson, George	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Winnick, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Stinchcombe, Paul	Wise, Audrey
Stoate, Dr Howard	Wood, Mike
Stott, Roger	Worthington, Tony
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stringer, Graham	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Wyatt, Derek
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Tellers for the Noes:
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann	Mr. Kevin Hughes and
(Dewsbury)	Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the efforts of the Government to work with fellow Member States and European institutions to crack down on fraud against the EU budget; notes the real practical progress made in this regard by the Government during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU; welcomes the Chancellor's initiative for a strong head of fraud investigations heading an independent fraud prevention office; welcomes the role played by Labour MEPs in securing the establishment of the Committee of Independent Experts; joins the Government in calling for recent events to be used as an opportunity for root and branch reform of the Commission; calls on Romano Prodi, following his recent nomination as President-elect of the European Commission, to place the fight against fraud at the top of the new Commission's agenda; and believes that the only way of reforming Europe is the Government's strong leadership and constructive engagement rather than the Opposition's weak leadership, division and isolationism.

Nhs Personnel

I should advise the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7.14 pm

I beg to move,

That this House notes the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to raise the agreed working hours of junior doctors to 65 per week; notes also its failure to deliver to nurses the pay increases which were promised to be implemented in full from April 1999; notes further the anxiety and disappointment caused to consultants by its failure to implement the recommendations of the Pay Review Body; notes the concerns of Professions Allied to Medicine; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that increased expectations followed by disappointment have profoundly damaged morale among loyal and hardworking NHS staff.

I suspect that many doctors and many nurses may have been deceived into voting for the present Government at the last election. They were promised more recruitment, shorter hours, better pay, less pressure and shorter waiting lists. They have been cruelly disappointed because the reality is that, today, morale among all who work in our health service is at an all-time low. Labour has milked dry the efforts of our doctors and nurses.

We all remember Labour's extravagant promises before the elections—empty pledges, unconcerned with where the new doctors and new nurses would come from, and with how to solve the problems of recruitment and retention. The hard-working majority in our health service expected those promises to be delivered. Their hopes were raised. They thought then, even if they know better now, that they could trust Labour to deliver. They did not believe that, once the Government had won their own not so hard-working majority, the magic wand would disappear and the only thing that would remain would be the glib quest for easy solutions and tomorrow's headlines.

It is hard to blame those people for being deceived. Imagine being a young nurse three or four years ago and hearing an Opposition spokesman criticising the Government over nurse's pay, saying:

"Flattening the pay of nurses and other staff is no way to run the Health Service."

That Opposition spokesman was the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). Six months after the election, the right hon. Gentleman, by then the Minister of State, Department of Health was arguing:

"Any settlement for nurses … at below the level of current inflation would not imply a real pay cut."

If that is not Labour hypocrisy, if it is not all hype and no delivery, what is? How disillusioning for our nurses: they were promised so much and, within so little time, badly let down.

Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to learn that it is not just nurses who feel betrayed by the Labour party and the Labour Government? Has she read the report in Hospital Doctor magazine, which says:

"Eighty per cent. of specialist registrars are now planning to leave the national health service"?

Is she surprised to learn that, in Staffordshire and the west midlands, people are becoming very disturbed by the huge influx of Egyptian and other consultants who do not speak adequate English, replacing English doctors who have left the NHS?

I am not surprised, but extremely saddened. That is symptomatic of a situation that has been created by a Government who, in opposition, promised anything to anyone whenever they thought that it might curry cheap favour.

I wonder, for example, what progress the Secretary of State for Health is making on Labour's pledge to set up pilot schemes under which savings from reduced staff turnover would be used to pay extra money to nurses who decide to stay longer in their jobs. For that matter, I wonder whether he even remembers it. I will not altogether blame him if he does not because he has a memory problem.

The Secretary of State did not remember the Prime Minister's pledge to set up a task force on trolleys, so I admit that the chances of his recalling the random utterances of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are probably non-existent. However, I do not think that the nurses have forgotten. They have not forgotten how Labour boasted of its plans to recruit thousands more nurses, although they probably did not expect the interviews to take place in Manila. I am certain that they have not forgotten the Secretary of State's wild boasts about this year's pay award.

To be charitable, I suppose the Secretary of State finally believed that he had something to boast about. There had been all those promises of more pay for nurses before the election, all those Labour spokesmen calling the phasing of pay awards a "deception" and a "betrayal", only to find that, once in government, reality has a nasty habit of biting. It bites smug Labour spokesmen where it hurts.

We all remember that one of the Government's first actions was to stage Labour's first pay award to nurses. The Secretary of State must finally have thought that things were turning out all right. Unfortunately, he allowed his sanctimony to get in the way of the facts.

We welcomed the pay settlement in February, but we did so under the impression that it was going into nurses' pockets. I thought that that was the idea. However, we are now learning that trusts up and down the country are failing to give nurses their money. What is more, they are telling staff that they "have not received authorisation" to pass on the cash.

The Secretary of State is laughing.

Laughter is often a hysterical defence when things are going wrong.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency—where some 1,300 qualified nurses are employed—the pay award not only was not paid in April but, by reason of the Government's lateness in distributing the circular, will not be paid in May? It will not be paid, at best, until the end of June.

That is a betrayal. What on earth is going on? Let us leave aside the fact that the Secretary of State had to raid his modernisation fund to foot the bill for the pay settlement, and then asked the trusts to stump up the rest. Let us leave aside the fact that only one in 15 nurses will receive the higher level of pay settlement. I suppose that I could be persuaded to leave aside the fact, verified by the House of Commons Library, that even after the remaining 14 out of 15 nurses have got their hands on some money—not in April or May, possibly in June—they will still be £53 worse off under this Government than at the time of the last election.

It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has allowed a pay award—for which he attempted to take so much personal credit, of which he boasted through every newspaper and media outlet that he could find and about which he swaggered in this House when he announced it—to disappear into some form of nether region for which no one seems to have any responsibility.

It is no good, as the Secretary of State has done yet again, just to palm the blame off on to the trusts and to threaten sackings right, left and centre—like he did over waiting lists and the winter crisis, and like he still does over rationing, which he denies exists.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Guild trust, Preston, today, three non-executive directors were dismissed from their posts? Their crime was to whistleblow on the management of their own trust, which led to the suspension of the chief executive and the resignation of the chairman. Their reward was to be told either to resign or that they would be sacked. Today, they were sacked. What message does that send to non-executive directors up and down the country who may find out about mismanagement in their trusts? Will they be rewarded by the Secretary of State for Health with dismissal?

It is ironic—perhaps it is not ironic; perhaps it is totally to be expected—that that is the action of a Secretary of State who, after the scandal at Bristol, said that whistleblowers would always be protected. He does not protect whistleblowers—he protects his own cronies and himself.

I was talking about how the Secretary of State is always tempted, and always gives in to the temptation, to palm the blame off on to trusts, as he has done over the massive waiting list to get on to the waiting list—a list that has doubled to almost 500,000 since the Government came to power. He seems to treat our health service as if those in it were some sort of underfootmen. He has all the power and shouts the odds, but they have all the responsibility and are told to get out if they complain.

Why does not the Secretary of State accept some responsibility for the situation that he has helped to create? Will he guarantee right now that any nurses who have not received their April pay settlement in full, as he promised they would, will be traced right away and fully compensated? While he is about that, perhaps he would like to apologise. I have to say that, with this Health Secretary, we are more likely to see him escaping over the top of the millennium dome than admitting that he has made a mistake. However, I hope that he is in an apologetic mood, because that is by no means the end of the problems that he has caused to morale in our health service.

The recommendation of the independent pay review body was that a pool of some £50 million should be found as a means of compensating consultants for their work load. After the pay review body reported, the Government—who boasted that they were implementing the recommendations of the pay review body—did not implement that recommendation. In a panic when the motion was tabled, I gather that the Secretary of State had a meeting, and that he is trying to stave them off with vague promises—but, as yet, still no settlement.

As the £50 million is to be disbursed, according to the review body, not in this financial year but in the next financial year, how could we have implemented it this year?

The Secretary of State could simply have said that he accepted that recommendation and would implement it. Had he done so, the consultants would not have been so upset, and they and the British Medical Association would not have been putting out statements saying that the Government had let them down. They would have had to say that the Government were acting in tune with the review body.

The Secretary of State has a problem. It is not that the Opposition are saying these things—it is the health service personnel who are saying these things. It is they who are thoroughly disillusioned, fed up and demoralised by what the Government are doing. Is it surprising that a survey last year showed not only that morale in the health service was at an all-time low, but that only four in 100 health service employees saw a long-term future in their jobs?

Nowhere is that more important than for our junior doctors. Our new deal for junior doctors was an enormous success. In 1991, six out of 10 junior doctors were still working more than 83 hours per week. By the time of the last election, two in 10 were working more than 56 hours a week. There was still work to do, and we said that. However, we had got those substantial results and we were moving in the right direction.

This Government are moving in a different direction. They are not content with milking our doctors and nurses dry over the winter; they are not content with shipping in 1,000 overseas juniors to work unpaid in posts that would normally pay £30,000 a year. Now, the Government want our junior doctors to agree to work for 65 hours a week for the next 15 years.

It is difficult to be surprised, given the record of the Government. After all, they are happy to use the tactics of fiddle and fudge. They conned the BBC into misleading the public and exaggerating basic junior doctors' pay by £10,000. Significantly, it was not the Government who apologised, but the BBC who had been misled.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we were reducing the number of hours that junior doctors worked, providing more junior doctor posts and resources and improving the management of the use of junior doctors, it was done with Ministers very involved in the process on a regular basis—including, as I had, regular meetings with the leaders of junior doctors? Is not part of the disgrace now not just that the Government are reneging on those arrangements and trying to drive the hours up again, but that Ministers disdain to have the involvement with junior doctors which characterised our time in office and helped to produce the excellent results?

Indeed, but this is a highly arrogant Government who dismiss the very people on whom they have to rely. We should not be surprised when this arrogant Government try to pass off an increase of nine hours a week for 15 years as a reduction in junior doctors' working hours. Perhaps the Secretary of State should try it himself. If he had to work hundreds of hours more, we might start to get some results in our health service, although on the evidence of the past two years, perhaps we should encourage him to take a long time off instead.

My right hon. Friend referred to the way in which the Government misrepresented the position on the doctors' pay rise. Does she recall that that misrepresentation is based on the premise of junior doctors working not 56 hours a week, as the Government claim, but 72 hours a week? Does she fear that perhaps the Government have another agenda, for even longer hours, of which we have hitherto not been informed?

There is no iniquity that I would not fear from the Government.

The evidence is abundantly clear. We have the Brussels document. Despite his virtual denial in the House, the Secretary of State cannot deny that the UK has proposed that junior doctors' working time threshold should be raised to 65 hours a week. How did he get out of it? He told the House that he never proposed that to the EU Commission. He did not, because it was in fact proposed to the EU Council. That shows the weaselly depths to which the Government will stoop.

If the Secretary of State had been at all concerned about junior doctors' working hours, Labour Members could have voted with us and with the Liberal Democrats last week in Committee to write the current limits into the Health Bill. If he has no problem with the current limits and does not intend to exceed them, what harm would there have been in writing them into the Bill?

Let us consider the Brussels document, which the Secretary of State tried to deny; the 72 hours on which he calculated the "basic" rate of pay; and the refusal to write 56 hours into the Health Bill. Adding up those three, one need not have a very suspicious mind to work out what the agenda is likely to be.

The Secretary of State never misses a chance to blame our doctors when a tragedy occurs but he is much less concerned with getting to the root of the problems. Take the massive manpower crisis in obstetrics. Hundreds of qualified doctors are fighting for a handful of consultant posts in that specialty, but the Health Bill lacks the detail needed to handle manpower planning issues.

By 2001 there will be 500 obstetricians chasing only 50 consultant posts a year. Hospital Doctor magazine has campaigned for a solution to that problem, which could result in hundreds of doctors leaving the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said earlier that, according to one survey, 80 per cent. of specialist registrars in obstetrics plan to leave the health service as a result of the Government's incompetence.

We can ill afford to lose those doctors, given that the 7,000 alleged extra doctors about whom the Secretary of State has boasted are actually the ones who were planned to come through medical school in any case and are not extra at all. Those doctors will have to be supplemented by yet more imports, yet the Government failed to support our amendments to the Health Bill, which would have allowed the Secretary of State to make regulations on manpower planning.

Had the Secretary of State swallowed his pride—Which is considerable—and supported us, he could have had the powers to sort out the problems at source. Instead, he has told doctors that he will not back an NHS Executive consultant expansion plan; yet he still tells us that we will get more doctors.

The problem is most forcefully put by Fiona Kew of the British Medical Association junior doctors committee. She says:

"Babies and mothers die because there is not enough consultant input into their care. This is an ideal opportunity to use these specialists to improve the care of women in pregnancy… but the DoH refuse to provide more consultant posts."

Instead, the Government's fudge—taking five years through a series of pilot programmes—makes it appear as though the Secretary of State is simply pulling the covers over his head and hoping that the problems will go away—a bit like a child hiding from a nasty monster—but they do not go away.

All those problems have a huge impact on staff morale, yet the Government, who are directly responsible for increasing expectations then bringing them crashing down, seem unable or unwilling to act.

I have given the right hon. Lady prior notice of my question on at least four separate occasions in previous debates, but I have yet to get an answer. We are all aware of the shortages of doctors, consultants and nurses. The only policy that she has proposed in this Parliament for her vision of health has been to make more and more use of the private sector. We all know that the private sector recruits primarily from the health service. Her model would denude the health service of staff, who are already in short supply. What is her answer to that conundrum? I cannot make head or tail of the logic of her policy. She says that she is concerned about staff shortages, but her proposal would make the situation far, far worse.

The hon. Gentleman cannot understand my policy because his own economics are those of the madhouse. In the public sector, the NHS bears the cost of training, recruitment, treatment, capital buildings, theatres, support staff and everything else. In the private sector, the NHS has contributed only the cost of training and all the rest is spent by outside sources. That is a big net addition that the NHS would otherwise have to find.

If we found it feasible to recommend a substantial expansion of the use of private resources, I would have no difficulty at all in expecting the private sector to take some responsibility for training, and representatives of that sector have told me that they agree. I have never believed in a one-way flow.

Will the right hon. Lady read the transcript of the Health Committee proceedings on the current inquiry into the regulation of private medicine and focus on the questions asked by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my follow-up questions? She will see that when the private sector is asked where it gets its staff, the answer, every time, is the national health service.

Yes, and one can bet that some of those staff are the obstetricians whom the NHS has trained but cannot find posts for. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer those obstetricians to leave the health care profession altogether rather than taking their training into the private sector, which is bailing out the Government on waiting lists?

Does my right hon. Friend think that one of the reasons why people go to work for the private sector may be that they get the pay increases that they are promised, while the Secretary of State promises increases but does not give them?

It goes without saying that if the private sector ran itself as the Secretary of State runs the NHS, it would soon have no personnel at all. We have supported not only the doctors, nurses and consultants but the professions allied to medicine. Unlike the Secretary of State, we do not forget the contribution that they make. We have been supporting their campaign for better self-regulation through amendments in the Health Bill.

It would be encouraging—although I do not expect to be encouraged—if the Secretary of State would acknowledge the responsible debate in another place on trying to get better protection for those professions. I ask him to go a little bit further—although, as I say, I expect no encouragement—and agree to our amendments that would ensure that professions allied to medicine were judged by their peers on issues such as discipline and education. We also want provision in the Health Bill for protection of title. If he would agree to those amendments, it would be a fitting acknowledgement of the dedication shown by those professions in the work that they do in our health service.

While the Secretary of State is about it, he could go further and guarantee that no services provided by professions allied to medicine will be lost as a result of the creation of primary care trusts and the diversion of millions of pounds from patient care into extra bureaucracy and superannuation contributions. He will be aware that one of the great strengths of fundholding was the use that fundholding doctors made of professions allied to medicine in giving their patients an integrated health care service. He is nodding; he agrees. I am grateful for that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that demonstrably, not just in theory, some of those services have been lost as a result of the destruction of fundholding and the creation of patient care groups?

We would all accept that there is a need to regulate a number of professions working within the health service. Can the right hon. Lady explain why when in 1989 a report from the NHS management executive recommended a statutory system of regulation for operating department practitioners, who had sought regulation for many years, the Conservative Government did nothing about it?

Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to go and look at the new clause that we have just tabled. I am sure that she has not yet caught up with it.

rose—

I have given way generously, and now I want to make some progress. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

One contribution that the Government are determined not to make is to reward NHS staff for working on the millennium new year's eve. What better opportunity could there be to demonstrate that the Government can still be bothered to care about the welfare of our doctors and nurses? Although the right hon. Gentleman may bear more than a passing resemblance to Father Christmas, to our doctors and nurses he behaves like Ebenezer Scrooge.

The Secretary of State has ruled out paying doctors extra money over the millennium new year, and is trying to discourage trusts from making their own good-will payments. Doctors have estimated that for working on millennium night they will be paid £4.02 an hour. I suppose that that is a bit better than the minimum wage.

To meet his ridiculous waiting list pledge, and to bail him out of a dreadful winter crisis, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn heavily on the bank of good will among health service workers, and that account is now slipping into the red. He has argued that trusts should show their appreciation on millennium night by providing transport and hot food. He has made much of his cleverly wrapped 50th birthday present to our health service, but it seems that his millennium gift to the hard-working staff is to be a limp sausage roll, a glass of flat beer and a taxi ride home.

I am not saying, have never said, and would never say, that every last wish of every doctor or nurse must be, or even could be, met, but at the very least the right hon. Gentleman should stop exerting his power to prevent trusts from offering what they feel is right and decent to their loyal and hard-working staff. He often palms responsibility off on to trusts, so if they want to make that gesture, they believe that they can afford it and it is one of their priorities, they should be allowed to do so.

Anything less would be a slap in the face, just like the slap in the face he has given to our doctors—fundholding doctors who have now been dragooned into collectives, losing flexibility and the services that meant so much to their patients. It would be like the slap in the face that he has given to our nurses, who were told first that their pay award would not be staged, but then that it was, and secondly that they would get all the money in April, but then that they would not get it until June at the earliest. Many of them are worse off than when the Government came to power. Fourteen out of 15 of them do not benefit from the higher levels of pay, and the so-called recruitment consists of importing staff, which may have a role to play, but which certainly will not solve all the problems.

The Secretary of State has not only given staff a slap in the face, he has thrown a bath of icy cold water over them. They expected so much, and have been given so little by a Government who have consistently been more bothered about political control than patient care. The Government care only about the next day's headlines; they never finish the job. Where are the super-nurses? Does the House remember those? I do not think that even the nurses themselves remember them. A pledge was given but nothing was delivered. Concerning the trolley task force, too, a pledge was given but nothing was delivered.

The Secretary of State makes pledges all the time, but he delivers nothing—except for junior doctors, whose conditions he is making worse. He is delivering longer hours, fiddled pay figures, longer waiting lists, third-world recruitment, more pressure, and a promise that if staff do not like it, there is always a new deal officer waiting to sign them up for another half-baked Labour scheme.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember how he had the gall to say, "Let those who are despairing get out of the health service, because I do not want them there." Now he is giving that message to the overwhelming majority of health service workers, who have been told to knuckle down, shut up, work harder, work longer, stop complaining, stop expecting and thank new Labour for the new NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to deliver every promise, and every worker in our health service has been failed.

Before I finish, I will let the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) intervene.

The right hon. Lady professes to be concerned about the plight of the professions allied to medicine. I certainly am, because I have worked with many dedicated and hard-working scientific officers, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, cytologists, phlebotomists and others. Can she tell me why, 15 years ago, the Conservative Government took that group out of the scope of the pay review body, thus allowing their pay to fall by 30 per cent. in real terms? That group of people are in such a parlous state now because of the actions of the previous Government.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the professions allied to medicine. He made a distinguished speech on Second Reading—so distinguished that the Government made jolly sure that they did not put him on the Standing Committee on the Health Bill, because that speech was not 100 per cent. loyal. He, too, has been failed by the Government.

The Government have failed the health service, as well as the doctors, the nurses, the professions allied to medicine and, above all, the patients—the British people, who were fooled by the Government saying before the election that there was nothing wrong with the health service apart from the fact that there was a Tory Government, and that they could put it all right.

The Government have not put it all right. The health service is now worse than ever in terms of morale and what the funding is expected to cover, in terms of winter crises, the use of trolleys and just about everything else I could mention. They have given us not a better health service but a worse health service.

The Secretary of State seems to think that that is funny. He either looks in another direction, like somebody following a Wimbledon tennis match, because he cannot face me, or he falls about with laughter, to hide the shame that any decent Secretary of State would feel in his position. I believe that come the next election, the Government's treatment of the health service will guarantee that they will not be in office for long.

7.49 pm

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"recognises and applauds the massive contribution the staff make to providing the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world; regrets the shambles in the NHS that the Government inherited which was demoralising to staff and damaging to patients; welcomes the action the new Government has taken to make things better for staff and patients alike, including £21 billion extra for the NHS over the next three years, record capital investment in new buildings, equipment and facilities to enable the staff to provide top-quality care, the biggest real-terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years paid nationally in full, proposals for radical pay reform to give fairer rewards to staff who extend their roles, widen their skills and work in teams to care for patients, negotiations on a new consultants' contract to ensure rewards go to those who contribute most to the NHS, ambitious targets to improve the quality of the working lives of NHS staff, including tough action to crack down on violence and racism at work, the promotion of family-friendly employment policies and investment in training and continuing professional development; welcomes the Government's commitment to reducing junior doctors' hours in line with the draft European Working Time Directive vehemently opposed by the Conservative Party and carefully planned so as not to damage improvements in patient care; and accepts no lectures about conditions of service for NHS personnel from a Party that did more in Government to demoralise the staff than any other in living memory and which spends most of its time in Opposition running down the achievements of the NHS staff and saying the Health Service can no longer cope."

The speech we have just heard, and this whole debate initiated by the Tories, is one of the biggest exercises in barefaced cheek that has been seen even in this Chamber. It does, however, provide us with an opportunity to remind people of the state of the national health service that we inherited, and the action we have been taking to put things right.

The Tories left behind them a health service underfunded, understaffed and undermined, with a demoralised and undervalued work force. They had introduced an internal market, which set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital, and led to a huge increase in bureaucracy and paperwork. For many staff, that internal market, together with the two-tier system that the Tories introduced, betrayed the principles that had led them to join the NHS and was contrary to their professional ethics.

For three years running, the Tory Government failed to implement pay review body settlements nationally and in full. Tory Ministers had encouraged a situation in which many staff were routinely faced with short-term contracts, causing uncertainty for them and their families. Until they were forced by the courts, the Tory Government had denied employment rights to NHS staff transferred to outside contractors. Gagging clauses had become standard parts of staff contracts. Some NHS trusts had withdrawn union recognition. The Tory Government had stopped collecting data on NHS pay levels, so Ministers had no idea how many staff were on low pay. Institutionalised racism held back the careers of many black and Asian staff. No attention was paid to the growing incidence of assaults and abuse of people working in the health service.

Many staff were expected to work in run down and sometimes dangerous premises. In April 1997, 16 per cent. of hospitals and other NHS buildings did not comply with fire and other regulations. By 1 May this year, that figure had been reduced to 5 per cent. Staff were frustrated by having to rely on increasingly unreliable equipment. The work force planning system was woefully inadequate, as we now know from the problems with obstetricians and gynaecologists.

Most people working in the NHS were dissatisfied with a rigid pay system that inhibited career development. Rigid hours and working conditions were putting off ever more professionally trained staff, particularly those with family responsibilities. As a result there were shortages of nurses, midwives, therapists, pharmacists, laboratory staff, cyto screeners and in some specialties, doctors. The previous Government had done next to nothing about the problems that were building up. Year after year in speeches in the House and in evidence to the pay review body they denied that there were shortages of nurses, midwives or other staff.

The Tory Government were not just in denial, they were busy making matters worse. They cut the number of nurses in training. Some 15,000 nurses started training in 1992-93. By 1994-95 that figure had been reduced to 10,600 and it never again rose much above 13,000. If the Tories had not cut the number of nurses in training in the 1990s, no fewer than 14,000 more nurses would be available for the NHS today.

Since the election we have made a start on turning things round, but it is only a start. Things cannot be put right overnight. It takes three years to train a qualified nurse and six to train a doctor for registration. The average hospital doctor takes a further seven to eight years before becoming a consultant. We must take long-term action to make things better for the future and take whatever short-term action is available to us to deal with the situation left behind by the previous Government.

Let me start with the nurses. Unlike the Tories, we do not deny that there is a shortage of nurses. Unlike the Tories, we are doing something about it. This year, for the first time in five years, the Government implemented the findings of the independent pay review body nationally, in full, without staging. In their motion, the Opposition have the brass neck to criticise us for the fact that not all staff received the full pay award in their April pay packets. That is a bit rich coming from the people who, in their last three years in government, did not put the full amount into staff pay packets at all and did not put even the staged increase in until shortly before Christmas.

Paying the full amount nationally in one go has put a one-off strain on NHS finances this year because we are meeting the full cost of this year's settlement and the overhang from staging last year's settlement. All nurses got at least 4.7 per cent. Newly qualified nurses got 12 per cent. and 70,000 D grade nurses got 8.2 per cent. On top of that, for Greater London, which is the area with the greatest shortages, the London allowance was raised by 15.4 per cent.

Those increases mean that two out of three nurses will earn more than £20,000 this year and that a newly qualified nurse will get more than £14,000—more than £17,000 in inner London. Virtually all those increases have either been paid in April salaries, or will be paid in May salaries next week backdated to 1 April. There is nothing new in that. It is entirely in line with usual practice in the NHS, following acceptance of the pay review body recommendations by representatives of the staff in the middle of March. Most employers have either already paid the increase, or have programmed their payroll computers to pay it with May salaries. I know of just one trust—Addenbrooke's—that is due to pay out in June. That, the trust explains, is because it is negotiating a local settlement to top up the national award.

Like the representatives of the staff, we want to develop a new pay structure that removes the rigid grading ceilings that hold down the pay and hold back the careers of nurses and midwives. We are extending the role of nurses in line with what the profession wants. We shall introduce nurse consultants to enable highly qualified staff to continue nursing and teaching rather than going into management. The final decision on that has not yet been announced because we have been conducting highly detailed discussions with the profession about the best way to go about it. We have also found places for nurses on the boards of primary care groups. That is important for their professional development and they are making a great contribution and improving their management skills. Together with the professions, we are also addressing the many shortcomings of the system of nurse education and training introduced by the previous Government, which are widely acknowledged to have set back the national health service.

I should like to take the Secretary of State back to the payment of the new pay award. He made his announcement on 1 February. The agreement with the unions and staff was made in the middle of March. Why did the letter of authority not come out from the Department of Health until 8 April? That is given as the major reason why the trusts were unable to deliver the hugely heralded pay settlement in the April pay packets as everyone expected. Was it not important that people should be paid on time?

It is important that people should be paid on time. I have received no complaints from the Royal College of Nursing or any other body representing nurses about any delay, because the payments were authorised at about the same time as in previous years. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—unless he has something wrong with him—because that is a fact.

Following the pay announcement in February, we launched a major recruitment campaign. To date about 53,000 people have responded. More than 5,000 of them are qualified nurses who want to return to the NHS—and we expect them to do so—and 650 have already started work. Many of those nurses have taken advantage of the return to nursing courses which, under this Government, are being provided free by the NHS. All those measures will help to address the short-term problem. The response to the recruitment campaign shows that nursing is becoming more attractive, but there is a long way to go.

We are introducing more family-friendly employment policies, the better to allow people working in the NHS to reconcile the demands of their jobs with their modern family responsibilities. We are giving people better opportunities to work the shifts that suit their needs, allowing them to take children to school in the morning or pick them up in the evening or to be around more during school holidays. That approach does not apply just to nurses and midwives. We want it to apply across the board. We must apply it to the people who are traditionally called junior doctors, particularly now that so many more medical students and junior doctors are women.

For a woman, the years taken up as a medical student and a junior doctor coincide with what we usually regard as childbearing years. We need a system that makes it easier for a woman doctor to have a career and, if she chooses, to have babies and bring up children. Of course, these days, quite rightly, many men doctors want to be able to devote more time to their families. That is one reason why the Government are fully committed to further reducing the hours of junior doctors.

The new deal that the previous Government reached with junior doctors was supposed to deliver better arrangements for accommodation and food and a maximum of 56 hours by 1996. Five years after it was agreed, when the Tories left office, the deal was not being delivered for about one in five junior doctors. We have improved matters. The figure has fallen to less than one in six. That is not all that we have done. Far from seeking to make matters worse for junior doctors, we have agreed with the British Medical Association a more rigorous definition of the terms of the new deal, which will be more difficult to deliver and may indeed make the figures appear worse.

I have asked the following question of the Secretary of State before. I have also asked it of the Minister of State. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked it of the Prime Minister. We have had no answer. It is a terribly simple question, and I am sure that there is a terribly simple answer, for which we would be grateful.

The question is: if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned to reduce junior doctors' hours, why did the United Kingdom delegation propose to Brussels that the hours should be 65, not 56, for eight years, and 60 for seven years?

I shall answer that in the course of my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it now."] All right, then. Let me read it slowly; perhaps that will help.

The European working time directive sets a maximum working week of 48 hours. The previous Government opposed the directive altogether. They fought its introduction tooth and nail, but, in their hapless way, they did not manage to stop it coming into law. At no stage did the previous Government try to achieve a reduction in junior doctors' hours to anything like 48, and it takes the biscuit that they should try to criticise us for doing so.

Clearly, a 48-hour week for junior doctors cannot be delivered quickly, because of the time it takes to train doctors. We have been negotiating a Europe-wide arrangement that will give Britain enough time to be able to reach the 48-hour target while, in the meantime, permitting a limit on hours that the NHS can live with. Different EU countries have different health systems, different ways of training doctors and different definitions of being at work and being on call.

We have sought to ensure that we have a European law that enables us to continue to reduce the hours, improve the working conditions of junior doctors and provide cover for NHS patients. I am confident we will achieve that. We have not sought to make British doctors work longer hours, and anyone who says that we have is a liar.

I say, because I have seen the document, that a proposal is before the European Council that 65 hours should be the hours of junior doctors. If the Secretary of State is trying to get from 56 hours to 48, that is laudable and I hope that he succeeds. But I cannot understand how he gets from 56 to 48 via 65. Is he calling me a liar? I have seen the document. Can he give me a simple answer to a simple question? If he wants to reduce junior doctors' hours, why has he proposed a limit of 65 rather than the current 56?

As the right hon. Lady acknowledged in her own speech, 20 per cent. of our doctors work more than 56 hours. It would be ridiculous to propose a 56-hour limit in the Health Bill or in Europe at present because we know that we are not delivering that. The right hon. Lady continually misrepresents us—I shall put it no stronger than that. We intend no increase in any doctor's hours. The object of the exercise is to reduce the hours that British doctors work, ultimately to 48 hours in line with the European directive.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No, we have dealt with that point.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Yes, I will give way.

I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State's argument. In the United Kingdom, he talks about 56 hours. In Europe, he talks about 65 to make Europe feel more comfortable. He does not talk about 65 hours for 20 per cent., just about 65 hours. Will the Secretary of State stand up and call me a liar? I do not believe what he is trying to tell the House about the Government's policy on junior doctors.

What the right hon. Gentleman believes is a matter between him, his conscience and the truth.

Unlike the Tory Government, we accepted and implemented the recommendations of the doctors and dentists' review body for this year, in full, without staging. That applied to the junior doctors, consultants and general practitioners. In the case of the consultants the review body recommended that from 2000-01, an extra £50 million should be made available to reward consultants for increases in work load, contribution to the NHS and intensity of work.

The Government, as requested by the BMA, were already committed to renegotiating the contract for consultants. We have fed the review body's recommendation for next year into the renegotiations because they cover the same ground. The doctors' negotiators have stated that they are optimistic that joint proposals from the BMA and the Department of Health can be put to the review body this autumn for implementation in 2000. I share their optimism. A joint approach would clearly be better from every point of view.

That takes me to the other groups covered by review body awards—some of the professions allied to medicine. This year, they received the biggest real terms pay increase in a decade, and for the first time in five years, it is to be paid nationally, in full and without staging. All staff covered have received 4.7 per cent. The starting pay for newly qualified professions allied to medicine has gone up by 8.7 per cent. All basic grade staff will receive at least 8.4 per cent., and some senior grades have received an increase of 7.7 per cent. Yet the Tory motion

"notes the concerns of Professions Allied to Medicine".

That falls short of qualifying even to be described as every assistance short of actual help.

Let us compare this year's settlement with what the professions allied to medicine received under the last Tory settlement. The Labour settlement provides 8.7 per cent. for newly qualified professionals. The Tory settlement provided 3.3 per cent. The Labour settlement is paid in full from 1 April. The Tory settlement allowed 2 per cent. from April, and 1.3 per cent. from December. The Tories delivered far less in the past than they claim.

Neither are the Tories promising anything better now. Only last month in a letter to one of her colleagues, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—or her research assistant, writing on her behalf—said:

"We have had to be necessarily circumspect about commenting on pay awards, as our own fiscal policy in respect of public sector pay has not yet been finalised. The line we have taken, and I acknowledge that it is not entirely satisfactory runs something like:

"'I would certainly not seek to justify or defend the X per cent. award offered to X by this Government."'

That is about as far as the right hon. Lady's policy goes.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will carry on, if necessary. The letter continued:

"It is worth noting that we excluded laboratory scientists from representation by a pay review body because, unlike some other `professions allied to medicine', laboratory scientists were not entirely dependent on the NHS for employment. The pay review body system was an acknowledgment of the 'monopoly' status of the NHS as an employer, and it was felt that the 'market place' would be a sufficient force to set levels of pay for laboratory workers, given their scope for employment elsewhere."

Yet the right hon. Lady will not justify or defend the award offered by the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have welcomed the pay awards that the Government have announced, even if the Government have not delivered them. He will be aware that I would never make the irresponsible comments that people try to lead me into before any announcements are made. They encourage me to bargain with the Government and ask the Government to give large increases in advance of what is announced by the independent pay review body. Therefore, I have always advocated circumspection; but the right hon. Gentleman knows, because it is on the record in Hansard, that we have always welcomed the pay rises that he has announced. I will welcome them even more when they are delivered.

I would not like to be welcomed by the right hon. Lady. Her form of welcome is:

"I would certainly not seek to justify or defend the … award offered by the Government."

That is the sort of welcome that she gives in private correspondence.

So the Tories may be concerned, but they are not sufficiently concerned to do anything. That is the truth about the charges that the Tories have levelled in this debate against the Government. We are not extending the hours of junior doctors. We are reducing them, and the Tories know it. We are paying the nurses their full pay increases with effect from 1 April, and the Tories know it. We have accepted the review body recommendations on consultants' pay for this year, and the Tories know it. The review body has just awarded the professions allied to medicine their best real-terms pay increase for 10 years, and the Tories know that too. So the Tory motion gets no marks for technical merit and, like every work of fiction, owes everything to artistic licence.

The most revealing aspect of the Tory motion was what it left out. It did not refer to the offers that we have made of up to 6.9 per cent for some medical laboratory scientific officers—the ones whom the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wants to rely on market forces. We offered them and trainee cyto-screeners that amount, and up to 11.2 per cent to qualified cyto-screeners. These are part of the continuing negotiations with non-pay review body staff which will be carried forward very soon with an improved pay offer.

Nor did the Tory motion refer to all the welcome changes that the new Government have brought to the NHS, which are designed to be better not just for patients but for the staff. For a start, we are building new hospitals and modernising old ones. We have already started work on 15 major hospital building projects—part of the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS. This year, more than £100 million is being invested specifically in improving accident and emergency departments, to make them both better for patients and safer for staff. Another £;100 million from the lottery is being invested in new and better equipment to diagnose and treat cancer on top of the £350 million already earmarked for renewing unreliable hospital equipment this year.

Nor did the Tories make mention of the action that they neglected to take to reduce assaults on and abuse of people working in the NHS. Since the general election we have given this a high priority. For the first time, we have conducted a national survey of the incidence of violence against NHS staff. We have set trusts tough targets for reducing violence. Accident and emergency departments are being equipped with closed-circuit television, layouts are being improved and staff are being equipped with alarms. Hospitals have been instructed to log all violent incidents and to prosecute any offenders. We will shortly publish new guidelines produced by officials from my Department, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department designed to deter assaults and abuse and to make sure that the criminal justice system takes harsh action against any who do offend. Hospitals are now required by law to be involved in local crime and disorder partnerships.

Staff who provide services in the community are also being helped by better security measures. These will improve the working lives of people in the NHS, and so will our commitment to get rid of short-term contracts. The routine use of short-term contracts left staff and their families in a state of insecurity. NHS employers have been told to end the practice of routinely offering short-term contracts and to use them only to provide cover for staff on maternity leave and other short-term factors. On top of that, we have made it clear to NHS employers that gagging clauses in staff contracts must become a thing of the past. Whistleblowers on the staff should have nothing to fear, provided of course that they tell the truth.

So why sack them?

I cannot sack any NHS staff. That comment just displays the ignorance of Opposition Members.

This Government are also taking action to end the institutionalised racism to be found in some parts of the NHS. We have changed the arrangements for allocating distinction and merit awards so that the proportion of black and Asian doctors getting awards has increased by 50 per cent. in the first year. We have almost doubled the percentage of black and Asian members of the boards of health authorities and trusts and we have been taking other measures to improve the situation for black and Asian staff.

I do not pretend that the changes that we have set in train will put everything right as quickly as we would like, but we have made a start, both with immediate measures to deal with the staffing crisis that we inherited and with long-term changes designed to provide more and better qualified staff in five, seven, 10 or 12 years' time. Both are being carried out by this Government. Both should have been done by the Tory Government. But they were not and that is why any Tory criticism of what we are trying to do amounts, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to bare-faced cheek.

8.17 pm

We welcome the debate and the fact that the Conservative party has chosen this subject. It is our perception that there is extremely wide concern, distress and lack of morale in the health service. The last debate on these issues was the one that I initiated on 13 January, which was on the pay and conditions of nurses, midwives and health visitors—the first debate on that subject for 10 years. Although we might find technical reasons to differ with the motion tabled by the Conservatives, because the nature of the complaints seems valid to us, unusually, we did not table our own amendment. We thought that it was more important on this occasion to register that, in spite of the good things that the Government have done and their best intentions, so far they have not cured the fundamental problem of a health service in which huge number of workers do not believe that the Government are saving it or coming to their rescue.

At the very beginning of the year, on several occasions, not least the winter flu outbreak, the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers came to the House and made a statement of support for the workers in the health service. On 11 January, the Secretary of State said:

"First, on behalf of everybody in the country, I want to thank all the people working in the health service and local social services for the huge effort they have been putting in to ensure that everybody gets the treatment and care that is needed."

We all agree with that. He continued:

"Over the past few weeks, nurses doctors, midwives, health visitors, cleaners, kitchen staff, managers, porters, ambulance staff, laboratory scientists, therapists, pharmacists, telephonists, clerical, administrative and maintenance staff and social services staff have all performed wonders on our behalf …I thank them all. They have done us proud."—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 35-39.]

I shall now read a letter dated 26 April from one of my constituents, who is a nurse. It reads:

"Dear Simon Hughes,

I am writing to tell you of my deep distress and anger at the way the nurses' pay rise has been treated by the NHS. I work for the Guy's and St. Thomas health trust and when I rang salaries to find out why the nurses had not been given their rise in April, I was first asked why I expected a pay-rise and secondly told we might get it in July if we were lucky. I then spoke to the personnel department at the … trust, who blamed the N.H.S. Executive for not sending out a letter of instruction to the trusts in time. They had managed to do this for the medical staff, who got their pay-rise when promised. This is typical. Nurses are the disregarded underclass of the N.H.S. Nobody gives a damn about us in real terms. All we get are well-meaning clichés and no action. The Labour Government promised that this pay award would not be staged or deferred, but that has obviously not happened. Labour boasts that 50,000 calls have been made to the back-to-nursing 'phone line. Nurses vote with their feet and leave the health service. No amount of cosmetic tinkering will reverse this unless pay and conditions improve. I know that you take a close interest in this health trust and feel sure you do not approve of this high-handed and arrogant approach to nurses' pay. I hope that you will be able to help us to get what was promised to us by the present Labour Government."

I do not know the nurse who wrote that letter. To my knowledge, I have never met this nurse, although the nurse in question lives only a few hundred yards from my house. I have read out the nurse's words; they are not my words. They are from a nurse who feels that the Government have let down nurses. We say that, if that is what they feel, that is what we must believe. That is a view that is widely felt in the national health service.

The instructions to the national health service about doctors' pay were issued sooner than those about nurses' pay because there has to be agreement with the representatives of the staff and the doctors agreed considerably sooner than the Royal College of Nursing. One of the other reasons for the delay in producing the letters, so I am told, is that the text has to be agreed by all the unions with which we are in negotiations. As far as I know, everybody should be paid in May if payment has not been made in April.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I know him well enough to know that, when he thinks that something has been done wrongly, he lets people know his views. If the NHS and the Government, who are accountable to the nation, thought that increased pay for nurses was important, he should have exclaimed to civil servants and managers of the NHS, as I have heard him exclaim to other people on other occasions, that that delayed payment was not acceptable. Indeed, it is not acceptable. Whatever the processes, it was not acceptable for the Government not to have given the instruction until after the beginning of the financial year. I hope that this never, ever, happens again.

I first picked up this concern at Morriston hospital in Swansea during the last week in April, when nurses came to me. I did not ask them to raise the matter with me. They told me that they had just received their pay slips and that the pay increase did not feature in them. I made inquiries and I asked my assistant to phone every NHS region in England, one trust per region. I was told that no trust had paid the increase in April. My assistant phoned Bromley in London, Kettering in the south-east, Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust in the south and west, Allington in the eastern region, Wolverhampton health care in the west midlands, Barnsley in Trent, Blackpool Victoria in the north-west and Harrogate Healthcare. Not one had paid.[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said. Most of those asked said that they hoped to pay this month.

What does this do for morale? Nurses were told, "You are hugely valued. We think that you are important and you will get a big pay rise." Then there was nothing. That is not good enough. I let the case rest there. I look to the Secretary of State to ensure that that does not happen again. It is no good saying that we love nurses when we kick them in the teeth when it comes to their pay packet.

Secondly, there is common ground in the House that we need to have a package of measures to make people want to come in to, stay in, or return to, the NHS in all the professions, but particularly nursing, which is the largest. I ask the Secretary of State to consider with his colleagues whether it is not time—this applies to other professions in the NHS and beyond—to examine ways in which we can assist better those who might consider coming into nursing and the other professions. For example, we used to offer bursary schemes to those in the armed services.

There are ways in which we could give people extra funding in return for a commitment to stay. We could offer loyalty payments for those who do not disappear. There could also be packages that make it worth while to cover the cost of retraining—a matter that the Secretary of State and I have debated before—those who have left the health service but need to come back. Such packages would mean that people would not be out of pocket. There are some people who have to travel to courses to train before they are allowed back into the health service. Packages to pay for all this would give an incentive to return. In other words, there would be a premium to come back and make a commitment of three or five years to the NHS.

If we have about 12,000 or 14,000 nursing shortages and if about 70,000 of the 140,000 qualified nurses are not in the NHS, we have enough people potentially, if they are willing to come back. Some have responded. The Government have taken initiatives to try to persuade them to respond, but there has been no financial incentive for them to do so. It would cost so little to provide one in terms of the total budget of the health service. The cost would be worth it for their sake and for the patients' sake. The return of those people would speed up treatment times. At the same time, the morale of the health service would improve because people would not be trying to cover jobs that are left vacant.

The offer of a bonus to someone who comes back into the NHS that is not offered to the folks who stay would harm morale, not improve it. Some football clubs have learned that to their cost.

I said specifically—the Secretary of State may not have heard me so I shall repeat it—that we should give loyalty bonuses to those who stay.

We obviously share the view of the Secretary of State that family-friendly policies matter hugely. We say clearly to him that, as the review of nursing grades continues, we need to allow people to stay in nursing but continue to be upgraded in salary and career position, and continue to do some hands-on nursing so that it is not necessary to become a manager to be promoted. People will therefore feel able to remain with nursing. I think that the right hon. Gentleman espouses that view.

Thirdly, we are keen, as I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is, to ensure that there is an opportunity for the nursing profession to become one in which people are much more involved collectively with all the other professions in decisions about its future.

The week before I was at Morriston hospital, I was at the junior doctors' forum in Bath. Junior doctors too are not happy. It is often necessary to get three A grades at A-level to become a medical student. The places are very difficult to secure. On qualification a junior doctor works mighty hard. They work harder than most other students for their degrees, and for longer in many instances. They then have to do their training. They often do not know whether they will have another six months' work after the six months that they are in. There is a huge element of uncertainty during the first few years post-qualification.

Many of the junior doctors said to me, "We also feel undervalued. We feel that it is not worth staying. We are concerned that we do not get proper supervision. We have cursory supervision from consultants, who literally look in and look out again. We now hear that the Government are trying to negotiate a maximum limit of 65 hours and not 56." For the first time, the Secretary of State, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, effectively admitted today that the Government—as I understand it, it was the Minister with responsibilities for public health who did the negotiating because she went to the Council of Public Health Ministers—were pushing for 65 hours. Why could the Government not have owned up? Why could they not have said that they pushed for 65 hours because they thought that they had to cover the fact that 20 per cent. of junior doctors were working more than 56 hours? Why have we had a month of obfuscation, denial, pretence and mealy-mouthed weasel words? Own up, Government. Be honest.

When the Government get something wrong, they should say so. Out there, people did not believe them. The doctors did not believe the Government, and the Government let them down. There was an explanation, but the Government should come clean with the country if they cannot do as they wish. They should not try to fool people. People are not fooled, and their morale is undermined.

The third issue is similar to the others. We are at risk of running desperately short of consultants. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who was previously a hospital doctor, knows more about that than I do. He has raised in the House and elsewhere not just the subject of the shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists, to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) also referred, but the fact that, in many of the career paths, there is a bottleneck. There is a nonsense system whereby people do not have the opportunity to progress up the career ladder and do the jobs that everyone is asking them to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is on the Select Committee on Health, which produced a good report that makes it clear that our manpower planning is still nonsense. Our work force planning is not working. We are not managing to make sure that we have the necessary NHS staff at the time that we need them, in the right place and the right post.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems bizarre that we plan centrally the number of medical students in the health service, we plan centrally the number of higher specialty trainees in the health service by region, but when it comes to consultants—the key end of the bottle that provides the service—there is no central planning? Trusts are left to do as they please, leading to the failure of consultant expansion, the poor quality that that causes, and the lost career opportunities for all those people in whom we have invested and for whom we have planned so carefully to bring them to consultant level.

My hon. Friend makes a point that I understand causes real concern. I ask the Government, as he has done, to change the system, which tries to plan the number of nurses and doctors that we need, but does not plan in a co-ordinated way the number of consultants that we need.

Many of the trusts where there are senior consultants determine the number of consultant posts according to their own traditional patterns, sometimes to protect the interests of existing consultants—their jobs, hours and income—to the detriment of younger doctors who would help to relieve their burden and the burdens on the health service. That is not acceptable. It is old-fashioned and used to be called a Spanish practice. We need to say that, even if it applies to a minority of consultants and a minority of trusts. We should not allow self-interest to determine the number of posts at consultant grade in the health service.

The fourth issue concerns general practitioners. We are facing the prospect of large numbers of GPs retiring and leaving. Some of those retiring were part of the bulge in the health service created by the number of people who took up general practice after the war, many of them from the new commonwealth and elsewhere. Some are retiring because of the pressures of the system and the paperwork, and others because of the fact that the new primary care group structure means that they will have less time to be GPs because they are required to perform a management role. I have recently met a considerable number of GPs who say that they will have nothing to do with primary care groups because they want to be doctors, not paper-pushers. They do not want to go to meetings; they want to get on with being doctors.

We are improving the health service.

I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I have seen enough round the country to worry me greatly. That, added to the current pressures and the shortage of GPs, will be a serious problem in a few years. In some areas, we could be as short of GPs as we are currently short of dentists in the health service. If we do not anticipate that problem and take action, we will be in big trouble.

My area has the highest patient:GP ratio in England and Wales. Under this Government, GPs in the health service are working to help us with those problems, instead of being the small independent contractors who held the service back for years.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the gaps in private general practice offering to work under contract for the health service had to be plugged by salaried GPs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked me today whether I had seen the front page of GP General Practitioner this week. It is dated 21 May, so, unless I am mistaken, it still has not officially come out, but I happen to have a copy. The headline is "Salaried GP posts collapse". It quotes Dr. Roger Chapman as saying:

"The £4 million was not enough and there is no new money."

It seems that the proposal was to fill the gaps with salaried GPs, but the money is not there to do it. The initiative may have helped in the hon. Gentleman's area and in others, but it does not seem to have done what it was billed to do.

With regard to professions allied to medicine and other workers not covered by the pay review bodies, there is no case now for pay review mechanisms not to cover everyone who works in the health service, including those who are currently excluded.

I shall ask a couple of questions and end with a couple of propositions, as I know that others want to speak in the debate.

The MSF—Manufacturing, Science and Finance union—briefing paper from its lobby of Parliament asked whether this year's pay round had made matters better or worse for many of its staff. It states that the position is significantly worse, and that almost all the skilled and professional staff got 2.8 per cent. on basic pay, with nothing on leave and allowances, even though, since 1984, many of those categories have fallen back 30 per cent. in their pay.

The headquarters of the MSF are in my constituency. I am aware of the union's concerns, which the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. I am concerned not just about the people who belong to that union and the professions allied to medicine covered by the pay review bodies, but about the people outside that group—for example, ancillary workers in the health service, such as cleaners.

I visited a hospital the other day in the south-east of England which, at the pay that it offers, cannot get the cleaners that it needs. That is in the county's principal general hospital. The reason is that the pay rate down the road at Tesco is twice as much. The hospital does not have the cleaners that it needs and it is worried about that, as there are clearly health and safety implications for a hospital more than for anywhere else.

Neither the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) nor I is being alarmist. We are simply reflecting what people are telling us as we go round the country about the desperate state of morale, pay and conditions in the health service.

I shall put two questions to the Minister. I have heard the Secretary of State's evidence before the Select Committee about the number of nurses that we are short of. My first question, which I hope the Minister will answer at the end of the debate, is what was the total shortage of professional staff in the health service when the Government came to office in 1997 and what was it in April 1999? I believe that it has gone up over the past two years, if one adds the figures for doctors, GPs, nurses, dentists and so on.

Secondly, what is the Government's target ratio of doctors to population, consultants to population, nurses to population and junior doctors to population? Many of the tables show that we are comparatively well off in the number of nurses, but we are badly off in the number of doctors, relative to the number of people in the United Kingdom. If that is the case, we must seriously address how to respond to the aspirations of all those young people who want to enter medicine and other health professions and become public servants in the health service, but for whom the system does not deliver.

The Minister must also tell us what is to be done in respect of millennium pay for public sector workers. Liberal Democrats believe that there must be an acknowledgement of the duty that we may impose on those in the emergency services—including the health service—during the period of the millennium celebrations. The matter must be nationally agreed. It is nonsense to leave it to local pay bargaining, negotiation and pressure. That applies not only to the health service, but to the ambulance and other emergency and public services.

Our urgent view is clear; I have stated it previously. The health service will not get out of its staffing hole unless it owns up to the need for a real-terms increase in funding—in terms of the gross domestic product. One could try to get people out of the health service—the route proposed by the Tories, from which we dissent—but, until a real increase is the accepted norm, we shall always struggle. I have never heard the Government make that commitment.

What is needed is a package of specific measures, including financial ones—not merely warm words and glossy advertisements—to draw people into the professions and retain them. We need work force planning for all professionals and grades in the health service—not merely for some of them. It would be better for that to be based on cross-party debate and agreement, rather than on Government denials of a major crisis. It should not be left for opposition parties to bang on the door. We and the Tories may agree on few things and disagree on many things. We may have criticisms of their record in office. That is in the past. At present, there is a crisis in morale in almost all professions in the health service. The two-year mark that the Government have just passed has not changed that; if they do not act soon, things will get worse—not better.

8.40 pm

We are debating the conditions of service in the national health service. I shall talk about a case that will have been going on for four years by September of this year—the Hillingdon hospital dispute. Before I do so, I note that the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), mentioned a commission on trolleys. Having listened to some of the contributions from Members on the Opposition Benches, it would not take long for a commission on who is off their trolley to arrive at its conclusions.

I was also reminded that at the West Middlesex University hospital, which will be rebuilt as a result of the Government's policies, patients were shifted around the hospital, from ward to ward and from ward to operating theatre, on what we called milk floats. Under this Government, that hospital will be replaced by a modern, new building. The previous Government took £10 million from the sale of the South Middlesex hospital to rebuild the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Originally, that money had been promised to the West Middlesex. We shall at last have a decent hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).

In relation to the Hillingdon hospital dispute, I remind hon. Members of what the duties of domestic staff in the health service used to be. There was a member of the domestic staff on each ward. That person not only cleaned the ward, but was often the only visitor for many patients. Members of the domestic staff used to go shopping for patients. Several years ago, their jobs were changed dramatically when the cleaning of hospitals was put out to contract.

Some of the women at the Hillingdon hospital have worked there for 30 years; at first, they worked directly for the NHS and then for the contract cleaners. That second system worked quite well until about four years ago last April when the Pall Mall company took over the contract. The company decided that it would be better—at least for its directors—if the pay of the domestic staff was reduced from about £3.50 to £2.50 an hour. Fifty-five mainly Asian women decided that, on principle, it was not acceptable to have their pay reduced by about 30 per cent. They came out on strike and have been on strike ever since. At one stage, they were the only people who believed that they could win. However, they were determined. They attended tribunals and maintained a picket line on every day of the year—including Christmas day, Boxing day and new year's day. I was on a token picket line with them on Christmas day last year.

The multi-million pound Pall Mall company was the original guilty party; it was part of the Davis group and has since been taken over by Granada, which is a member of the Low Pay Commission. Of the original 55 strikers, about 18 are left. They attended the latest tribunal which was held last week between 12 and 14 May. Those people have won on every occasion that they attended a tribunal. They are ordinary women who had never been involved in disputes; they are the nicest and most reasonable strikers I have ever met during my long career of involvement in industrial disputes. All that the women wanted was their jobs back at a reasonable rate of pay. They pressed on and, as I said, they have won at every tribunal; however, the company they want to be their employer continues to refuse to take them back. At the final tribunal last week, at which Granada appealed against having to take the workers back, the company lost once again.

I did not attend last week's tribunal, because I was on duty here, but I was astonished to hear of an admission made at that tribunal by Granada's senior manager of human resources—a man to whom I have spoken on several occasions when offering to try to bring the dispute to a happy conclusion, because I know the strikers so well. He appeared to me to be a reasonable and honourable man, but he admitted that it was he who had typed out a petition and forced people who were working at the hospital to sign it by threatening them with the loss of their jobs: the petition said that the signatories did not want the strikers back in any circumstances. He did that despite the fact that 220 doctors, nurses and ancillary workers had signed a petition saying that they would welcome the Hillingdon hospital strikers back.

That is how matters now stand. It has been the most honourable dispute I have seen, involving the most honourable strikers that I have ever represented, and the previous Government should be ashamed that the situation could have reached such a level.

I am speaking about industrial disputes because there has been criticism—even from Labour Members—of the current Government's proposals on changing the Employment Relations Bill; we felt that they did not go far enough. However, there have been three major disputes in west London alone that would have been rendered completely unnecessary by legislation introduced under the Labour Government. The Hillingdon hospital is one of those, because Pall Mall would not have been able to reduce pay from £3.50 an hour to £2.50 an hour under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, so that four-year strike would never have happened. Let us think of how much suffering those women and their families have had to endure during that period.

Another major dispute occurred in west London when Noon's refused to recognise the GMB, despite 70 per cent. and more of the work force voting for union membership. Noon's has now given in, because it knows that the Employment Relations Bill will force it to do so, but the suffering the dispute has inflicted need never have taken place. In my constituency, the Lufthansa Skychefs strike—although it is hardly a strike—would have been rendered unnecessary by the same legislation. During an industrial dispute, on being given notice of a series of one-day strikes, Lufthansa Skychefs sacked the strikers immediately. That happened on three occasions and now 300 people have been sacked. Those sackings would have been illegal under the Employment Relations Bill.

The difference in the attitudes of the previous Government and the current Government is clear. Many hon. Members do not understand what workers have to face when they are forced into circumstances such as those which the workers at Hillingdon hospital have had to endure. We should all be ashamed that all those ordinary women have now had to go four years without work, and we should all wish them well now that the tribunal has finally awarded against Granada.

8.49 pm

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has spoken eloquently about the enormous difficulties affecting NHS staff, and the appalling proposal to worsen conditions of service by increasing to 65 the hours that junior doctors will be expected to work. That the best medical care is provided by keen, alert and wide-awake young doctors, not by those who struggle to stay attentive as they are ground down by excessive hours of work, is recognised by the whole population—the whole population, that is, except for the Secretary of State for Health and his henchmen.

The previous Conservative Government worked extremely hard to reduce progressively the hours worked by those highly valued medical men and women who are the core of tomorrow's health care system. Yet, at a stroke, the Secretary of State has thrown away all those hard-won improvements. He will not be able to deceive the public, who will see that the health service is not safe in his hands. Like the nurses who were robbed of their full pay rise and the consultants who are frustrated by the Government's failure to implement review body recommendations, doctors throughout the profession are suffering.

I wish to address the conditions of service for doctors who provide primary care for our population. Since the inception of the health service, general practitioners have provided the bedrock of care for the population and have acted as the gatekeepers for access to secondary care. More than 90 per cent. of all medical care is provided in the primary sector. Since the election of the Labour Government, GPs have seen their conditions of service decline steadily. They have been dragooned into primary care groups—in many cases, against their will—and they have seen the enormous benefits of the fundholding system snatched away from them. The fruits of the fundholders' labours—the entrepreneurialism that led to the creation of innovative primary care centres—have been largely destroyed.

The community clinics at GP surgeries, which were so valuable in improving the quality of care and providing effective and rapid local services, have been snatched away by a compulsory money-saving exercise by primary care group boards, which are constrained by debt that has resulted from inflexible and inappropriate financial instructions from the Department of Health to health authorities. Although primary care group boards currently enjoy a majority of GP members in most instances, they have the power to compel a practice or a doctor to follow board policy on pain of withholding practice finances.

In addition, if doctors are seduced into primary care trusts, they will lose their majority, their authority, the control of their staff and their premises. The individualist, independent practitioners will end up as salaried doctors working to the guidelines and protocols set for them by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is driven by rationing rather than by quality. Let there be no doubt: Professor Rawlins, the chairman of NICE, has made it clear that no product or treatment will be recommended if there is no money to fund its introduction.

My hon. Friend spoke of doctors being seduced into primary care trusts. She may be interested to learn that, under the Health Bill as currently drafted, they will not need to be seduced: doctors can be forced into primary care trusts without their consent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting the record straight. I take his point: doctors can be forced into primary care trusts.

Conditions of service will be desecrated by protocols that will prohibit the patient from receiving the best—which was a concept guarded carefully by the previous Conservative Government—and which will deliver the cheapest service. The concept of "never mind the quality, feel the width" was never more apparent.

What about the GP who shows initiative? He risks a visit from the thought police of the Commission for Health Improvement, who are able to come into his practice, see and do whatever they like, say whatever they wish and charge him for the costs of the exercise. Conditions for GPs whose partners or colleagues are involved in PCG work have also deteriorated. Inadequately reimbursed for the costs of the locums that they need to employ, they will either be unable to fulfil their PCG roles properly, or will end up subsidising the Government's primary care hyperbole out of their own pockets.

What about conditions for the poor patients who must tolerate those ill thought through ideas? How many sick people will be unable to see the doctor of their choice because he is away at the PCG doing administrative work? Half a million consultations—a number equivalent to the whole population of Sheffield—will be lost each month and patients will have to receive their care from locums, if they can be found.

We should remember the Labour party's theme tune for the previous election. In my view, things have not got better; they have become more expensive, more bureaucratic and more confused; things have only got worse. Burdened with a new range of targets which must be met to enable them to claim the £60 million promised by the Government in recognition for hard work already undertaken, doctors' overall work load is rising inexorably. The demand for surgery attendances increases year on year. Expectations about quality improvements are for ever applied as GPs are required to embrace clinical governance, to prescribe more generic drugs and to improve their education.

Doctors are having to contend with an increasingly litigious population that demands more and more from the finite resources that practices can offer. Legal claims against GPs rose by 15 per cent. last year alone. Ten years ago, a GP had a one in 500 risk of being sued in any year; now that risk is one in 35. Complaints are rising exponentially as GPs fail to meet patients' expectations generated by a Government with no vision and even less consideration. All those demands must be met by a profession that has a recruitment crisis and is starved of the funding for key developments, and what can all that do but destroy morale and suppress enthusiasm?

We must recognise the deteriorating conditions under which GPs are being forced to work. We truly lament the decline in conditions of service that they are having to face, the loss of a service that was the envy of the world and the development of a system that will fragment primary care. All that will result in the provision of a rag-bag service in supermarkets and railway stations, and through NHS Direct, the value of which is highly questionable. The outcome will be the loss of consistency of care that has become a byword for the management of patients by United Kingdom GPs.

We are prepared to stand as the champions of primary care and as advocates for the comprehensive services that GPs can now provide. GPs should be supported in their provision of services, with conditions that allow them the flexibility and freedom to provide the best services. The Government's actions have resulted in one fundamental change. The GP can no longer say, "I shall do my best for you." He can say only, "I shall do what they will let me do for you." That is a sad reflection on the Government's policy.

I urge the Secretary of State to think again, to support rather than harangue, to encourage rather than discourage, to build rather than destroy and to restore the conditions of service for GPs to allow them to provide the care for which they are renowned.

8.58 pm

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in opening the debate, that he felt that the Opposition had what he called barefaced cheek in putting their motion on the Order Paper. I am not sure which Opposition motion has the most barefaced cheek—this one or the one that we debated a few months ago about national health service waiting lists, which rose considerably under the previous Government. The circumstances described in the motion and the problems in the NHS are those that we inherited in 1997.

I am amazed that the motion has been tabled, but I am pleased that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his colleagues have put their names to it because I believe in a Government facing an Opposition, and I have been waiting a long time for such a development.

I listened to both the opening speeches made from the Opposition Benches. The words "barefaced cheek" did not immediately spring to my mind, but the words "mealy mouthed" did. The Opposition did not attack nurses' pay, but they are now attacking the administration behind it. They say that—although the Government have agreed with the pay review body and agreed that the nurses can have the money straight away, at the beginning of the financial year—the trusts are not administering the pay rise properly and that they are the problem. [Interruption.] I wrote this down: the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, among many other things, that the trusts are failing to give nurses the money.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he felt that people did not expect the Government to kick them in the teeth. If this year's nurses' pay award is a kick in the teeth, the nurses have been waiting many years for the Government to do that and to give justice where there has been no justice for a long time.

I want to make sure that the hon. Gentleman and I understand each other. He knows that we welcome the fact that the pay award must be paid in one go and is not phased. That is clearly better than phasing an award, which his Government did last year, and the Tories the year before. The kick in the teeth—I do not blame the trusts at all—is that no increase was paid, although the Government said in the press release that the award would be paid in full in April. That was not the fault of the trusts—they were given permission too late to be able to do anything.

The hon. Gentleman used the words in that way; let me tell the House some of the other words he used. He read out a letter from a nurse from his constituency who said that the Government had a high-handed approach to nurses pay. if they do, that is most welcome and something that we have been waiting for—it will achieve justice for many years to come.

The hon. Gentleman talked about his travels around the national health service—he always gives us an update in these debates—and told us what people are saying. Some people might be saying what he says they are saying, but the question for him is whether he agrees with them that workers do not trust the Government or that there is widespread concern and distress in the NHS.

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that NHS personnel are thoroughly disillusioned, fed up and demoralised with the Government. If that is what the motion is based on, the Opposition ought to go back to the NHS to talk to people. I remember my postbag at the time when people really were fed up with the Government and demoralised by what they were doing. We regularly received letters from members of the NHS professions because of what the previous Government were doing to the NHS. I do not think that I have received two such letters since the Government took office two years ago, because we are doing the right things for the NHS.

Let us run through what the nurses' pay award in February meant. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly said that the nurses are to get their biggest real-terms pay rise for 10 years. For the first time in five years, the award is being paid nationally in full and with no staging. That is hardly kicking anybody in the teeth. Starting pay for newly qualified nurses will rise from £12,855 to £14,400, which is a 12 per cent. increase. There will be an 8.2 per cent. increase in basic pay for 70,000 grade D nurses. Other nursing grades are to get a 4.7 per cent. increase in basic pay, although inflation is running at about 2 or 2.5 per cent. I hardly think that that is an attack on nurses and people working in the NHS.

More than 200,000 members of the Royal College of Nursing are working in the NHS and they are getting that type of benefit. For the first time in the history of the NHS, the starting pay for all newly qualified nurses will be more than £4,000 per annum. The inner-London allowance will increase from £1,910 to £2,205 from 1 April. The outer-London allowance will increase from £1,360 to £1,570. That means that starting pay in inner London for all newly qualified nurses will be £17,325, which is a marked increase on what they had in years immediately gone by.

As well as that basic pay, nurses receive, on average, an extra 11 per cent. from the allowances, which means that an average grade D nurse on the minimum of the scale will get about £1,600 extra. That is hardly an attack on NHS personnel working in those different grades. The Opposition try to talk down these increases instead of congratulating the Government on bringing to the nursing profession the justice for which it has waited so long.

The Opposition motion does not seem to be supported by the Royal College of Nursing, which recognises what the Government are doing. The royal college welcomes the debate and has sent hon. Members a briefing, which says:

"The Government have taken some significant steps towards addressing the NHS nursing shortage, with the 12 per cent. increase in starting salary for junior nurses, the publication of NHS Human Resources Strategies for England, Scotland and Wales, and the launch of discussions on the Agenda for Change proposals to modernise the NHS pay system."

I agree with the RCN on that. It goes on to say:

"However, it is clear that many more changes are needed throughout the NHS before nursing becomes an attractive profession again. The RCN believes that pay is the single most important way in which nurses' morale can be boosted and nursing valued again. However, there are a number of other vital issues which the NHS must also address."

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the president of the Royal College of Nursing said that the 4.7 per cent. pay increase would do nothing to stem the flow of nurses out of the profession?

She may have said that, but it is not in the brief. I have just read what it says. The RCN believes that pay is the single most important way in which to boost nurses' morale, but not the only way. I shall refer to the areas in which their morale has been battered over the years.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to family-friendly employment policies. I mentioned GPs when I intervened on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The NHS is now able to employ general practitioners: they have had independent contractor status for the past 50 years. Fifty-eight per cent. of nurses have caring responsibilities for dependent children or dependent adults, yet only now after, all these years, is the NHS beginning to adopt flexible employment practices. It should have done that 50 years ago. We must ensure that we retain nurses who leave the service because of the pressures of the system.

The RCN refers to career progression, which is another issue that my right hon. Friend addressed. The Government have some good proposals to develop the potential of nurses to help them to get on in the profession. We should not ignore that.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned violence in accident and emergency departments, and threats to staff. About 12 months ago, the then Health Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), gave a speech about violence to NHS staff. It received some derogatory comments from people working in the NHS. In some areas, stress caused by the likelihood of attacks is a major factor affecting people's decision on whether to stay in their job. The Government are setting targets that health trusts must meet to get such violence out of the system and to make the workplace safe for NHS staff. We must ensure that they do not have the stresses that they have had in the past.

I realise that in opposition we sometimes have to put awkward arguments that get thrown back in our faces. I sat on the Opposition Benches from 1983 until two years ago. The Opposition motion takes the biscuit when we consider how NHS staff were treated during that time. We are talking about a party that imposed an internal market on the national health service, and forced hospital staff to compete with colleagues in other hospitals—doctor against doctor, and, by extension, patient against patient. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said that the end of fundholding was a great loss. I must tell her that, for most of the time that the system operated, the vast majority of patients were disadvantaged by fundholding, because the patients of fundholders were jumping hospital queues. There was no pain measurement; the measurement related to whether the Government had created what they did create—a two-tier health service meaning that those who were not served by a fundholding general practice might have to wait until the following financial year before getting into the local hospital, regardless of their pain. The Conservatives still try to defend what I have always considered to be an indefensible situation, but we all know what really happened.

The staff did not like the two-tier health system, which forced them to keep new developments and better ways of treating patients secret so that hospitals would not undermine their competitive advantage over their neighbours. The Government want to ensure that we share the practice in the NHS. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and other organisations that are being set up, are about improving patient care. They are not about central diktats and telling clinicians what they should or should not do; they are about sharing the practice, so that all of us, as patients, get a better deal in the health service than we have in the past.

Another aspect of morale in the NHS—it was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—concerns short-term contracts. If any one thing has lowered the morale of NHS personnel, since the early 1980s when the practice began in catering and cleaning, it is short-term contracts. NHS employees wanted to know that their jobs were there, and would be there for many years.

What was done was done in two ways. First, there was the internal market, which acted in very marked ways; secondly, there was the question of the funding of the NHS. It was much better for trusts to employ people on short-term contracts, which meant that staff did not know whether their wages would be lower in the following year than they had been in the preceding year. They did not know whether central Government were prepared to continue to fund them, and whether they could continue to provide staff with what most of us would consider to be reasonable pay and conditions and reasonable longevity in terms of employment.

Other things have created morale problems in the NHS over many years. A nursing recruitment crisis has been caused by years of training cuts and complacency, for instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the thousands that we have lost in the last five years in terms of nurse training. It will be difficult to turn the corner, but we have begun to do so.

Not once was my right hon. Friend challenged by Conservative Members on the reason for the present crisis in nursing. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) says that it is about the fact that nurses were given only a 4.7 per cent. pay increase this year, but that is bunkum, and the hon. Gentleman must know that it is bunkum—as would anyone who had talked to nurses about the fact that they have been batted from pillar to post, and have also had to deal with the additional work imposed on them by the internal market.

There is also the problem of overseeing the spread of gagging clauses in staff contracts, forbidding staff from telling the truth about what is going on. That, too, causes problems of morale in the NHS; that is another corner that we must turn.

The Opposition may be able to have a go at the Government on a number of counts, but I do not think that they can do so on the basis of the money that is coming into the NHS, or the way in which the Government are taking on the responsibility of getting rid of the morale problems that we inherited in May 1997. I know that the Opposition have to table motions such as this, but they should take advice now and again. This motion completely misses the mark, and some of its rhetoric will be seen by the NHS as being way off the mark.

The Government will take a long time to put right the wrongs that have demoralised the health service, but the first two years have been good years, during which they have begun to make progress. I am sure that, in years to come, there is much more to come from the Government in putting right the wrongs that they inherited.

9.15 pm

I shall try to keep my remarks brief because I have something to say and because I am aware that many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, as do Labour Members.

I want to talk about some of the reality of what is happening in the NHS—not the rosy view that we have heard from the Secretary of State for Health and from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but some of the truth. I shall discuss some of the things that are affecting my constituents and that are coming to light as time goes on.

I refer not only to the fact that nurses in the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust did not receive their pay rise in April, as they had been promised. That is a matter of timing and perhaps is not that significant in overall terms. I am more concerned about what the implications of that are, what the reasoning behind it was and what it tells us about the true situation of the NHS under the Government's stewardship.

I want to talk in particular, because it is a useful example to illustrate the position, about Altrincham general hospital. On 10 May, Trafford Healthcare NHS trust announced to the press that two of the three wards would be closed in July. The announcement was made four days after local elections in the borough of Trafford, which were closely fought, and in which the Labour party held on to its majority by just three seats. The trust chairman is a Trafford Labour councillor, yet the announcement was made four days after the local elections.

The announcement was made without any consultation whatever with the public, or the community health council. It was made without any consultation even with the health authority. I find it impossible to believe that the decision was taken between Thursday 6 May, when the local elections took place, and Monday 10 May, when the announcement was made, so the inescapable conclusion is that the decision was made before the local elections, that it was suppressed and that no consultation could be undertaken because it was a politically sensitive issue.

The result of the decision was announced in a blatant fashion just four days after local elections, without anyone in the local community having been consulted, or even told about it. The arrogant treatment of the community that I represent and the disregard for a well-respected, well-loved institution in my constituency are staggering. It is a picture of the way in which the NHS is being run under the Government markedly different from that which Labour Members have described.

A few days ago, I asked the Department some questions. I have had confirmation that the regional executive knew something of the decision on 8 April—again, some confirmation of what is really going on in the borough of Trafford and in my constituency.

The devastating thing—the implications of which go far wider than Altrincham general hospital—is the reason that was given for the closure of the wards by the chief executive of Trafford Healthcare NHS trust to the chief officer of the community health council on Monday 10 May, when the decision was announced. He said that the trust was left with no choice because the Government had not funded the nurses' pay award, which had forced it to make savings by closing wards.

That is a different picture from that which the Secretary of State sought to give earlier. He sought to take credit for having given what he said was a generous pay award. It would have been generous if he had actually given it. In fact, he left the trust scratching around looking for ways to save money, to cut services and to remove wards. Reducing the wards from three to one has put the whole hospital under threat of closure. We have to ask how long it will be before that other ward is closed under the Government's stewardship. The whole reason for that is that the Government, who claim to be looking after the NHS and to be funding the nurses' pay award, are doing nothing of the sort. They are putting one figure in the press, and making sure that the vast majority of nurses are awarded a different figure, and not even on time. More scandalously, they are not providing the funds for it. That is resulting in the closure of wards, and it will result in the closure of many more across the country in the months and years to come. That is what Ministers must address.

Ministers will have to start giving some real answers to people who are seeing the NHS suffer under their stewardship. They cannot carry on giving out platitudes and press releases which bear no relation to the truth. My constituents have seen what the Government think of the NHS—they see it as a public relations opportunity and they care nothing about providing services for people. That is what the Government will have to address.

9.21 pm

Opposition Members have spent a great deal of time talking about money and pay within the NHS. Of course, money is extremely important—it is almost certainly the most important issue affecting NHS staff. That is why I am so surprised that they should table the motion, particularly as they have made clear their opposition to the national minimum wage, which will give a number of NHS workers a good deal.

The Conservatives also oppose the £21 billion extra that the Government have found for health—they called it reckless and irresponsible. Where do they think the money will come from to give nurses, doctors and others a decent pay settlement if not from our comprehensive spending review—which found the money in the first place, and which they opposed?

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to a document from the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union which shows how the wages for professions allied to medicine have been eroded over the past fifteen years. How can he be surprised? The Tory Government took those groups out of the pay review body and allowed their pay to be eroded by 30 per cent. over the past 15 years. In other words, Tory policies led to the problems in the NHS that we are trying so hard to put right. It strikes me as odd that the Conservatives should talk to us about money when we are trying to put more money into the pockets of health workers, while they are clearly opposed to that.

During the 1980s, I was a junior doctor, and I was working for about £30 a week. For that, Iwas working, on average, 104 hours per week. The money that I was receiving was not time and a third for overtime, but one third of normal time. I was paid a flat rate for my first 40 hours. After that, I was paid one third of my normal wage. I was on call for that many hours a week with that little pay.

The new deal for doctors has put that right to a large extent. Now, we see that just one in six doctors works more than 56 hours a week. However, it is not just about money or work. A third aspect, which Tory Members have clearly failed to take into account, is the amount of stress and anxiety experienced by junior doctors.

It is one thing to be working 104 hours a week and to be earning £30 a week. It is quite another to face the stress and strain of being on call alone at night with three, four or five wards to look after, plus emergencies coming from casualty as well as a coronary care unit and GPs on the phone wanting advice and help.

We certainly need more junior doctors in this country, and there is no way in which a responsible Government can put right the situation for junior doctors until we have trained more doctors. Until we put right the recruitment problem, we cannot reduce the hours. If we do not solve the problem, we would make the situation far more dangerous. The only way in which we can improve the lot of junior doctors is either to train more doctors—which we are doing—or to make the current doctors work even harder still to cover the gaps left by their colleagues who are taking a well-earned rest. Clearly, that would be an irresponsible move for any Government, which is why we have to phase in the reduction of junior doctors' hours over the next few years.

I was taken aback by what the hon. Gentleman said about junior doctors. Does he agree that producing more junior doctors to share the work load is, in itself, harmful if insufficient new consultant posts are created? Does he feel that the Government should bring back a central or regional manpower planning policy to ensure that there is consultant expansion, and that trusts do not wriggle away in pursuit of the bottom line?

As a member of the Health Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that we produced a report on staffing in the NHS. Of course it is important for the Government to take an overall view of work force planning, to ensure that the doctors of the future can help the health service, the trusts and the hospitals to provide a service that is so clearly needed.

For some extraordinary reason, we have been told tonight that GP recruitment has fallen off only since the introduction of primary care groups. That is simply not the case. GP recruitment came to an absolute standstill with the introduction of the new contract for GPs in 1990. I clearly remember many of my colleagues retiring early because they could not face the rigours of the new contract imposed on them against their collective will. It forced them to carry out procedures that they knew would be bureaucratic and largely fruitless in improving patient care. They had to go through the hoops simply to meet a series of Government targets designed to make the health service look better than it was.

A whole generation of young doctors was disillusioned and put off general practice, so when good practices wanted to recruit new staff they found it virtually impossible to do so. When I was training to be a GP, perhaps 50 or 60 candidates would apply for a good GP post, but that went down to four or five, some of whom were of such poor quality that they could not even be interviewed. That was clearly the fault of the previous Government, who imposed a regime on GPs that was unacceptable, unhealthy and clearly not in the patient's interests.

The two-tier system, about which we have already heard tonight, forced doctor against doctor and put patients in an impossible position. I could recount story after story of the difficulties that it caused for me when hospitals would ring up and ask if I had a contract to refer patients, because they could not take them if I did not. That was an intolerable situation for GPs.

Now we have primary care groups. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should attack them as somehow divisive or difficult. To set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), there is no compulsion for GPs to take part in primary care groups. They are members of the groups just as they were members of commissioning groups in the previous system, under which decisions were made on their behalf even if they never attended a meeting. The same applies to primary care groups: those who want to work with nurses, social workers and others can do so, but those who want to sit back and let the decisions be made for them are equally welcome to do that.

GPs' pay has been mentioned. For nine of the 11 years of Lady Thatcher's Administration, the pay review body's recommendation was either not paid in full or staged, whereas the new Labour Government have paid the GPs' pay award in full and exactly according to the body's recommendation.

There has been a tremendous emphasis on the medical and nursing staff. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is also a danger looming in the way in which we are treating laboratory technicians, who are vital in an age of high-tech medicine? To tell them that they could get jobs elsewhere is to forget that they want to work in the health service, where they are needed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I have already said that I think that the professions allied to medicine were treated shabbily under the previous Government. They deserve far more respect and a far better deal.

I want to share with the House a report that I released to the press this evening with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who co-chairs with me the all-party group on primary care and public health. We conducted an inquiry into the effectiveness or otherwise of the primary care groups. We invited outside groups to come and tell us what their experiences were, what they thought was happening in the primary care groups and what they wanted.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will contradict me if he does not agree, but I noted that the majority of the people who came to our sessions, representing all aspects of medicine, as well as patient groups, were broadly in support of primary care groups. They thought that they were the way forward, being more democratic and accountable, allowing patients to have proper access to uniform quality of care throughout the country, ending postcode rationing and a two-tier system and bringing transparency, openness, honesty and decency. The vast majority of the groups who gave evidence to us were wholly behind that principle. Of course there are difficulties and problems in some areas, and not all GPs, all social workers or all nurses are happy, but the vast majority clearly accept the principle that that is the right way forward.

Obviously, as with any new system, there will be teething problems, and it will take some time for the primary care group to bed down and decide whether it wants to go for trust status or stay with PGC status.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the one thing that will destabilise primary care groups and trusts is the continued development of an alternative primary care system through NHS Direct and walk-in clinics, without reference to local health improvement programmes? Should not the Government be a partner in the health improvement programmes that primary care groups are supposed to deliver?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about NHS Direct and drop-in centres. We shall have to see how those new institutions work in integrating health care. I hope that they will be able to integrate care with GP co-operatives and primary care groups to provide a seamless service. Clearly there are problems in the inner cities, especially with out-of-hours care, and NHS Direct has already proved its case as a worthy way of addressing some of those problems. Time will tell how it develops, and I am sure that the Government will closely monitor the pilot schemes and carefully evaluate the outcomes.

Another aspect that we have not touched upon is the Government's programme of building new hospitals. The first private finance initiative hospital is to be built in Dartford. It is currently well on schedule and is due to be completed early next year. It will not only improve patient services and make care for Dartford and Gravesham patients far better, but dramatically improve conditions for staff.

I used to work in the Joyce Green hospital and the West Hill hospital, both in Dartford, and both to be replaced by the new hospital. Both of them were seedy and rundown, built for a bygone age and entirely unsuited to modern medical care. They were inefficient, too, especially as the ward blocks were a long way apart.

I used to cycle round those ward blocks if there was an emergency in one of the wards. I cycled down the ward, jumped off my bike and put it by the nurses' station in the middle of the ward, and applied cardiac massage to a patient. That was not all that long ago—at least, I like to think that it was not long ago; other hon. Members may have a different view.

Those were rundown Victorian fever hospitals, built to look after TB patients. TB went away but the hospitals remained, and we are still living with that. Now, at long last, we are getting rid of that, and next year we shall move into a brand new state-of-the-art hospital.

Of course, the private finance initiative has had its problems and its critics. The Select Committee on Health is investigating the subject now. The next generation of PFI hospitals will be based on the experience of the current generation, and I dare say that the Government will think hard about altering some of the contracting and pricing arrangements to ensure that the country gets better value for money from the next generation.

We have taken a brave step. It took the Labour Government to take that step, and to change the law when we came into office so that PFI deals could go ahead, and the hospital that Dartford and Gravesham so sorely needed could be built, and will deliver the services on time for the people of Dartford.

The doctors and nurses to whom I speak are pleased with the new facilities where they will work. They are overjoyed by the fact that they will work in modern conditions that will enable them to give an excellent service to the patients of our area.

The Government have come up with many initiatives, and have found not only the money but the means to deliver good services, and also to improve staff conditions. I cannot think what the Opposition are whingeing about. We have a good Government, providing a good and improving national health service. The Secretary of State has said that he wants it to improve year on year.

My constituents, too, are grateful for our splendid new hospital, but they know that their hospital was built under a Conservative Government. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that his wonderful new hospital did not even see the drawing board until after the general election?

Although the Conservative Government thought up the idea, it took a Labour Government to change the law to allow it to happen. That is the difference. The Conservatives can come up with the ideas, but it takes a caring Labour Government to deliver on those ideas and turn them into reality. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency that will have the first PFI hospital in the land.

9.35 pm

I did not believe one word uttered by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and I did not recognise the health service described by the Secretary of State. The health service is in crisis. Morale has never been so low. I blame three people: the leader of the Labour party, the leader of the Liberal party and the Secretary of State for Health.

The leader of the Labour party gave an inept performance at the Dispatch Box today. He could have been Harry Enfield delivering the sermon of platitudes. Conservative Members are entitled to be angry. For 18 years, the Labour party tried every trick in the book to undermine the national health service. Labour Members built up people's expectations, saying that if they voted Labour on 1 May 1997, the new Government would save the national health service.

I have received grubby little letters that have been sent to Conservative party members exhorting them to give money to the Labour party. They say:

"In 1948, it was the Labour Party who created the NHS, giving the people of this country the care they deserved based on need, not their ability to pay. Now, in government again, we have found an extra £21 billion to begin to undo the damage content just to sit back and watch this once great service decline still further. …

Do you want better hospitals with more beds and more nurses to care for the sick?"

That rubbish has been torn up and thrown in the bin by every Conservative activist. It is a disgrace. The Labour party is peddling a lie about the £21 billion.

The Liberals have about six useless pledges. I am sick of Liberals—

Liberal Democrats.

Okay. I am sick of the Liberal Democrats and their crocodile tears. They have made a grubby little deal to join up with the Scottish Labour party. They are sharing power in Scotland and in Southend. They also bear the blood of the national health service on their hands.

The Secretary of State is primarily responsible for the lowest morale in the NHS in my life time. The so-called health service reforms are a shambles. All my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee considering the Health Bill on Tuesdays and Thursdays can see that the Government are making a mess. They cannot deal with the amendments that we are ably tabling. They are not accepting any of our arguments. The General Practitioner has said that "Chaos" reigns on the eve of reforms. The Government do not accept that there is rationing or that they fiddle the waiting list when they should be addressing waiting times.

I have evidence of the chronic shortage of consultant radiologists. A letter from the clinical director of a local trust says:

"there will inevitably be some delay in the reporting of Radiological examinations over the next few months. There will also be delays with ultrasound scanning, in particular inpatient work."

Everyone understands how serious that it.

This dreadful Government have misled the nurses, the doctors and everyone who works in the health service. I salute the women and men who work in Southend general hospital. They do a magnificent job in spite of this rotten Government, who have done everything that they can to undermine them. A few weeks ago I was walking round the hospital talking to a range of people employed there. Every one of them was dissatisfied with the Government. The Government led people to believe that voting Labour on 1 May 1997 would transform their lives and give them a better deal. In fact, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people have realised that the rotten Labour Government have broken promise after promise, letting the British people down when it comes to the health service.

9.40 pm

We have heard some excellent speeches from the Conservative Benches and some complacent speeches from Labour. Our national health service is a vast organisation. The 1 million people who work in it are its very essence. The way they are treated and the state of their morale are crucial to the quality that the NHS can deliver. That is why we tabled our motion.

The sad fact is that, two years into a Labour Government, we have had two years of frustrated expectations, interference with clinical judgments, meddling from central Government and selective abuse by the Secretary of State. Morale in the health service is at an all-time low. The chairman of the British Medical Association's junior doctors committee has described relations between the medical profession and the Department of Health as being in a state of cold war. He went on to say that things are definitely getting worse.

It is a fundamental principle of good personnel management that one does not raise expectations that one cannot meet. Labour's spin doctors did a great job on NHS staff before the general election, promising the earth. The not-so-subliminal message was "Vote Labour, and all your problems will be solved." Two years on, the day of reckoning has arrived. When the movie comes to be made of the first two years of the Labour Government, the title will be "Mind the Gap". There is a gap between what they promised in Opposition and what they are delivering in office, between what they say they are doing and what is really happening in our health service and elsewhere.

Staff in the health service must live not only with their own disillusion. They are at the sharp end and have to deal with the general public from day to day, and they must live with the frustration and disillusion of their patients, people who heard the Government's rhetoric about huge and fictitious sums of money allegedly being pumped into the health service. Patients see the Secretary of State on television congratulating himself on his so-called achievements on waiting lists, and they struggle to reconcile that with the reality that they find—a struggling health service of endless delays, even for an out-patient consultation. Increasingly, they find explicit rationing of drugs and services.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that many people in the health service believed Labour's pre-election rhetoric. It is probably fair to say that the Government inherited a substantial fund of good will among NHS staff two years ago. That fund has been dissipated by the stresses placed on staff and the system by Labour's transparently political waiting list initiative, and by the persistent distortion of clinical priorities and interference with clinical judgments. Morale has been sapped by understaffing, reorganisation of the primary sector and the pressures of underfunding and winter crises.

General practitioners, the linchpin of our primary care-led system, have had to fight the Government tooth and nail to secure their place in the new primary care groups. They had to ensure that they were properly remunerated for the time that they put into setting up and managing the groups. They had to protect their infrastructure budgets and to safeguard their status as independent contractors. Morale among GPs has never been lower. The 50-odd per cent. who were fundholders find themselves forced to withdraw services that they had previously been able to offer to their patients. They can no longer offer their patients the freedom and choice that they had become used to. No wonder there is a continuing recruitment crisis in general practice.

In our hospitals, the situation is, if anything, worse. Junior doctors are incensed by what they see as the Government's treachery in seeking to renege on the new deal. Since its introduction by the previous Government in 1990, the new deal has seen a progressive reduction in junior doctors' working hours. In 1991, 58 per cent. of junior doctors were contracted to work more than 83 hours per week. By 1998, only 16 per cent. were contracted for more than 56 hours per week. That is not good enough, but it is a dramatic improvement.

The discovery that the Government were secretly attempting to persuade Brussels to extend for another 15 years the derogation for junior doctors and to increase to 65 the number of hours per week that they can be forced to work has outraged the junior doctors and sent morale plummeting. The BMA has condemned the Government's negotiations with the EU as a

"cynical attempt to renege on the New Deal".

The BMA has expressed its outrage at the development and described it as "the height of hypocrisy." It has called the Government's actions

"a sign of the utmost bad faith"

which has led to "anger and disillusionment" among doctors.

No one believes the Secretary of State's explanation because no one whose intentions are genuine argues for a 65-hour week when the current week is 56.

Many junior hospital doctors already find themselves working inhumanely long hours for a master who appears intent on making them work longer hours still. Many people will have been outraged to learn that junior doctors are paid for their overtime work at 50 per cent. of their normal rate. That means that a junior doctor dealing with casualties and emergencies in the dead of night or at the weekend earns £4.02 per hour.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way because I do not have enough time. Those junior doctors cannot even be sure that their pathway to freedom is clear. The problems of manpower planning and the restrictions on consultants' posts means that many junior doctors face a bleak future in their chosen specialties. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, hundreds of fully qualified obstetricians will be thrown on the scrap heap in the next few years because they have been trained for a specialty for which no consultant vacancies exist, even though the need for such consultants clearly does.

If junior doctors succeed in achieving a consultant's post, what lies in store for them? More problems, I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Partly as a result of the improvement in junior doctors' hours under the previous Government, consultants now bear an ever greater workload. The Government have added the whole clinical governance agenda and its duty of quality to that load while simultaneously casting aspersions on the commitment of consultants to the NHS. The consultants are outraged. The chairman of the consultants committee said of industrial action:

"Twelve months ago, I would have been surprised to find 80 per cent. of my colleagues supporting. I've noticed an attitude change in the last few months. … The profession are saying we've struggled to hold this service together for so long for little recognition. It can't go on."

The chairman of the junior doctors committee added:

"Doctors, both seniors and juniors, are fed up with being taken for granted by the Department of Health".

The BMA chairman says:

"We can't go on like this.… We have junior doctors becoming burnt out and disillusioned with medicine."

Consultants are seeking to retire ever earlier as they find the burdens of on-call working unsustainable into their 60s. A crisis is looming. Junior doctors cannot see their career path before them as a result of inadequate planning and insufficient consultant posts. Consultants can no longer work at the intensity at which they are being asked to work, and the Government sit on their hands and do nothing. We have argued and the professions have argued that the Health Bill currently in Committee should include provisions for some form of manpower co-ordination so that these issues are addressed and doctors across the hospital service, both junior and senior, can see a way out of the current mess.

The BMA says in its briefing for the debate that the reality is

"lengthening hours of work for many doctors and/or increased intensity of work for others. This in turn contributes to a progressive decline in morale and motivation which itself militates against the productivity gains necessary to meet demand for medical services. In short, there is a vicious circle."

But our health service does not run on doctors alone. Nurses and the professions allied to medicine make up the majority of the qualified staff.

In opposition, the Labour party courted the nurses without shame. I do not have time to recount the history of how Labour has dumped the nurses since they came into office, but I repeat what the Royal College of Nursing said after the famous pay settlement for the nurses earlier this year. It was good news for nurses starting out in their careers—one nurse in 15. The RCN said of the award for the other 14 out of 15:

"It will not solve the chronic staff shortage."

In opposition, Labour cynically exploited the concerns of the health professions. It raised the stakes. In office, the Labour Government have shamelessly abandoned them and they must now reap the harvest of frustrated expectations, low morale, faltering recruitment and a haemorrhaging of experienced staff from the service.

The Government will be judged by NHS staff, not on what they say, still less on what they said, but on the gap between the vision of the health service that they carefully painted in Opposition and the reality that they are now delivering. The Government cannot look backwards for ever. They are in charge now and they must address the looming crisis in NHS staffing. They must face the responsibility that they bear for first raising and then dashing expectations throughout the NHS, the consequent rock-bottom state of morale and the recruitment and retention problems that flow from it.

9.50 pm

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on being given the responsibility of replying to the debate. I had heard that we might hear from the Trappist hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is clearly still maintaining his vow of silence, which he has enjoyed for some time.

There have been some interesting contributions to the debate. Among other things, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about staff shortages. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that we would be carrying out an authoritative survey of staff shortages, and that is now under way. We will be reporting in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) spoke about the human cost under the previous Government of disregarding the commitment of people who work hard to provide our national health service. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), in a speech which I think even she would recognise as faintly absurd, conjured an extraordinary picture of the Government's primary care reforms. Among many other things that I would like to put out, it is important to stress that there is no threat to independent contractor status from our proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) set things straight on the Government record on nurses' pay and reminded us of the damage done by the previous Government with the introduction of the internal market, the two-tier system that that imposed on patients and the effect of short-term contracts on staff.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) spoke of local issues but underlined that he was talking about resources in the NHS. He, as did other Opposition Members, failed to explain how complaints about resources can be matched with their condemnation of our investment in the NHS as reckless and irresponsible. One wonders how they would be doing without it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) spoke of the need to train more doctors and rightly stressed that we are increasing the number of training places for doctors. He also spoke rightly and far more accurately than others of the strength of support throughout the country for our primary care reforms and the commitment to working through those in place. I would not normally do this—

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), in an intervention, made a point about access centres. I take the opportunity of stressing that we want to see these centres develop with the support of primary care groups. We recognise the importance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.

The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) shouts at me, as he did every Tuesday and Thursday over the past three weeks during consideration of the Health Bill in Committee. He talked about shortages of consultant radiologists. I would point out that it takes 15 years to train such a consultant. That brings me to a rather central point—

Will the Minister give way?

No. There is very limited time.

Order. The Minister is not going to give way.

I wish to mention all the speakers in the debate, as is courteous. However, I need, too, to answer some of the points that have been made.

If the Opposition's charge in their motion had been that we had not yet solved all the problems that we inherited from the Conservative Government, we would have had to say, "Yes, that is true."

The Opposition's problem tonight is that they have tried to make the case that everything was fine until the last general election, and since then it has gone badly wrong. That claim has no credibility in the House, in the country or, most importantly, among the NHS staff whom we are discussing. There is no more important group of people for the House to discuss.

Although I do not agree with the Opposition motion, I am happy that we are debating the topic. Those million people who change lives and save lives every day in every part of our country are of tremendous importance. There is not a single hon. Member whose family and constituents do not have reason to be grateful to them.

rose—

Will the Minister give way?

It is important that those who work in our national health service should be fairly rewarded, that their careers should develop, and that the NHS should make the best use of their skills and commitment.

Let me deal with the Opposition motion. First, on junior doctors' hours, the motion is wrong. The Opposition know that it is wrong, and they know that no amount of repeating something that is wrong will make it right.

Will the Minister give way?

We have no intention of increasing the hours of work of a single junior doctor in the United Kingdom. We are committed to implementing the new deal.

Will the Minister give way?

We want to cut the hours of the 15 per cent. of junior doctors working more than an average of 56 hours per week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] We are working to make sure that the conditions, the catering and the accommodation when they are on call are improved. We want to make sensible, practical progress to implement the working time directive—the very directive that the Conservatives opposed absolutely in principle. Like other countries, we need to be able to make it work without causing patients to suffer.

rose—

The Opposition complain about nurses' pay. It is quite true that some did not receive the increase in their April pay packets. I regret that, although the notification to employers was the earliest for several years. We shall have to look into the matter and take into account in future years that an offer that was made on 10 February was not accepted until mid-March, and further work was still necessary.

The increase will paid. I am not surprised that that was the worst that the Opposition could find to say in their motion about our treatment of nurses—nurses who this year have had the biggest real-terms increase for 10 years, paid nationally, in full, and not staged.

Will the Minister give way?

There will be extra action to recognise the need to retain and recruit new nurses. All nurses will get at least 4.7 per cent. more; 70,000 nurses will get 8.2 per cent. more; two thirds of nurses will earn more than £20,000 this year. More than £50 million is to be invested to improve the training and recruitment of nurses.

More than 50,000 people responded to the advertising campaign by telephone, and more than 650 qualified nurses are already back at work on the wards in our hospitals. Not only the nurses have benefited—the professions allied to medicine have had the biggest real-terms increase in 10 years.

Will the Minister give way?

We have made it clear to the consultants that as we discuss with them changes to the consultants' contract, we can consider the need to invest in changes that bring benefit to the NHS. All that is real progress, but it is not enough. For years under the previous Government, the NHS—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put—we do not want to listen to that.

Order. I call the Minister.

For years under the previous Government, the NHS was run as though people did not matter. The previous Government botched pay reform, so we have a mess of myriad jobs and grades over local and national contracts. They did not take effective action to protect staff from violence, racism or avoidable accidents at work.

9.59 pm

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 339.

Division No. 186]	[10.2 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter ((E Surrey)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Amess, David	Gray, James
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Green, Damian
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Greenway, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Grieve, Dominic
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Baker, Norman	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ballard, Jackie	Hammond, Philip
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Harris, Dr Evan
Bercow, John	Harvey, Nick
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hawkins, Nick
Body, Sir Richard	Heald, Oliver
Boswell, Tim	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Brady, Graham	Horam, John
Brand, Dr Peter	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Brazier, Julian	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Breed, Colin	Hunter, Andrew
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Burns, Simon	Jenkin, Bernard
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
(NE Fife)	Keetch, Paul
Cash, William	Key, Robert
Chapman, Sir Sydney	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
(Chipping Barnet)	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Chidgey, David	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Chope, Christopher	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Clappison, James	Lansley, Andrew
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Leigh, Edward
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Letwin, Oliver
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Collins, Tim	Lidington, David
Colvin, Michael	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Livsey, Richard
Cotter, Brian	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Cran, James	Llwyd, Elfyn
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice	McIntosh, Miss Anne
& Howden)	Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew
Day, Stephen	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	McLoughlin, Patrick
Duncan, Alan	Malins, Humfrey
Duncan Smith, Iain	Maples, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Mates, Michael
Evans, Nigel	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Faber, David	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Fabricant, Michael	May, Mrs Theresa
Fallon, Michael	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Fearn, Ronnie	Moss, Malcolm
Flight, Howard	Nicholls, Patrick
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Norman, Archie
Foster, Don (Bath)	Oaten, Mark
Fox, Dr Liam	Öpik, Lembit
Gale, Roger	Ottaway, Richard
Garnier, Edward	Page, Richard
Gibb, Nick	Paice, James
Gill, Christopher	Paterson, Owen
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Pickles, Eric

Prior, David	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Rendel, David	Townend, John
Robathan, Andrew	Tredinnick, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Trend, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tyler, Paul
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)	Tyrie, Andrew
Ruffley, David	Viggers, Peter
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Walter, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick	Wardle, Charles
Sanders, Adrian	Waterson, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan	Webb, Steve
Shepherd, Richard	Wells, Bowen
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)	Whittingdale, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Soames, Nicholas	Wilkinson, John
Spicer, Sir Michael	Willetts, David
Spring, Richard	Willis, Phil
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wilshire, David
Stunell, Andrew	Woodward, Shaun
Swayne, Desmond	Yeo, Tim
Syms, Robert	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)	Mrs. Caroline Spelman and
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Sir David Madel.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cann, Jamie
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Casale, Roger
Ainger, Nick	Caton, Martin
Alexander, Douglas	Cawsay, Ian
Allen, Graham	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Chaytor, David
Ashton, Joe	Clapham, Michael
Atherton, Ms Candy	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Atkins, Charlotte	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Banks, Tony	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Barnes, Harry	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Barron, Kevin	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Battle, John	Clelland, David
Bayley, Hugh	Clwyd, Ann
Beard, Nigel	Coaker, Vernon
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Coffey, Ms Ann
Begg, Miss Anne	Coleman, Iain
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Colman, Tony
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Connarty, Michael
Bennett, Andrew F	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Benton, Joe	Corbett, Robin
Bermingham, Gerald	Corbyn, Jeremy
Berry, Roger	Corston, Ms Jean
Best, Harold	Cousins, Jim
Betts, Clive	Cox, Tom
Blackman, Liz	Cranston, Ross
Blears, Ms Hazel	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Blizzard, Bob	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Cummings, John
Boateng, Paul	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Borrow, David	(Copeland)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Davidson, Ian
Browne, Desmond	Daives, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Buck, Ms Karen	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Burden, Richard	Dawson, Hilton
Burgon, Colin	Dean, Mrs Janet
Butler, Mrs Christine	Denham, John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Donohoe, Briah H
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Dowd, Jim
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Drew, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Drown, Ms Julia
Campbell—Savours, Dale	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kemp, Fraser
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Edwards, Huw	Khabra, Piara S
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Kidney, David
Ennis, Jeff	Kilfoyle, Peter
Field, Rt Hon Frank	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Fisher, Mark	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Kingham, Ms Tess
Flynn, Paul	Kumar, Dr Stephen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Foulkes, George	Leslie, Christopher
Fyfe, Maria	Levitt, Tom
Gapes, Mike	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Gardiner, Barry	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Linton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil	Livingstone, Ken
Gibson, Dr Ian	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Lock, David
Godman, Dr Norman A	Love, Andrew
Godsiff, Roger	McAvoy, Thomas
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	McCabe, Steve
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	MaCafferty, Ms Chris
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Grocott, Bruce	(Makerfield)
Grogan, John	Macdonald, Calum
Gunnell, John	McDonnell, John
Hain, Peter	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McIsaac, Shona
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Mackinlay, Thomas
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	McNulty, Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	MacShane, Denis
Healey, John	Mactaggart, Fiona
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	McWalter, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen	McWilliam, John
Heppell, John	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Mallaber, Judy
Hill, Keith	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Hinchliffe, David	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hoey, Kate	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hood, Jimmy	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hoon, Geoffrey	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hope, Phil	Martlew, Eric
Hopkins, Kelvin	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Meale, Alan
Howells, Dr Kim	Merron, Gillian
Hoyle, Lindsay	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Milburn Rt Hon Alan
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Miller, Andrew
Humble, Mrs Joan	Moffatt, Laura
Hurst, Alan	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hutton, John	Moran, Ms Margaret
Iddon, Dr Brian	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Illsley, Eric	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Morley, Elliot
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Morris, Ms Estelle, (B'ham Yardley)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Mountford, Kali
Jamieson, David	Mullin, Chris
Jenkins, Brian	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Norris, Dan
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Ms Jenny	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
(Wolverh'ton SW)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Olner, Bill
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Palmer, Dr Nick
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pearson, Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Pendry, Tom
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Perham, Ms Linda
Kelly, Ms Ruth	Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter L	Steinberg, Gerry
Plaskitt, James	Stevenson, George
Pollard, Kerry	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Pond, Chris	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Pope, Greg	Stinchcombe, Paul
Pound, Stephen	Stoate, Dr Howard
Powell, Sir Raymond	Stott, Roger
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Stringer, Graham
Primarolo, Dawn	Stuart, Ms Gisels
Prosser, Gwyn	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Quinn, Lawrie	(Dewsbury)
Radice, Giles	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Rammell, Bill	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rapson, Syd	Temple—Morris, Peter
Raynsford, Nick	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Timms, Stephen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Tipping, Paddy
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Todd, Mark
Rooker, Jeff	Touhig, Don
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Trickett, Jon
Rowlands, Ted	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Roy, Frank	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Ruane, Chris	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Ruddock, Joan	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Vaz, Keith
Salter, Martin	Walley, Ms Joan
Sarwar, Mohammad	Ward, Ms Claire
Savidge, Malcolm	Wareing, Robert N
Sedgemore, Brian	Watts, David
Shaw, Jonathan	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Sheerman, Barry	Wicks, Malcolm
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	William, Rt Hon Alan
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	(Swansea W)
Singh, Marsha	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Skinner, Dennis	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Wilson, Brian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Winnick, David
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, Miss Geraldine	Wise, Audrey
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Wood, Mike
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Worthington, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Soley, Clive	Wyatt, Derek
Southworth, Ms Helen
Spellar, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Squire, Ms Rachel	Mr. Robert Ainsworth and
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Mr. David Hanson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 163.

Division No. 187]	[10.16 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Battle, John
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Bayley, Hugh
Ainger, Nick	Beard, Nigel
Alexander, Douglas	Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Allen, Graham	Begg, Miss Anne
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ashton, Joe	Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Atherton, Ms Candy	Bennett, Andrew F
Atkins, Charlotte	Benton, Joe
Banks, Tony	Bermingham, Gerald
Barnes, Harry	Berry, Roger
Barron, Kevin	Best, Harold

Betts, Clive	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Blackman, Liz	Fisher, Mark
Blears, Ms Hazel	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Blizzard, Bob	Flynn, Paul
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Boateng, Paul	Foster, Michael J(Worcester)
Borrow, David	Foulkes, George
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Fyfe, Maria
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Gapes, Mike
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Gardiner, Barry
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Gerrard, Neil
Browne, Desmond	Gibson, Dr Ian
Buck, Ms Karen	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Burden, Richard	Godman, Dr Norman A
Burgon, Colin	Godsiff, Roger
Butler, Mrs Christine	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Grogan, John
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Gunnell, John
(NE Fife)	Hain, Peter
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Cann, Jamie	Hall, Partick (Bedford)
Casale, Roger	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Caton, Martin	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Cawsey, Ian	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Healey, John
Chaytor, David	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clapham, Michael	Hepburn, Stephen
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Heppell, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hill, Keith
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hinchliffe, David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hoey, Kate
Clelland, David	Hood, Jimmy
Clwyd, Ann	Hoon, Geoffrey
Coaker, Vernon	Hope, Phil
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hopkins, Kelvin
Coleman, Iain	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Colman, Tony	Howells, Dr Kim
Connarty, Michael	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Corbett, Robin	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Humble, Mrs Joan
Corston, Ms Jean	Hurst, Alan
Cousins, Jim	Hutton, John
Cox, Tom	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cranston, Ross	Illsley, Eric
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cummings, John	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack	Jamieson, David
(Copeland)	Jenkins, Brian
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Davidson, Ian	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Ms Jenny
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	(Wolverh'ton SW)
Dawson, Hilton	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Denham, John	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Donohoe, Brian H	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dowd, Jim	Keeble, Ms Sally
Drew, David	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Drown, Ms Julia	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kelly, Ms Ruth
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kemp, Fraser
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Edwards, Huw	Khabra, Piara S
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Kidney, David
Ennis, Jeff	Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Pound, Stephen
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Powell, Sir Raymond
Kingham, Ms Tess	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Primarolo, Dawn
Leslie, Christopher	Prosser, Gwyn
Levitt, Tom	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Quin, Lawrie
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Radice, Giles
Linton, Martin	Rammell, Bill
Livingstone, Ken	Rapson, Syd
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Raynsford, Nick
Lock, David	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Love, Andrew	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N
McAvoy, Thomas	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
McCabe, Steve	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rooker, Jeff
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
(Makerfield)	Rowlands, Ted
Macdonald, Calum	Roy, Frank
McDonnell, John	Ruane, Chris
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Ruddock, Joan
McIsaac, Shona	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Salter, Martin
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sarwar, Mohammad
McNulty, Tony	Savidge, Malcolm
MacShane, Denis	Sedgemore, Brian
Mactaggart, Fiona	Shaw, Jonarthan
McWalter, Tony	Sheerman, Bary
McWilliam, John	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Simpson, Alan Nottingham S)
Mallaber, Judy	Singh, Marsha
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter	Skinner, Dennis
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Martlew, Eric	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Meale, Alan	Smith, John Glamorgan)
Merron, Gillian	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Soley, Clive
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Southworth, Ms Helen
Miller, Andrew	Spellar, John
Moffatt, Laura	Squire, Ms Rachel
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Moran, Ms Margaret	Steinberg, Gerry
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Stvenson, George
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Morley, Elliot	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Stinchcombe, Paul
Mountford, Kali	Stoate, Dr Howard
Mullin, Chris	Stott, Roger
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Stringer, Graham
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Norris, Dan	Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	(Dewsbury)
O'Hara, Eddie	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Olner, Bill	Taylor, David, (NW Leics)
O'Neill, Martin	Temple—Morris, Peter
Organ, Mrs Diana	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Timms, Stephen
Pearson, Ian	Tipping, Paddy
Pendry, Tom	Todd, Mark
Perham, Ms Linda	Touhig, Don
Pickthall, Colin	Trickett, Jon
Pike, Peter L	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Plaskitt, James	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Pollard, Kerry	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pond, Chris	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Pope, Greg	Vaz, Keith

Walley, Ms Joan	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Ward, Ms Claire	Wise, Audrey
Wareing, Robert N	Wood, Mike
Watts, David	Worthington, Tony
Whitehead, Dr Alan	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Wicks, Malcolm	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan	Wyatt, Derek
(Swansea W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)	Mr. David Hanson and
Winnick, David	Mr. Robert Ainsworth.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Amess, David	Hammond, Philp
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Harris, Dr Evan
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Harvey, Nick
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hawkins, Nick
Baker, Norman	Heald, Oliver
Ballard, Jackie	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Bercow, John	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Beresford, Sir Paul	Horam, John
Body, Sir Richard	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Boswell, Tim	Hughes, simon (Southwark N)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Hunter, Andrew
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Brand, Dr Peter	Jenkin, Bernard
Brazier, Julian	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Keetch, Paul
Browning, Mrs Angela	Key, Robert
Burns, Simon	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Kirkbridge, Miss Julie
(NE Fife)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Cash, William	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Lansley, Andrew
(Chipping Barnet)	Leigh, Edward
Chidgey, David	Letwin, Oliver
Chope, Christopher	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Clappison, James	Lidington, David
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Livsey, Richard
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Collins, Tim	Llwyd, Elfyn
Colvin, Michael	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Sir Patrick	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Cran, James	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice	McLoughlin, Patrick
& Howden)	Malins, Humfrey
Day, Stephen	Maples, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Mates, Michael
Duncan, Alan	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Duncan Smith, Iain	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	May, Mrs Theresa
Evans, Nigel	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Faber, David	Moss, Malcolm
Fabricant, Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Fallon, Michael	Norman, Archie
Fearn, Ronnie	Oaten, Mark
Flight, Howard	Öpik, Lembit
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Ottaway, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)	Page, Richard
Fox, Dr Liam	Paice, James
Gale, Roger	Paterson, Owen
Garnier, Edward	Pickles, Eric
Gibb, Nick	Prior, David
Gill, Christopher	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Rendel, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Robathan, Andrew
Gray, James	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Green, Damian	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Greenway, John	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Grieve, Dominic	Ruffley, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Russell, Bob (Colchester)

St Aubyn, Nick	Tyler, Paul
Sanders, Adrian	Tyrie, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan	Viggers, Peter
Shepherd, Richard	Walter, Robert
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)	Wardle, Charles
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)	Waterson, Nigel
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Webb, Steve
Soames, Nicholas	Wells, Bowen
Spicer, Sir Michael	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Spring, Richard	Whittingdale, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Stunell, Andrew	Wilkinson, John
Swayne, Desmond	Willetts, David
Syms, Robert	Willis, Phil
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Wilshire, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)	Woodward, Shaun
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Yeo, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Townend, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Tredinnick, David	Mrs. Caroline Spelman and
Trend, Michael	Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises and applauds the massive contribution the staff make to providing the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world; regrets the shambles in the NHS that the Government inherited which was demoralising to staff and damaging to patients; welcomes the action the new Government has taken to make things better for staff and patients alike, including £21 billion extra for the NHS over the next three years, record capital investment in new buildings, equipment and facilities to enable the staff to provide top-quality care, the biggest real-terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years paid nationally in full, proposals for radical pay reform to give fairer rewards to staff who extend their roles, widen their skills and work in teams to care for patients, negotiations on a new consultants' contract to ensure rewards go to those who contribute most to the NHS, ambitious targets to improve the quality of the working lives of NHS staff, including tough action to crack down on violence and racism at work, the promotion of family-friendly employment policies and investment in training and continuing professional development; welcomes the Government's commitment to reducing junior doctors' hours in line with the draft European Working Time Directive vehemently opposed by the Conservative Party and carefully planned so as not to damage improvements in patient care; and accepts no lectures about conditions of service for NHS personnel from a Party that did more in Government to demoralise the staff than any other in living memory and which spends most of its time in Opposition running down the achievements of the NHS staff and saying the Health Service can no longer cope.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Section 5 Of The European Communities (Amendment)Act 1993

That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1999–2000 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1999–2000 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.— [Mr. Betts.]

The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 121.

Division No. 188]	[10.30 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cousins, Jim
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Cox, Tom
Ainger, Nick	Cranston, Ross
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Alexander, Douglas	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Allen, Graham	Cummings, John
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Ashton, Joe	(Copeland)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Atkins, Charlotte	Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Baker, Norman	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ballard, Jackie	Davidson, Ian
Barnes, Harry	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Barron, Kevin	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Battle, John	Dawson, Hilton
Bayley, Hugh	Dean, Mrs Janet
Beard, Nigel	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Donohoe, Briah H
Begg, Miss Anne	Dowd, Jim
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Drew, David
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Drown, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bennett, Andrew F	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Benton, Joe	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bermingham, Gerald	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Berry, Roger	Ennis, Jeff
Best, Harold	Fearn, Ronnie
Betts, Clive	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Blackman, Liz	Fisher, Mark
Blears, Ms Hazel	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Blizzard, Bob	Flynn, Paul
Boateng, Paul	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Borrow, David	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Foulkes, George
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Gapes, Mike
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Gardiner, Barry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Browne, Desmond	Gerrard, Neil
Buck, Ms Karen	Gibson, Dr Ian
Burden, Richard	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Burgon, Colin	Godman, Dr Norman A
Butler, Mrs Christine	Godsiff, Roger
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Gorden, Mrs Eileen
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Grogan, John
(NE Fife)	Gunnell, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Campbell—Savours, Dale	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Cann, Jamie	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Casale, Roger	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Harris, Dr Evan
Chaytor, David	Harvey, Nick
Chidgey, David	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clapham, Michael	Healey, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hepburn, Stephen
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Heppell, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Clelland, David	Hill, Keith
Clwyd, Ann	Hinchliffe, David
Coaker, Vernon	Hoey, Kate
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hoon, Geoffrey
Coleman, Iain	Hope, Phil
Colman, Tony	Hopkins, Kelvin
Connarty, Michael	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Corbett, Robin	Howells, Dr Kim
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hoyle, Lindsay
Corston, Ms Jean	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Miller, Andrew
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Humble, Mrs Joan	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hurst, Alan	Morgon, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hutton, John	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W
Iddon, Dr Brian	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Illsley, Eric	Mountford, Kali
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Mullin, Chris
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jenkins, Brian	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Norris, Dan
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Oaten, Mark
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Ms Jenny	O'Hara, Eddie
(Wolverhfon SW)	Olner, Bill
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Öpik. Lembit
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Palmer, Dr Nick
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pearson, Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Pendry, Tom
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Perham, Ms Linda
Kelly, Ms Ruth	Pickthall, Colin
Kemp, Fraser	Pike, Peter L
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Plaskitt, James
Khabra, Piara S	Pollard, Kerry
Kidney, David	Pond, Chris
Kilfoyle, Peter	Pope, Greg
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Pound, Stephen
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kingham, Ms Tess	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Primarolo, Dawn
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Prosser, Gwyn
Leslie, Christopher	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Levitt, Tom	Quinn, Lawrie
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Radice, Giles
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Rammell, Bill
Linton, Martin	Rapson, Syd
Livsey, Richard	Raynsford, Nick
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Lock, David	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Love, Andrew	Rendel, David
McAvoy, Thomas	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try) NW)
McCabe, Steve	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rooker, Jeff
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian	Ross, Ernie, (Dundee W)
(Makerfield)	Rowlands, Ted
Macdonald, Calum	Roy, Frank
McDonnell, John	Ruane, Chris
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Ruddock, Joan
McIsaac, Shona	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Salter, Martin
McNulty, Tony	Sanders, Adrian
MacShane, Denis	Sarwar, Mohammad
Mactaggart, Fiona	Savidge, Malcolm
McWalter, Tony	Sedegemore, Brain
McWilliam, John	Shaw, Jonathan
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mallaber, Judy	Singh, Marsha
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter	Skinner, Denis
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Martlew, Eric	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Meale, Alan	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Merron, Gillian	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Soley, Clive
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Southworth, Ms Helen

Spellar, John	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Squire, Ms Rachel	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Steinberg, Gerry	Tyler, Paul
Stevenson, George	Vaz, Keith
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Walley, Ms Joan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Ward, Ms Claire
Stinchcombe, Paul	Wareing, Robert N
Stoate, Dr Howard	Watts, David
Stott, Roger	Webb, Steve
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack	Wicks, Malcolm
Stringer, Graham	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela	(Swansea W)
Stunell, Andrew	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann	Willis, Phil
(Dewsbury)	Winnick, David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)	Wise, Audrey
Temple—Morris, Peter	Wood, Mike
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)	Worthington, Tony
Timms, Stephen	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Tipping, Paddy	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Todd, Mark	Wyatt, Derek
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Touhig, Don	Tellers for the Ayes:
Trickett, Jon	Mr. David Hanson and
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)	Mr. David Jamison.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Greenway, John
Amess, David	Grieve, Dominic
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Hammond, Philip
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hawkins, Nick
Bercow, John	Heald, Oliver
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Body, Sir Richard	Horam, John
Boswell, Tim	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Hunter, Andrew
Brady, Graham	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Jenkin, Bernard
Browning, Mrs Angela	Key, Robert wantage)
Burns, Simon	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Cash, William	Kirkbridge, Miss Julie
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Laing, Mrs Elanor
(Chipping Barnet)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Chope, Christopher	Lansley, Andrew
Clappison, James	Leigh, Edward
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey	Letwin, Oliver
Collins, Tim	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Colvin, Michael	Lidington, David
Cran, James	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
& Howden)	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Day, Stephen	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Duncan, Alan	McLoughlin, Patrick
Duncan Smith, Iain	Malins, Humfrey
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Maples, John
Evans, Nigel	Mates, Michael
Faber, David	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Fabricant, Michael	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Fallon, Michael	May, Mrs Theresa
Flight, Howard	Moss, Malcolm
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Nicholls, Patrick
Fox, Dr Liam	Norman, Archie
Garnier, Edward	Ottaway, Richard
Gibb, Nick	Paice, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Paterson, Owen
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Pickles, Eric
Gray, James	Prior, David
Green, Damian	Redwood, Rt Hon John

Robathan, Andrew	Trend, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Tyrie, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Viggers, Peter
Ruffley, David	Walter, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick	Waterson, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan	Wells, Bowen
Shepherd, Richard	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)	Whittingdale, John
Spicer, Sir Michael	Wilkinson, John
Spring, Richard	Willets, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wilshire, David
Swayne, Desmon	Woodward, Shaun
Syms, Robert	Yeo, Tim
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Tellers for the Noes:
Townend, John	Sir David Michael and
Tredinnick, David	Mrs. Carolone Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It may be for the convenience of the House if we take motions Nos. 5 to 12 together.

No!

There was no harm in asking.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Terms And Conditions Of Employment

That the draft Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.— [Mr. Betts.]

The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 112.

Division No. 189]	[10.43 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ainger, Nick	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Alexander, Douglas	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Allen, Graham	Browne, Desmond
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Buck, Ms Karen
Ashton, Joe	Burden, Richard
Atherton, Ms Candy	Burgon, Colin
Atkins, Charlotte	Butler, Mrs Christine
Baker, Norman	Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ballard, Jackie	Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Barnes, Harry	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Barron, Kevin	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bayley, Hugh	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Beard, Nigel	(NE Fife)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Begg, Miss Anne	Campbell—Savours, Dale
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Cann, Jamie
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Casale, Roger
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Bennett, Andrew F	Chaytor, David
Benton, Joe	Chidgey, David
Bermingham, Gerald	Clapham, Michael
Berry, Roger	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Best, Harold	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Betts, Clive	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Blackman, Liz	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Blizzard, Bob	Clelland, David
Boateng, Paul	Clwyd, Ann
Borrow, David	Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Coleman, Iain	Humble, Mrs Joan
Colman, Tony	Hurst, Alan
Connarty, Michael	Iddon, Dr Brian
Corbett, Robin	Illsley, Eric
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Corston, Ms Jean	Jackson, Helen Hillsborough)
Cousins, Jim	Jenkins, Brian
Cox, Tom	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cranston, Ross	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cummings, John	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack	Jones, Ms Jenny
(Copeland)	(Wolverh'ton SW)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selley Oak)
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Davidson, Ian	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dawson, Hilton	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Keetch, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H	Kelly, Ms Ruth
Dowd, Jim	Kemp, Fraser
Drew, David	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Drown, Ms Julia	Khabra, Piara S
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kidney, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Ellman, Mrs Louise	King, Andy Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ennis, Jeff	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Fearn, Ronnie	Kingham, Ms Tess
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Fisher, Mark	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Foster, Don (Bath)	Leslie, Christopher
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George	Linton, Martin
Gapes, Mike	Livsey, Richard
Gardiner, Barry	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Lock, David
Gerrard, Neil	Love, Andrew
Gibson, Dr Ian	McAvoy, Thomas
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	McCabe, Steve
Godman, Dr Norman A	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Godsiff, Roger	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	(Makerfield)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Macdonald, Calum
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McDonnell, John
Grocott, Bruce	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Grogan, John	McIsaac, Shona
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McNulty, Tony
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	MacShane, Denis
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Mactaggart, Fiona
Harris, Dr Evan	McWalter, Tony
Harvey, Nick	McWilliam,, John
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Healey, John	Mallaber, Judy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Heppell, John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hill, Keith	Martlew, Eric
Hinchliffe, David	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hoey, Kate	Meale, Alan
Hood, Jimmy	Merron, Gillian
Hoon, Geoffrey	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld, Heeley)
Hope, Phil	Michie, Mrs Ray Argyll & Bute)
Hopkins, Kelvin	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Miller, Andrew
Howells, Dr Kim	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hoyle, Lindsay	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mountford, Kali	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mullin, Chris	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Soley, Clive
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Southworth, Ms Helen
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Spellar, John
Norris, Dan	Squire, Ms Rachel
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Hara, Eddie	Stevenson, George
Olner, Bill	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
O'Neill, Martin	Stewart, Ian (Eccle)
Öpik, Lembit	Stinchcombe, Paul
Organ, Mrs Diana	Stoate, Dr Howard
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Stott, Roger
Palmer, Dr Nick	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Pearson, Ian	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Pendry, Tom	Stringer, Graham
Perham, Ms Linda	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pickthall, Colin	Stunell, Andrew
Pike, Peter L	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Plaskitt, James	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Pollard, Kerry	(Dewsbury)
Pond, Chris	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pope, Greg	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pound, Stephen	Temple—Morris, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Timms, Stephen
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Tipping, Paddy
Primarolo, Dawn	Todd Mark
Prosser, Gwyn	Touhig, Don
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Trickett, Jon
Quinn, Lawrie	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Radice, Giles	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Rammell, Bill	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Rapson, Syd	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Raynsford, Nick	Tyler, Paul
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Vaz, Keith
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Walley, Ms Joan
Rendel, David	Ward, Ms Claire
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Wareing, Robert N
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Watts, David
Rooker, Jeff	Webb, Steve
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Rowlands, Ted	Wicks, Malcolm
Roy, Frank	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Ruane, Chris	(Swansea W)
Ruddock, Joan	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Willis, Phil
Salter, Martin	Winnick, David
Sanders, Adrian	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Sarwar, Mohammad	Wise, Audrey
Savidge, Malcolm	Wood, Mike
Sedgemore, Brian	Worthington, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Singh, Marsha	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Skinner, Dennis	Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, Miss Geraldine	Mr. David Hanson and
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Mr. David Jamieson.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Brady, Graham
Amess, David	Brazier, Julian
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Browning, Mrs Angela
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Burns, Simon
Beresford, Sir Paul	Cash, William
Body, Sir Richard	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Boswell, Tim	(Chipping, Barnet)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Chope, Christopher
	Clappison, James
	Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Collins, Tim	McLoughlin, Patrick
Colvin, Michael	Malins, Humfrey
Cran, James	Maples, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Mates, Michael
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
& Howden)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Day, Stephen	May, Mrs Theresa
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Norman, Archie
Duncan, Alan	Ottaway, Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain	Paice, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Paterson, Owen
Evans, Nigel	Pickles, Eric
Faber, David	Prior, David
Fabricant, Michael	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Flight, Howard	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Ruffley, David
Fox, Dr Liam	St Aubyn, Nick
Garnier, Edward	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gibb, Nick	Shepherd, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gray, James	Spring, Richard
Green, Damian	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Greenway, John	Swayne, Desmond
Grieve, Dominic	Syms, Robert
Hammond, Philip	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hawkins, Nick	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Heald, Oliver	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Townend, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Tredinnick, David
Hunter, Andrew	Trend, Michael
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Tyrie, Andrew
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Viggers, Peter
Jenkin, Bernard	Walter, Robert
Key, Robert	Waterson, Nigel
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Wells, Bowen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Whittingdale, John
Lansley, Andrew	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Leigh, Edward	Wilkinson, John
Letwin, Oliver	Willetts, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Wilshire, David
Lidington, David	Woodward, Shaun
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Tellers for the Noes:
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Sir David Madel and
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Korea) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the United Mexican States) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 47) on rural bus subsidy grants for 1999–2000 (HC 407), which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.

Defence

That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.— [Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Petition

Bicycle Bells

10.57 pm

Some 2,487 residents of Broxtowe and neighbouring constituencies

request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to introduce legislation to require cyclists to have a bell fitted on their bicycles and to use it when approaching pedestrians.

To lie upon the Table.

Health Service (Forest Of Dean)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Betts.]

10.58 pm

Patients in the Forest of Dean are facing cuts to community health services because of the funding position of Gloucestershire health authority, whose allocation of only a 3.8 per cent. increase—the second lowest in the country—and the pressure created by not having the pay award fully funded have resulted in it facing a deficit of £5.4 million.

If the health authority had received the English average growth allocation, it would have another £2 million and the Forest of Dean would not be facing cuts to its health services. The underlying national policy objective of securing fairness in the distribution across England is supported by the health authority and understood by the public, but makes the transition areas such as the Forest of Dean face cuts, so that budgets can be balanced. There are strong arguments why the area should not suffer in that way.

The Forest of Dean is a rural and industrial area with scattered centres of population. It suffers from low pay, faces rising unemployment and has some poor housing stock and poor transport. Access to any service is difficult. The area has pockets of real deprivation.

The population profile is skewed towards the elderly, with nearly 10 per cent. of the population over 75, and 18 per cent. over 65. The area has markedly poor public health, and, unlike other parts of Gloucestershire, it is not wealthy and healthy, a fact that health authority funding does not reflect. The Forest of Dean has the highest percentage of people with disabilities in the county, excluding those of pensionable age. In comparison with national averages, death rates are higher in certain areas, especially for women. So are rates for heart disease, respiratory diseases, cancer and even tuberculosis, a disease usually associated with inner city deprivation.

Ill health is an issue in the Forest of Dean. The report of the director of public health recommended that the poor health status of residents of Gloucester and the Forest of Dean should be acknowledged and taken into consideration by agencies when they allocate resources. Our rates of ill health are not reflected in our allocation of health service money.

I welcome the Government's determination to improve the public health of the nation and to close widening inequalities in health. We must recognise that public health is affected by many factors. The appointment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health shows our determination, which was also set out clearly in the White Paper "Our Healthier Nation" and in the programmes of health improvement that are being put in place as a priority. That is real progress.

Set against that progress, we are able to spend only £600 per head in the Forest of Dean while the UK average is £750. The area has higher-than-average need and, as a rural area, has greater costs of health care delivery. Those difficulties of delivery are not recognised in the funding formula. Although we have sparsity problems, access problems and poor public health indicators, we have no health action zone, no sure start programme and no NHS Direct. The extra investment that those wonderful initiatives would bring would enhance the health service, improving access and tackling the problems of deprivation and public health. Instead, some patients face cuts to services, and those cuts will hit some of the most vulnerable—the elderly and the poor.

The proposed cuts are all to community health care services. Cuts in areas such as emergency services, cancer services, mental health, improvement to dentistry, improvement in coronary heart disease and reduction in waiting list times are unacceptable, particularly in the context of the Government's national strategy. To meet the deficit, we are beginning to dismantle our community services piece by piece. In the great scheme of things, that will save relatively little money, but it has a devastating impact on patients in rural areas. Rightly, it is highly unpopular.

The need to adjust quickly means that savings or cuts must be made not against a considered strategy but to balance the budget. We could face a process of expensive reviews and consultations about threatened cuts, which will raise anxiety among the population, but which, either on health grounds or for political reasons, will never be implemented. That would waste money that should be spent on delivery of front-line services.

The list of proposed cuts is extensive, and includes the axing of non-emergency patient transport, cuts to the chiropody service, axing a day hospital in a market town, cuts to health visitor services, cuts in GP prescription budgets and cuts to newly set up primary care groups.

Would my hon. Friend comment further on the first item on her list of proposed cuts, which affects my constituents in the neighbouring constituency? Reducing services in more rural parts of Gloucestershire while also cutting transport means that people face a double dilemma-fewer services but an inability to reach the nearest hospital or health care centre.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The cut to transport in a rural area is a double whammy.

That's a Labour Government for you.

Order. I must tell the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that Adjournment debates allow Back-Bench Members to put their case to Ministers. Front-Bench spokesman should not interrupt them.

Cuts will also be proposed to the joint finance funding available to voluntary organisations to fund local mental illness schemes. We recognise that mental health services are always underfunded.

There may be reductions in the number of GPs in the area as GPs who retire are not replaced. Yet hard-working GPs offer skills and real expertise to the local community hospitals. Thus, the services available to the local population in the community hospitals will be reduced. All those proposals are up for consideration, but some are in place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has mentioned. One is in the transport service, a much-needed service predominantly for elderly people, for whom access to services is difficult and mobility a problem. The service is crucial to take patients to clinics as out-patients either to the district hospital in Gloucester or to the two local community hospitals—Lydney and district hospital and Dilke Memorial hospital. There is not an alternative public bus service. Distances are great and car ownership or access to a car among the elderly is low. The proposals will make access to health services even more difficult.

In addition, patients are on a limited and low income, so there will be a burdensome extra cost as the free service goes. The Forest Voluntary Action Forum is trying to cope and to meet the newly arisen need, but its volunteer driving scheme must make a charge of 15p a mile and sometimes the round trips are as much as 50 miles. The services were needed; 3,500 journeys were previously made within the forest. The cuts affect many people.

Emergency transport, of course, is protected, as is that for the mentally ill, the disabled and cancer patients, although that does not always seem to be the case, as the Forest Voluntary Action Forum has received numerous requests for transport from oncology patients. A relatively small saving with a massive impact on a vulnerable group is now going ahead.

Another proposed cut is to the chiropody service—both the clinics and the domiciliary service. Again, it is a service much used by the elderly and those with mobility difficulties or a disability. It really makes a difference. It helps to keep people mobile. There are waiting lists for it. It needs to be delivered in local clinics or people's homes, especially in a rural area with transport problems. At present, it is an excellent service. Why cut it, when it is so good? We should be extending it.

We recognise that the Forest of Dean is getting massive investment in other areas of health care and we welcome it. There is a £25 million project for a new building for accident and emergency services in the general district hospital in Gloucester, although it is certain that there will be cuts for some wards. Money has been provided to bring down waiting lists. We have an excellent record on waiting lists in Gloucestershire. We have some of the shortest times in the south-west, and rightly so. No one waits longer than the Government guidelines permit.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has permitted flexibility in using £1 million of the modernisation fund money to meet some of the most pressing service needs. Will Ministers consider whether further moneys from the fund could be released in the same way to stop the cuts to the community health services in the forest? Or, in order that the health authority can manage the transition from the current pattern of expenditure and services to something that can be planned strategically and is sustainable in the long term, will they consider the allocation of a short-term funding package similar to those recently granted to Cornwall of £2 million and to Worcestershire of £4.5 million? In that way, the public health of the forest could be improved and the elderly would not suffer the brunt of the cuts. We shall continue to improve, as we are determined to do, equitable access to health care for people in rural areas such as the Forest of Dean and other areas of Gloucestershire.

11.9 pm

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on having secured this debate on a matter that is of such importance to her constituents and those of other hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Gloucestershire who are in the Chamber this evening.

I shall begin by setting out how the Department allocates money to the national health service to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of NHS resources between individual health authorities, and what we are doing to improve this system. That will help to explain why Gloucestershire health authority has received less of an increase in its funding than other health authorities, although it is important to emphasise that Gloucestershire received a real-terms increase of nearly 3 per cent. in its budget for this year. I shall also briefly address the means by which the health authority is balancing its finances. In addition, and importantly, I shall recognise some of the achievements of the health authority and highlight some of the investments in local health services to which my hon. Friend referred.

My hon. Friend has made the centrepiece of her argument her concern about the adequacy of Gloucestershire health authority's financial allocation for the present financial year. I shall discuss the authority's finances shortly but I should like to say a few words about the way in which health authority money is currently allocated. The Department of Health uses a national weighted capitation formula as the basis for allocating hospital and community health services' revenue to individual health authorities. The underlying principle of the formula is to distribute resources as equitably as possible, based on the health care needs of the local population.

The national formula uses the most recently available population figures, which are then weighted, or adjusted, to take account of three factors. The first of those is an adjustment that is made based on the age structure of the population. The second is the health needs of the population, over and above those accounted for by age. The third is unavoidable variations in the local costs of delivering services.

As well as the size of the population, its age structure is important as levels of sickness and use of the health services obviously varies by age group. The very young and the elderly, who are not evenly distributed throughout the country, make more use of health services than the rest of the population. A wide range of health and socio-economic indicators associated with the need for health care are included in determining the second element of the weighted formula. Even when differences in the age structure are taken into account, populations of the same size and age distribution display different levels of morbidity.

Lastly, to be equitable, the formula must take account of the fact that the cost of providing health care is not the same everywhere due to the impact of local market forces on staff costs and the costs of land and buildings.

Weighted capitation targets are not fixed in time but are recalculated annually to determine each health authority's relative share of the overall resources that we are able to make available to the NHS. Changes to health authorities' targets are normally the result of routine updating to take advantage of the latest available data such as population figures, boundary changes or changes to the formula.

The weighted capitation formula is kept under constant review and last year we made four changes to it. The one that is of most relevance to the debate was the introduction of a geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services. This arose from an exercise to examine the effects of rural sparsity on the cost of providing certain services. While a geographical cost difference was found for emergency ambulances, no such differences were found in the cost of, for example, providing accident and emergency services and patient transport services. It was recommended by the resource allocation group that we introduce an adjustment to reflect the costs of emergency ambulance services and we did so.

My hon. Friend has made it clear that she considers that the formula needs to be changed as she believes that it fails adequately to cover the costs of providing health care in rural areas. She is not alone in raising concerns about the current formula. She will be aware that on 10 November 1998 we announced a wide-ranging review of the formula used to make cash allocations to health authorities and primary care groups and trusts. The aim is to produce a new, fairer formula more suitable for the NHS of the future. The review will entail assessing the health care needs of rural populations and identifying any unavoidable extra costs associated with providing health services in rural areas. There can, of course, be no guarantee about the outcome of the review.

There will be a freeze on further changes to the existing formula to maximise stability and certainty for health authorities and primary care groups while allowing the wide-ranging review to take place. Other than routine data changes, the freeze will last until at least the financial year 2001–02.

The target figures derived from the weighted capitation formula are intended to provide a fair and equitable share of NHS resources for each health authority. Although Gloucestershire health authority's target allocation for 1999–2000 was just over £322 million, its actual allocation was £334.59 million. That means that the authority will receive more than £12.4 million, or 3.85 per cent. more than the weighted capitation formula would suggest was its fair share of the available NHS resources.

In order to ensure that all health authorities move closer towards receiving their fair share, authorities that receive less than their target allocation have received a higher increase than authorities that are above their target.

Gloucestershire health authority is currently in fifth place among health authorities that have exceeded their target. Consequently, in common with another 18 health authorities across the country, it has received the minimum growth of 2.9 per cent. in its financial allocation for this year. It is important to emphasise that despite the need to move the authority closer to its weighted capitation target, the health authority has received a £17 million cash increase for the present financial year.

A particular problem in Gloucestershire, which affects the Forest of Dean especially, is not just the total allocation, but the way in which it is distributed. The way in which Gloucestershire has divvied up the money among the various districts has been extremely unfair. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that and suggest how we could put matters right, given the difficulties within the total budget?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how assiduous he has been in pursuing the case of his constituents, and the extent to which they are affected by the decisions of the health authority. Allocations are made to health authorities on the basis of the formula that I outlined. Health authorities can determine how the money is spent, according to their judgment of local need. It would be extremely unpopular if Ministers were to prescribe further the way in which allocations are spent locally. My hon. Friend will have to pursue the matter with the health authority. I know that he will do that vigorously.

I recognise that as a result of the financial allocation, the health authority needs to make substantial financial savings of £5.4 million to remain in financial balance. The authority has already made good progress towards achieving that target. It has been working closely with the local NHS trusts and primary care groups to ensure that the savings are achieved with as little impact on patient care as possible, although I appreciate that some of the decisions that have already been made were unpopular, as some of my hon. Friends have reflected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean raised, in particular, the changes that have already taken place to patient transport services, and those that are proposed for chiropody services. I entirely endorse her important point that chiropody services are an essential facility for many elderly people, enabling them to maintain their independence and their mobility. Not for one moment would I underestimate the importance of those services. However, having pursued those particular concerns with the health authority, I have been assured that all those people with a medical need for those services will continue to receive them and that the authority will continue to review the eligibility criteria for them. In addition, my hon. Friend was concerned about the impact that the savings announced last year to the health visiting budget would have on the elderly. However, I understand that the savings have already been made and were achieved without making a direct impact on patient care.

My hon. Friend has called for more money to be made available to the health authority, either as a special assistance grant or through allowing flexibility in the use of the modernisation fund. Following his meeting with my hon. Friend in March, my hon. Friend the Minister of State agreed to the flexible use of the modernisation fund money, and £1 million of the £2.7 million allocated to support the delivery of waiting list targets will be used to offset the costs of other essential developments. I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges and welcomes that flexibility and that she also welcomes the new developments in the delivery of health care locally that will be enabled by that money.

Before closing, I point out how important it is to recognise the achievements of the NHS in Gloucestershire—I am sure that all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the county would want to do that. Last year, we saw the highest-ever level of activity by the NHS in Gloucestershire. The latest available figures show that in the first nine months of the last financial year there were more than 85,000 finished consultant episodes; that represented a rise of more than 7.8 per cent. over the same period in the previous year. As a result of that increase, the number of patients from Gloucestershire waiting for an operation fell by more than 22.5 per cent. in the year since March 1998. There were slightly more than 8,000 patients waiting for an operation at the end of March; of those patients, only 40 had been waiting more than 12 months for treatment.

I pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and effort of the NHS staff who have achieved that result. It is indeed a proud record. The health authority is confident that, despite the need to make financial savings, the waiting list position will improve further this year. The authority plans to deliver a 6 per cent. increase in out-patient activity and a 4 per cent. rise in elective in-patient activity in the current year, which will be supported by investment in several new consultant posts.

The health authority's financial position does not mean that all services are being cut back; the authority is continuing to invest in improving local services for my hon. Friend's constituents. For example, the number of local rheumatology clinics will increase this year from one to four a month, and a new back pain service was started in the Forest of Dean last year. I understand that that service is successful. Back pain is the single largest cause of absence from work, so the local economy will benefit from the health authority's efforts, not only to reduce absence from work as a result of back pain, but to improve rehabilitation and so allow people who had not previously seriously entertained the prospect of returning to work to do so.

The health authority is also committed to developing local mental health services in the forest in the coming year, and there will be substantial investment in the local health service facilities. The outline business case for the redevelopment of Lydney hospital was approved by the regional office in January. In primary care, the health authority has helped to finance new GP surgery premises in both Ruardean and Lydney, and has allocated £150,000 to improve primary care information technology.

Although I understand and entirely respect my hon. Friend's determination to press her case about this year's financial allocation to Gloucestershire health authority, it is important that everyone recognise how much the health authority has achieved and the extent to which, for several years, it has received a greater share of NHS resources than the existing formula would have determined it should receive. The authority will have to live within its means while it moves closer to its target allocation.

I should like to re-emphasise the health authority's achievements, especially those that have resulted from its working closely with social services, especially to ensure that elderly people do not remain unnecessarily long in hospital. My hon. Friend mentioned sure start, NHS Direct and health action zones, and I can tell her that further bids for sure start programmes will be invited later this year. I also know that a joint bid has been submitted for an NHS Direct programme to cover her constituency and those neighbouring it.

I hope that the position is clear. Tribute should be paid to those who have delivered improvements in health care to the people of Gloucestershire. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on having raising these issues in debate and urge her to continue to represent the interests of her constituents with her usual assiduity. However, I assure her that the Government are determined that a fair and equitable distribution of resources will benefit people throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Volume 331: debated on Wednesday 19 May 1999

House Of Commons

Prayers

British Child Migrants

Eurostar Services

Primary Schools (Bury)

Primary Schools (Admissions)

Boundary Walls (Scotland)

New Writ

Oral Answers To Questions

Cabinet Office

Publications

People's Panels

Charter Mark

Public Appointments

Better Government

Service First Programme

Public Appointments

Drug Misuse

Electronic Information

Public Services

Chancellor Of The Duchy

Prime Minister

Engagements

Post-16 Education

Engagements

Constituency Visit

Engagements

Jury Trial

Points Of Order

Bells On Pedal Cycles

Bells On Pedal Cycles

Opposition Day

European Union Fraud

Nhs Personnel

Delegated Legislation

Section 5 Of The European Communities (Amendment)Act 1993

Terms And Conditions Of Employment

European Communities

Social Security

Local Government Finance

Defence

Petition

Bicycle Bells

Health Service (Forest Of Dean)