I welcome this opportunity to debate a subject of great importance to the four regions.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) expects the Minister to reply and that no Minister is present, is it appropriate to continue?

There is no question of order about who is present. It is entirely a matter of courtesy to the proceedings that a Minister be present. [Interruption.] The Minister is now here.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Minister is now present for a debate of extreme importance for the four regions that have won objective 1 status. So much depends on our work in this Chamber, and on our work with colleagues in the European Commission and our partners in these four poorest regions of the United Kingdom. We must make the most of this opportunity, because it is the best in our lifetime that these regions will have to pull themselves up.

I congratulate all those involved in securing objective 1 status for the four regions, including the Government, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, councils and campaigners. Above all, I congratulate the people of the regions who have continued their work, often in the knowledge that little or no heed was paid to their poverty. The people of Cornwall are used to being envied for their environment, their community and their sense of place and identity, but they are also accustomed to their poverty being ignored. We welcome the fact that at last it is recognised that the region of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is deserving of additional financial aid to bring it into line with the level of gross domestic product enjoyed by the rest of the country and Europe.

I realise that putting together single programming documents is a challenging exercise, and I congratulate the four regions and the Government Departments that have undertaken the gargantuan task of preparing them and getting them off to Europe on schedule. The Minister has acknowledged that the Government inherited a legacy of confusion and complexity: I and other hon. Members want to deal with that issue in the debate. The fault lies partly with European systems, but is also related to the separation of Departments and the failure of a joined-up government approach to this important matter. Putting together the pieces of the objective 1 jigsaw has involved a great deal of work: it is a much less simple task than many other economic development projects have been.

I want the debate to be conducted in a constructive environment. Many hon. Members who represent constituencies in the four regions want to speak on this subject of all-party concern. Properly raising concerns about match funding and its complexities is not scaremongering. Questioning the sources of all available public match funding does not imply that objective 1 will fold: it would be inappropriate to portray that as a doomsday scenario. Equally, however, it would be irresponsible to be complacent. There is some concern that much planning is based more on hope than on certainty.

I have conveyed a message to the Minister so that he is fully aware of questions that I wish to raise in a constructive spirit. I seek clarification of matched funding arrangements, the extent of central and regional co-ordination—in the terminology of joined-up government, the joined-upness of the system—and the extent to which local partners in objective 1 regions may decide their future for themselves, which involves the decision-making procedure.

I have some experience of that process, as I was involved, on behalf of the voluntary sector, in the last objective 5b programme in the south-west, which largely involved Cornwall, but included parts of Devon and Somerset. That experience was pretty unedifying, as the programme started a year late. Total funding for the programme came from Europe, along with all measures, and amounted to £177.6 million. However, the total paid up until the end of 1999 was £71.2 million—a mere 40 per cent. of the EU finance available for that region. We must improve our performance considerably if the objective 1 region of Cornwall is to spend £314 million over a seven-year period and work within the financial programme regulations, which are, appropriately, much stricter.

More money has yet to be claimed, and existing commitments have yet to be fulfilled. However, the prospect for spending the full amount of objective 5b funds is poor. Of most concern is the difficulty of securing public match funding, which partly accounts for the slowness of the programme and the problem of initiating projects. Government bodies and quangos came up with only £15 million, which is 19 per cent. of the match funding, or 10 per cent. of all funding for the 5b process. Most worrying, by far the largest public match-fund contributor was the national lottery—a source that did not exist when the programme was first put together. Lottery sources represent 54 per cent. of total match funding for the Cornwall objective 5b programme.

Of equal concern is the fact that the original intention behind the objective 1 and 5b programmes was strategy-driven. A strategy is devised which those programmes are designed to deliver. My experience was that that turned out to be a six-month bidding round involving spending on a first-come, first-served basis. The Government should increase the extent to which they allow objective 1 regions to take decisions to implement their own strategies, and those decisions should not be overruled. Such regions should have proper support from Government in identifying match funds to develop their strategies.

It is impossible for normal well-adjusted humans—of whom there are some outside this place—not to be shocked by the almost unbelievable, impenetrable complexity, red tape and gobbledegook surrounding such schemes. I shall argue that that may choke and suffocate initiatives and deny the very people for whom funds are intended. European funding programmes are probably for those who are pushy, articulate and can afford consultants; such people will find their way through these programmes. However, the socially excluded, who do not have such resources and abilities, will find it difficult to enter the system, let alone get through the application process and bring a worthy initiative to fruition. That is a matter of great concern, and the Government can do a great deal about it.

In my opening remarks, I have concentrated mainly on Cornwall and the Scilly Isles because I know that part of the country best. Other hon. Members will want to speak about areas in their constituencies. However, to secure objective 1 status, Cornwall had to go through an important process of disaggregating itself from the unreal and synthetic objective 5b region to which it was previously attached. Geographically, historically, culturally, constitutionally, communally and economically, Cornwall is an entity in its own right. It does not want to cut itself off from the rest of the world, but rather to include itself in the celebration of the diversity of cultures, peoples and religions throughout the British Isles and Europe.

The key issue is whether what was self-evident to Cornwall and the Scilly Isles is accepted by others, especially given that successive Governments have previously failed to recognise Cornwall's obvious distinctiveness. I congratulate the Government on accepting Cornwall's case to be a European region in its own right, although it is a pity that they did not go further and allow Cornwall to have a regional development agency. However, we shall not go over that argument now.

Once objective 1 is achieved, all the relevant regions will face the challenge of financial and programme discipline—particularly the new challenge of straight-line funding over the seven-year period, which means having to commit an agreed one seventh of the financial year's funds and spend it within two years of making the commitment. Under the objective 5b programme in the past, there was much carry-over of finance from one year to the next. It is helpful to have more discipline, but it brings additional pressure on those who have to deliver the programmes. The Minister recognises that, and I am sure that the partners on the ground are aware of it too.

I have congratulated everyone on the successful campaign for Cornwall's acceptance as a distinct region. There is now the much more challenging job of making the most of the opportunity—collating plans, framing strategies and producing and lodging the single programme document.

Match funding remains a major concern. Having considered all five priorities in the Cornish programme, it is clear that problems remain in drawing on spending under the EAGGF—there are many acronyms and other unique terms relating to European funding. European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund moneys will not be drawn down entirely, as funds available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other finances will be required to fulfil the farm diversification and competitiveness strategy.

As to the European social fund, I think that Department for Education and Employment funding and other sources of finance may be sufficient. I am yet to be entirely convinced, but they may be enough to fulfil that part of the programme. Some people are optimistic that there will be enough collective public match funding to support community regeneration and infrastructure measures, largely through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from other sources. That seems more a hope than a certainty for the next seven years.

The priority to develop small and medium-sized enterprises is important to an area such as Cornwall, which has almost 20,000 businesses, of which almost 15,000 employ five or fewer people. Those are micro-businesses and they must grow if the economy of Cornwall is to grow. Small businesses will provide the basis for growth, so it is vital to support the enterprise culture—in Cornwall, but doubtless also in west Wales, the valleys and other regions.

We need to ensure that matching MAFF and DTI funding is available. The DTI's enterprise fund would be an important source, but the total amount available next year is £250,000. That sum is available not only to Cornwall, but to the Government's so-called South West regional development agency area. Cornwall represents less than 10 per cent. of the population of that area, so our notional fair share of that money would be a little under £25,000, which would not go very far to kick-start the economy of Cornwall.

Many funds are operated on a regional basis, and the programme operates on the wholly optimistic notion that Cornwall has to secure more than its fair share of national and regional funding. Whatever level of match funding Cornwall achieves under 5b, we must at least double it under objective 1. The communities of south-west England will understandably take the view that Cornwall already has the benefit of objective 1 funds, and will ask why it should have a disproportionate slice of the available regional funding cake. The Minister may wish to offer advice on how to reassure our friends and colleagues in the south-west region that we are not taking more than our fair share to fulfil our objective 1 programme.

Indeed, in a letter to me dated 5 January the Prime Minister wrote:

"The principle of the applicant arranging the funding package is an important element in ensuring local ownership and commitment."

I am sure that that is right. But how does the applicant arrange the funding package when significant portions of the match funding are not in place? It is clear from the Prime Minister's letter that the Government prefer not to agree to a draw-down rate of £1 for £1, but want a lower percentage of UK contribution. Added to that are the complexities of the system that I have already outlined.

Let us assume for a moment that there are sufficient public match funds, although I still have a rather jaundiced view of the system's ability to operate and deliver the finance to get the projects off the ground. There is not just the European finance—the four funds: the EAGGF, the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the financial instrument for fisheries guidance—but many little pots of funding within each of the four Government Departments, which must all be tapped to make that funding available. Any objective observer of the process would quickly conclude that one needs to be articulate and pushy and have a paid consultant to have any chance of getting through this system, but that is really not the way forward. Frankly, one needs a PhD in gobbledegook to get through the system. Rather than simply sitting back and adding to the complexity by including departmental complexities, the Government should take a handle on the matter and start to see the problems of European funding from an applicant's point of view.

I applaud the approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking to this issue, which is extremely important to all our four objective 1 areas. I apologise because I must leave to attend a Standing Committee, so I shall not be able to hear his full contribution. Does he agree that the problem of the complexity of the system and the access for local partnerships to central Government sources of match funding requires a cultural change and a change of understanding in Whitehall? The objective 1 programme should be seen not as just another European source of funding for local projects, but as something that will bring economic restructuring to our areas. Whitehall must also see that objective 1 in our four areas can help the pursuit of Government objectives and policies as well as local objectives and policies.

That was a helpful intervention. There is a shared interest in making sure that objective 1 succeeds. The Government have an interest in making sure that the wealth generated in this country is enjoyed by all equally as far as possible, and that the four regions that have been identified as outstandingly poor are given an opportunity to bring themselves up at least to the average enjoyed by the rest of the country. It is in the shared interests of all hon. Members to ensure that that happens. Hon. Members from objective 1 regions know that we share the Government's interest in making the objective 1 programme succeed.

I shall conclude my speech, because it is important that other hon. Members who want to speak have ample time to do so. We must recognise that the point of the exercise is to give an essential lift to the economies of the four poorest regions, not to justify a more complex and impenetrable bureaucracy. We need to overcome the barriers that applicants experience. We need greater certainty about the funds. We need a more applicant and project-centred process. We need a joined-up government approach to the problem. We need greater evidence that the four Departments are coming together strategically. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has proposed in the all-party objective 1 group that a Cabinet Committee should co-ordinate the approach to the issue.

Brittany has a single application form for European funding and regional funding. That makes it considerably easier for applicants for objective 1 status to respond to the complexities of the process. In France, the départements face those complexities and the préfet, with his committee of advisers, decides that if people succeed in one fund, they succeed in the lot. That is how things should happen. Applicants should not have to complete 12, 13, 14 or 15 application forms for different financial years and different criteria.

In the next seven years, there will be a golden opportunity for objective 1 areas. It is vital that we get it right this time, because there will not be a next time. Objective 1 regions deserve the Government's full support. Applicants deserve an applicant-friendly system. I urge the Minister to respond to the genuine fears—we are not scaremongering—that we in the objective 1 regions might fail to make full use of the opportunity provided by objective 1 funds in the next seven years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this important Adjournment debate. It is important because it comes at a critical time when the draft single programming document for objective 1 areas is being considered in Brussels. We have a small amount of invaluable time in which to resolve some of the practical issues that have emerged. They must be resolved if we are to take full advantage of the objective 1 funds for which so many people have worked so hard.

In Merseyside, this issue is especially important because we are coming to the end of the highly successful first objective 1 programme. That programme has successfully safeguarded jobs, secured additional employment and brought new investment to Merseyside. It has introduced innovations to support small businesses—especially the Merseyside special investment fund, which is an innovative fund investing European funds in small businesses—and major projects of cultural and employment significance, such as the conservation centre in Liverpool, which won the award of European museum of the year, the CIMS projects at Liverpool university, which invests in technology transfer, and many local programmes in areas of particular deprivation, such as Dingle, Granby and Vauxhall, which work with local people, support local resources and develop training and employment opportunities.

In considering the practical issues that we face in securing maximum advantage from the second objective 1 round, we in Merseyside want to build on our successes and make maximum use of that funding. What we have already achieved in Merseyside can be replicated in the new objective 1 areas, some of which have similar needs.

One factor is different this time. Significant changes in UK regional policy have taken place, including a much sharper focus on regional economic policy, the creation of regional development agencies with a clear remit and the development of regional economic strategies, which have now been presented for all regions. The regional economic strategy for the north-west covers matters such as the environment, business skills, transportation and general infrastructure, and I suspect that regional economic strategies for the other regions cover similar matters. A change is also taking place in the nature of the business support offered by the UK Government. Training and enterprise councils and business links are moving to the small firms fund and the skills councils.

Changes in regional policy have taken place. We have regional development agencies and regional economic strategies, and we are sharpening up our means of delivering business support. In addition, Government offices for the regions have a new role, which is still being developed. They should become much more of a voice for the regions than for the Government operating in the regions.

Such factors are extremely important in considering financial and managerial arrangements for the new objective 1 programme. We must ensure that we maximise all available economic development resources in order to bring maximum support to objective 1 areas. To be effective, the use of European objective 1 funds must be aligned as closely as possible with the use of UK funds—whether from the public, the private or the voluntary sector—that are identified for programmes in the regional economic strategies or for local programmes. The two must work together. To make maximum use of those programmes, we need sufficient match funding and co-ordination at all levels.

In Merseyside, the main focus of the new objective 1 single programming document is business support: supporting the creation and survival of SMEs and developing the community's knowledge base and growth points in the economy, such as pharmaceuticals, leisure, work through the docks, which will have major repercussions for the Merseyside economy, new areas such as environmental technologies and spin-offs from our universities and institutions of higher education. We must consider transport, skills and infrastructure as well as investment. In Liverpool, objective 1 funding must be aligned with regeneration, especially through working with Liverpool Vision, the first urban regeneration company to be created following the Rodgers report on the regeneration of urban areas.

Although those are major issues for Merseyside and Liverpool, they also apply to the other objective 1 areas. If we try to keep European objective 1 funds in a separate box, they will not be as effective as they could be. They will be fully effective only if we develop managerial and financial arrangements and structures that will enable objective 1 funds to be used effectively with other funds that are or can be made available.

I shall refer now to specific issues on management and financial arrangements, some of which the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned. The partners in the Merseyside objective 1 programme have come together to provide finance for a separate officer responsible to the programming committee for not only delivering the programme, but considering how it can be better assessed and made more effective. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain the Government's views on that issue? I know that discussions have been held at Government level and beyond. It is an important issue because it relates to the establishment of the programme committee—co-ordinated with other funding bodies— as a body in its own right to assess these activities more effectively than before.

It is important to establish effective links, within the programme monitoring committee and elsewhere, between the North West regional development agency, the Government office for the north west—or their equivalents in the other objective 1 areas—and the European Commission. Such links must be developed in an organised way if they are to be effective. Such work is already happening, but I should like an assurance that it will be facilitated at Government level so that the constructive links that are developing within the area are supported nationally. Such co-ordination must be replicated at Government level. It is extremely important that the DFEE, DTI, and DETR—the major Departments involved, although there are others— work together to assist the delivery and co-ordination of the objective 1 programmes. One of the difficulties we encountered in the previous programme was the lack of co-ordination; some of the long delays frequently encountered in putting together and delivering the objective 1 and objective 2 programmes arose because different Departments interpreted Commission guidelines differently, to the detriment of the programme. I ask the Government to address that central issue.

The issue of match funding has been raised. I ask the Minister for an assurance that there will be maximum flexibility in identifying match funding so that we get maximum benefit from the objective 1 programme. Would selective assistance from the DTI, for example, count as match funding? Will there be support for the venture capital funds that some of the regional development agencies are setting up, and which the North West regional development agency is considering, and will they be used to support match funding? Will the Government be as flexible as possible with regard to their programmes and related programmes to enable match funding to be made available, so that we get maximum advantage from objective 1 funds?

Budgets are important. There was a particular problem in the north-west, because the North West regional development agency inherited many of the previous programmes. Because of the limited budget it inherited, most of its funds for 2000–01 and beyond are already committed. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will reconsider the budgets of the regional development agencies, specifically in relation to objective 1 funding, to ensure flexibility? Will he also assure me that, where necessary, there will be additional funding or additional access to funding, to ensure that objective 1 money is spent as effectively as possible?

The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to a new issue that has emerged with the objective 1 programme— decommitment, to use the jargon. If the allocations for the programme in a given year are not committed by offer letter by the end of the calendar year and have not been spent within two years, the money may automatically be removed from the objective 1 area to which it has been designated.

If that is a firm rule, timing is essential. There were many delays at the beginning of the previous objective 1 programme for Merseyside. First, the Commission did not accept the single programming document put forward by Merseyside, and there were problems with policies and funding. Those difficulties were eventually resolved, the programme is now fully committed and the funds will be fully spent. However, the new decommitment rule means that if such delays occur again the money will be lost. Our debate is timely because it is important that the problems of match funding, management arrangements and Government co-ordination are resolved now.

My hon. Friend the Minister has a long history of understanding European funding problems. I know that he is deeply committed to regional policy and to European funding for the regions. I ask him to consider sympathetically the points that have been raised in this morning's debate. Their resolution will have maximum impact on the United Kingdom's poorest regions. European funding was hard fought for, particularly by the present Government. By resolving these issues, he will bring maximum value to the regions and make the Government's regional policies fully effective.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this timely debate. It is important that those of us who represent the four regions that have secured objective 1 funding should have common cause. The details may be different from one area to another, but the principles that we are debating today—what we want to secure for our areas—are identical. It is right and proper that we should all pull in the same direction; that will ensure that the programmes are delivered in such a way as to achieve maximum benefit.

Large parts of Wales are designated as objective 1 areas. That is a reflection of our failure over the years to attain economic regeneration. The extent of the problem is shown by the fact that, out of a total population of 2.9 million, 1.9 million people in Wales get less than 75 per cent. of the average per capita income of the European Union. The problem affects not only the old coalfield areas—one can well understand that the running down of the coal industry has caused income per head to fall here—but the rural west and north-west, and a large part of north Wales, which has suffered rural deprivation and the running down of some of the historic centres on the coast that used to generate economic wealth.

Taking all that together, the immense challenge is to get the gross domestic product per head up to something approaching the European or UK average. The objective 1 programme gives us a God-sent opportunity, but it is available only between now and 2006, perhaps with an overspill for a year or two more as the programme runs down. We shall not have this opportunity again, because countries from eastern Europe will have joined the European Union and will start making demands on its regional resources. We must make the most of this opportunity.

I pay tribute to the work undertaken by former Ministers in the Welsh Office in securing the programme for Wales. For many years, people campaigned to get the nomenclature of units of territorial statistics II—NUTS—map changed to reflect the reality of the country's social deprivation. In their time at the Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), as Secretary of State for Wales, and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), as his deputy, faced a tremendous battle to secure that funding: that it has been done is great. The objective in winning the battle is to make the programme work, and we face several problems in Wales. Questions about structures for managing the programmes and the generation of interest in new projects, which is vital, are largely matters for the National Assembly for Wales, and I must pursue them with my other hat on.

The fundamental question that faces the National Assembly and those involved in the project is about funding, as has been mentioned by the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). We in north Wales have watched with great interest Liverpool's progress and the benefits that it has secured from the programme, and we wish Merseyside well with the next part of the project. Both those hon. Members referred to funding, matched funding and the availability of finance. The situation is slightly different in Wales, because the Barnett formula defines our available funding. A rolling programme agreed by the Welsh Office and the Treasury is updated from year to year.

The expenditure available to us was defined in the Welsh Office spending programme more than a year ago, before Wales was accorded objective 1 status. In that rolling programme, the total managed expenditure for Wales in 2000–01 was £7,908 million. No provision in that figure was made for objective 1, as it was some months before that had been cleared by the European Union. Under the National Assembly and the office of the Secretary of State, who remains in Westminster, the budget for next year will be £7,909 million, which is within £1 million of the original budget. There is no additional money whatever in the budget for Wales for 2000–01 to reflect the additional expenditure necessary with regard to objective 1.

The figures are similar under the current expenditure plans for 2001–02. The original budget for Wales published more than a year ago was £8,334 million for that year, and the updated figure published a few weeks ago by Edwina Hart, the Assembly's Finance Secretary, was £8,335 million. Again, that is within £1 million. For the year after next, no additional money has been included in the budget for Wales to take account of objective 1.

Hon. Members have touched on additionality—the projects to be provided by objective 1 money will be additional to what would have otherwise taken place. That argument is not new. It was used by members of the Labour party involved in the fight in the early '90s when Bruce Millan was a Commissioner in Brussels and the focus was on the RECHAR programme. A famous victory was secured then.

A document provided by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which has been heavily involved in areas of England and Wales, states:

"In an agreement signed in 1992, the government agreed to introduce procedures that would ensure that EU grants led to extra spending in the places they were intended to assist."

That is what we expect. In Cornwall, Merseyside, South Yorkshire—I noted with interest the positive comments made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey)—and Wales, we expect additional expenditure, but our budgets do not have the facility for that. If we have to divert money from programmes already published as part of our budget for Wales so as to provide matched funding for European expenditure, less money will be available for the programmes than was originally foreseen.

We are not talking about small amounts of money. In Wales, we are talking about match funding of about £170 million to £180 million a year. Graham Meadows, a senior officer in charge of such programmes in the European Union, told us that that match funding must come from the public sector. That was confirmed in a regional meeting of the National Assembly in Rhy1 in September—I see that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) is present. Civil servants from the Welsh Office confirmed that the information they had been given by Brussels was that the match funding for the new programme had to come from the public sector, not the private sector. That is on record, having been stated in Brussels by Graham Meadows to MEPs, and by civil servants in meetings in Wales.

If the match funding has to be found from the public sector and there is no additional provision whatever in our budget in Wales, where will the money come from? Something must be done to find it. It is not simply a problem for 2000–01. I accept that there will be a delay in expenditure, and that projects started in that year may not fully need their cash flow expenditure until the following year. Therefore, the figure needed in 2000–01 may be below £170 million, but we need additional money.

On 23 November, I received a parliamentary answer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which stated:

"The responsibility for identifying match funding from the many sources available in the public and private sectors is a matter for project applicants in these areas."—[Official Report, 26 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 211W.]

Central Government are washing their hands of the need to provide match funding, and are labouring under the misapprehension that private sector money can provide it. That is not the message that we have had, clearly and categorically, from Brussels and from civil servants in the National Assembly.

As we work within a global figure defined by the Barnett formula in Wales, we must be assured that a mechanism has been authorised for public expenditure survey cover for the additional money from the European Union for objective 1 purposes. We need additional match funding to ensure that genuinely additional projects will be pursued in Wales, and we need additional PES cover for the half the money for those projects that comes from Brussels.

So far, we have been told that the Government will not let Wales down, and I hope that we can bank on that commitment. I am glad to hear hon. Members, especially those on the Government Benches, reinforcing that hope. If we can trust that commitment, we shall be very happy indeed, but we want to know how it will met.

My local authority has passed me a copy of a letter that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who is in the Chamber, received from the Prime Minister. In the context of objective 1 spending in relation to Cornwall—I guess that his comments are equally applicable to other areas—the Prime Minister said:

"There has been considerable speculation that the UK Government will make additional public resources available to these areas in order to provide a further source of match funding for projects under the programme. However, such match funding will continue to be the responsibility of the grant applicant and will be largely derived from the existing domestic programmes available to the area … I cannot guarantee that more public funding will be available".

If more public funding is not available, there will be cuts in expenditure in Wales on health and education to provide the money necessary for match funding for the European programme. Frankly, that is not acceptable. The areas in Wales that are entitled to the money are areas of social deprivation. The objective of the programme is to overcome that deprivation with self-regenerative economic growth. It is unacceptable that social programmes should have to be cut to maximise the benefit that we receive from the European Union.

When the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will give a categorical assurance—not simply for Wales but for Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall as well—that there will be additional match funding so that projects can be genuinely additional. There must also be PES cover, so that the funds from Brussels will be over and above the expenditure programme that has been approved so far.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing the debate. I am glad that he has not followed the doomsday scenario adopted by some of his hon. Friends, who seem more interested in cheap headlines today than in Cornwall's prosperity tomorrow.

Oh, that is a good line.

It is a true line.

The people of Cornwall and those of other objective 1 regions have been given a vital opportunity, and everyone must do whatever they can to maximise the benefits. I am confident that those who have worked so hard to win this opportunity will ensure that that happens. The Labour Government who won the additional funding will ensure that the poorest regions benefit most. That is why I welcome the opportunity of suggesting how that can be done.

A little history is required because some hon. Members do not remember how Cornwall won objective 1 status in the first place. Two years ago, the county had as much chance of winning objective 1 status as Manchester United has of winning the world FIFA cup—it was not even in the sphere of possibility. Several events assisted our campaign, notably the sad end of tin mining in Cornwall, which highlighted all too dramatically the plight that the region faced.

My hon. Friend the Minister assisted in what became a long campaign within Government to point out the needs of the county. Even colleagues from the north of England failed to understand the endemic nature of Cornwall's poverty. I am pleased to say, however, that many Ministers listened, and when the Prime Minister met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Mr. Jamieson), Cornwall suddenly became a runner. The Prime Minister instructed civil servants to make the case for Cornwall to be separated from Devon for statistical purposes. To my intense joy, within a few weeks the case was won in Europe. The poorest region in the UK now stood at the front of the list of achieving objective 1.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the bid on behalf of Cornwall had been set in motion by the Conservative Government before the general election?

I am astonished: all of us knew at that time that Cornwall was not even in the running. However, I am delighted to hear that we have the support of the Conservatives, and I can confirm that the key statistical separation from Devon was achieved not by the previous Conservative Government, but by the present Labour Government.

When I heard the news about the statistical separation, I danced around my living room for ages while an electrician looked on aghast as I celebrated what I immediately recognised as a great opportunity. That night the gloom merchants were out: they said that Cornwall would be left out; that the Labour Government would not confer assisted area status; and that, at the final hour, Cornwall would be denied funding. But, hey presto, we did it. We now hear the same soothsayers predicting that the Government will not match fund objective 1. Balderdash! Much work remains to be done on many fronts—in central and local government—and we now have an opportunity to discuss it. It is important for the Government to establish mechanisms to maximise the benefits of the objective 1 programme. The form that such mechanisms should take should be considered urgently in the weeks ahead.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade for a letter sent to me last night, which outlines ways in which partnerships can access match funding. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has agreed to meet the all-party objective 1 group. The Minister for Trade may also agree to participate to help to achieve joined-up government. We will be able to discuss funding mechanisms and establish the best way forward. As others have argued, there is an excellent case for joined-up government in the administration of the objective 1 programme. That is vital. Departments must work together to establish the compatibility of various sources of funding and to ensure that the programme is administered effectively. Those Departments must work with Government offices for the regions and the RDAs. "Joined-up" must refer to the regions as well as to the centre.

On the specific question of match funding, regional partnerships must identify and access sources of funding; there are, rightly, no blank cheques. We should examine ways of accessing these sources effectively. Equally, we should decide which funding sources are compatible with European guidance—we need assistance to ensure flexibility from Departments. We must not allow projects to be frustrated by bureaucratic barriers or regulations, or become bogged down waiting for decisions.

Only last week, a local businessman asked me for advice about whether retrospective funding was available for an exciting project that his company was developing. I want clear guidelines from the Government on how such information will be given and when. I and other members of the all-party objective 1 group have put these points to Ministers in the past few weeks. We are now waiting for answers. We need to hit the ground running and to ensure that arrangements are established as soon as possible. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my sentiments.

I am pleased to say that I know of several exciting and innovative projects being developed in Cornwall that will make a genuine difference to people's lives. Despite all that I have said, there is an exciting feeling that objective 1 can work for the county and do what it was designed to do—make a real difference to one of the hardest-hit areas of the country. We can make Cornwall a can-do rather than a can't-do county.

Unfortunately, I occasionally have to respond to ill-conceived stories that objective 1 is under threat and that this will be a wasted opportunity. Before Christmas, a story was sent by certain Conservative Members to local papers claiming that the Government refused to match-fund this programme. I am at a loss to understand what they were talking about. Opposition Members had taken a letter from the Prime Minister, which was referred to a little while ago, and spun their own somewhat eccentric interpretation. They decided that the Prime Minister has said that there would be no objective 1 funding for Cornwall, and they hit the "Six O'clock News" saying as much. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), whom I am delighted to see here, appeared prominently in those television programmes. However, so great was his concern that he failed to mention the letter and his anxieties in the two hours that he spent with me in the run-up to the programmes. He then hit the television stations when it was impossible to check the veracity of the story. Not content with talking down the eclipse, on objective 1 the hon. Gentleman seems to want to be known as the Member of Parliament for Truro, St. Austell and Doom. Jeremiah mark 2!

What was the hon. Gentleman thinking of when he stated that people in Government Departments would be instructed to put down the telephone on anyone who spoke with a Cornish accent, and that the funding of local councils would be withdrawn? In truth, he and other hon. Members had decided to misinterpret a statement from the Prime Minister that said nothing new.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No. I am making a specific point about Cornwall, and I wish to keep to it.

Will the hon. Lady give way to one of her local Members?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he insists.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. History is being rewritten during the valuable minutes in which we should be pressing the Minister about where match funding should be identified. Instead, we are getting into a ridiculous spat over an extreme, untrue story. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should be urging the Minister to identify ways in which the programme could move forward?

We have spent much of the past hour raising those issues. Just before Christmas, there was some rewriting of history, which should be put on record because many people in Cornwall were greatly disturbed by what was said. The hon. Gentleman knows that much confidence was lost, and many people working on good projects became disheartened. Those people came to us as their Members of Parliament to ask what was happening.

Does the hon. Lady believe, as her statements at the time suggested, that the Government should be trusted to deliver the match funding required, given the Prime Minister's statement that he will not guarantee that funding? That is what the letter said, but the hon. Lady asks us to take it on trust that the funding will be provided. However, our debate suggests that hon. Members do not believe that to be the case. We want to win guarantees from the Minister that the Prime Minister would not give.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. We do not take the matter on trust. However, many of the Labour Government's initiatives—such as health action zones, education action zones, and an imminent development of which the hon. Gentleman is aware—reveal a track record of commitment to Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman and others were not 100 per cent. convinced that the Government would come up with the objective 1 programme and fight their case at the Berlin summit. However, the Government did exactly that. People should consider how Ministers have operated and worked for Cornwall, and give praise where it is due.

That does not mean that I do not want answers from Ministers. I have met Ministers and shall continue to work and fight with them in order to make the case for the county of Cornwall. I repeat: a Labour Government fought for Cornwall to get objective 1 status, and a Labour Government will give a commitment to making match funding work.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this debate on objective 1 funding. I should like to stress the importance of such funding to the area that I represent, and to discuss match funding.

The exact opposite of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) confronted my county when it tried to be included in the bid from west Wales and the valleys. We had to attach ourselves to that bid, whereas my hon. Friend had to divest herself of the burdensome Devonshire aspect.

I should like to mention the main players who secured the inclusion of my constituency and county in the west Wales and valleys bid. I pay tribute to the Cardiff Business School for providing the up-to-date statistics that set the ball rolling. Old statistics based on the eight counties in Wales did not allow Denbighshire and Conwy to participate in the bid. However, new statistics supplied by the Cardiff business school on a 22-county basis gave a true reflection of poverty across Wales.

I also pay tribute to Huw Vaughan Thomas, chief executive of Denbighshire county council, who supplied local Members of Parliament with those statistics, which were used by the then Minister at the Welsh Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), to assess the position. Throughout Wales people were saying, "Do not change the map at the eleventh hour. Do not jeopardise things for Wales." However, the Minister took into account arguments for and against our inclusion, and used his decision-making power to ensure that Denbighshire and Conwy were allowed to be part of the bid.

I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing the additional information that I believe swung the Minister into making the correct decision to include Denbighshire and Conwy's population of 250,000 in the bid.

Opposition parties have not given sufficient credit to the Prime Minister for the role he played in Berlin in securing objective 1 funding for four UK regions. He flew to Hawarden in north Wales and announced the news at the Labour party conference in Llandudno. Insufficient tribute has been paid to the Prime Minister for that: he would not fly to Berlin and secure funding for the UK, only to scupper that funding on his return, as Opposition Members are suggesting.

It is right for hon. Members to raise the important issue of match funding, which, however, must be kept in perspective. A fine balance is required for match funding and creating the energy and enthusiasm that is necessary to make a success of objective 1. There is a danger of talking down Wales, turning off the business community and stifling the energy and enthusiasm that are the necessary catalysts for successful objective 1 projects in Wales and, indeed, in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should encourage our local business people, as well as United Kingdom and international investors, to invest in Wales.

The case for match funding can be made and it is right that it should be discussed openly in Parliament, but it should be kept in perspective. I am making representations. In the past six months, I have met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for the Cabinet Office face to face to put the case for Wales and the United Kingdom to get proper match funding. That is how things should be done. We must go forward united. I know that there are many opportunities for Opposition parties to make cheap political points. You are in a privileged position, but I ask you to consider that privilege carefully.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember the conventions of the House. The Chair does not have to consider anything other than whether protocol and the Standing Orders are observed.

I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) referred to the need to match national strategy with the local strategies that have been developed in the single programming documents. I concur with that. The Government's main aim is to combat social exclusion and eradicate the poverty that occurred in the 66 constituencies in the objective 1 regions of the United Kingdom during 18 years of Tory rule. We are developing national strategies on social exclusion, education, the economy and the environment. They should be seamless and fit in with the local strategies that have been developed. We must work together without scoring party political points, and present a united front to Ministers during the critical spending review. If we present our case cogently with facts, figures and passion, we shall be successful in achieving match funding.

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for speaking through a slight veil of snuffles today, but in the circumstances I think that I have been let off lightly. May I take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)? All hon. Members will be pleased to see him on his feet, fighting fit.

This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in this Room, and I shall endeavour to adhere to the forms of the House in what I think is a failing experiment of an experimental Chamber. None the less, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) has raised an important issue, but it is proving its importance only inasmuch as he has shown, as have all those who have contributed to the debate, how unsatisfactory is the state of affairs. We are examining a shambolic system. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, and it is not working. The hon. Member for St. Ives showed that very well; his main thesis was that people must be articulate, pushy and be able to afford a consultant just to reach first base—I might put in a bid. The system is surrounded by bureaucratic muddle. A D.Phil in gobbledegook is needed just to submit an application. That is not how such a system should work. The Minister will have to explain in detail how he will unravel the mess and introduce coherence and cogency to a process for which we in the House should have to answer.

As usual.

We await the Minister's clarification with some trepidation.

We have the absurdity of the hon. Member for St. Ives saying that Cornwall is struggling to spend £314 million. We also have the nonsensical lack of clarity on match funding. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has made a plea for what she calls flexibility in match funding, which looks like a plea to get the maximum out of Europe with the minimum out of her Government. That is what her definition of flexbility seems to be.

We have witnessed the spat between the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and Liberal Democrat Members about whether she bragged that her Government would provide match funding. The basis on which the money is spent seems to be in a complete mess. We believe that the system is utterly flawed, but I do not blame anyone for taking the money if it is available. If there is a pot of gold waiting to be used, anyone representing the interests of their constituents will try to find a way of diverting it their way. It is a bit like Dudley Moore at the end of the film "Arthur" saying, "I'm not stupid. I took the money." If the system is offering funds, any responsible Member of Parliament will try to obtain them.

If we step back from the system and look at what is happening, we can see how it is taking on an absurd identity. We are in the realms of the absurd. We are net contributors to the European Union. We pay billions into the EU. It gives money back and claims the credit and then, having returned to us money that was ours in the first place, demands that the Government put in more money. We have this extraordinary merry-go-round of taxpayers' money going into contributions, coming back to us and then being spent only partly by us. It is mostly spent by the EU in a way that we cannot properly decipher and for which the House no longer appears able to be properly responsible.

I am confused by what the hon. Member is saying and would be grateful for some clarification. A moment ago he was trying to lay claim to having put in the original bid under the previous Government. Now he appears to be saying that it is so much of a shambles that it should never have happened in the beginning. Would he have fought as hard as the present Government have fought to get objective 1 status, particularly for Cornwall?

We made the bid because the system was there. If the system is there, one uses it to get the best one can for Britain. The whole system now deserves better examination. Labour has had 18 years to think about it, but it does not appear to have thought about it at all. The merry-go-round of money going from us to the EU and back again is looking increasingly absurd. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon, with his £170 million match funding in Wales, now says that he wants more public spending. In addition to the money being taxed and going there and coming back, we have further pressure to compound the burden on the taxpayer in order to double the money, or at least significantly add to it, and to spend it in these areas.

My point is simply that we are elected to the House of Commons to look after the interests of Britain. If it were genuinely additional money I could see the point, but given that it is ours in the first place, the House of Commons should decide within the boundaries of the United Kingdom how its money, raised from its taxpayers, is spent on its citizens.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that was the system under the previous Government?

Well, that was the benefit of my original thought. We should not just accept the status quo. We should consider whether the system is working, and the debate has proved today is that it is not working. We should decide whether this merry-go-round system makes sense any more, and I seriously question whether it does.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I want to conclude as I want to leave the Minister some time and I am eating into it already. He is going to need it. I shall ask him some specific questions. What criteria were used to draw up the map? What were the political criteria? What criteria will be used in deciding how to spend the money? What will be the role of the RDAs, in their interaction with business and the regional offices of the DTI, in deciding and administering that expenditure? Perhaps the Minister can give us a detailed explanation of how the match funding system will work.

I apologise for my late arrival—I arrived as Big Ben was striking the 10th note of 10 o'clock. I walked from the Ministry—we do not use the transport provided any more—but there were many visitors in London this morning and the traffic lights were against me. I am also suffering from the cold that is doing the rounds.

The contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was unfortunate and showed how far the Opposition are from public opinion. The House makes those decisions. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect seriously on what the British public said in May 1997 in response to such extremism, because the Tory party is becoming even more extreme. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated a marked ignorance on the subject under consideration—which explains his comments about the sitting. Hon. Members present have an in-depth knowledge of the subject—which, judging from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, the Opposition clearly do not.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on his choice of subject and on the interest that he has taken in European structural funds. He said that he was an expert on the matter before entering the House. European structural funds are a real and tangible benefit of our membership of the European Union. Indeed, for many people they are the most tangible benefit, contributing to a better environment, more jobs and better training. I am therefore delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given us the opportunity to debate aspects of their impact on the UK.

The hon. Member for St. Ives made several points specific to Cornwall and its objective 1 programme. Before addressing them, I remind hon Members of some of the essential features of European structural funds as they affect the UK. There are four such funds, the first of which is the European regional development fund, which reduces the gap between the levels of development and living standards of the various regions and the extent to which the least-favoured regions lag behind. The second is the European social fund, which helps to develop employment by promoting employability, the business spirit and equal opportunities and by investing in human resources. The third is the European guidance and guarantee section of the agricultural fund, which helps to preserve the link between agriculture and land, improving and supporting the competitiveness of agriculture, retaining population in the countryside and preserving and maintaining the environment. We believe that that is vital, especially in the context of the debate about the urban renaissance and encroachment on greenbelt and greenfield sites. The fourth is the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which helps to achieve a sustainable balance between fisheries resources and their exploitation, to modernise the fishing industry and to revitalise areas dependent on fishing.

A separate cohesion fund exists to help the four member states—Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain— whose per capita GNP is below 90 per cent. of the European average. The operation of structural funds has been somewhat complex—as has been demonstrated this morning. I am glad to say that in the last renegotiation the Government achieved some simplification, although complexities remain. The number of objectives has been reduced in practice from seven to three. On UK allocations for the funds, which will be in place for the next seven years, we can expect to receive about £11 billion, which is, as I said earlier, a tangible benefit of EU membership.

As has already been mentioned, the fact that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer secured such a good deal for the UK at the negotiation of the new round of structural funds at the European Council in Berlin in March 1999 shows the success of the Government's policy. It presents a marked contrast with what the official Opposition have said this morning, and shows that constructive engagement works in dealing with the EU. The result was a package that is affordable and fair to the UK as a whole and to all the regions. Despite the reduction of population coverage by one third for objective 2 areas, the overall package produced an increase in the total population covered by geographical objectives from 24 million to 26.8 million. The UK's total allocation in euros has increased by 18 per cent.

The regional programmes are developed and managed primarily by the regions themselves. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), I hope that the structures that are put in place will be flexible enough to deliver what people want in the regions. Successive revisions of structural funds have increased the role of local partnerships in designing and implementing programmes. Everyone—with the possible exception of the official Opposition—with a serious interest in European structural funds welcomes that development. It is the partnerships that know their regions best. They are committed to them and are best placed to identify projects that will make a genuine impact in their regions. The local partnership typically comprises representation from local authorities, local and regional development bodies, education bodies, chambers of commerce, voluntary organisations and others. In England, regional Government offices have a vital role to play in the management of programmes.

RDAs have already been mentioned. I emphasise the importance of devolution and the introduction of RDAs in England. Devolved Administrations are responsible for programmes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Department for objective 1 and 2 programmes, while the Department of Trade and Industry has an overall co-ordinating role and represents the entire UK in negotiations with the European Commission on structural funds in general.

In England, RDAs have been closely involved in designing the new objective 1 programmes and in ensuring that programmes are consistent with their regional economic strategies. RDAs in the south-west contributed substantially to the objective 1 plan for Cornwall, and I hope that such informed development can continue, not only in Cornwall but in other areas.

The Government's role during the programming period is, nationally, to monitor programmes, their expenditure and the effect of exchange rate movements—the Commission makes all commitments in euros—to provide advice and guidance to regional partners on technical matters, to help to resolve problems between Departments and the Commission, to act as the channel through which payments from Brussels are made and to verify that money is spent properly, in accordance with fund rules.

The Commission's proposals for improved and more transparent financial control management in structural funds are extremely welcome. The UK has consistently and rigorously pursued better financial management and accountability of all European expenditure: we are all European taxpayers, and it is vital that our taxes are well spent and properly accounted for and that genuine value for money is achieved.

I turn now to the funding of programmes, the matter in which hon. Members have most interest. As has already been mentioned, several hon. Members have asked about match funding in the debate and in correspondence with the Government on the matter from the Prime Minister down. I am pleased to have the opportunity to try to explain as clearly as possible how the system of match funding will work, because some misunderstanding has arisen.

Structural funds account for only a proportion of the cost of a project. The remainder must be found from national sources. Match funding may be obtained from central Government or local government, from other organisations such as development bodies, or from the voluntary sector, and may include a variable element from the private sector. [Interruption] I am glad that it was your pager that sounded, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not anyone else's.

It is important to note that regulations allow grants of up to 75 per cent. for objective 1 areas. However, the English objective 1 programmes have chosen to apply for support from the funds equivalent only to match funding from the public sector. The addition of private sector match funding has resulted in average grant rates of below 50 per cent. That increases the overall size of programmes, because, although the overall allocation from the funds is fixed, the programmes have to find proportionally more match funding. I stress that that was the decision of the regional partnerships.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

I am saying not that 75 per cent, would have been achieved, but that regulations allow for more than 50 per cent. The objective 1 areas decided to go for 50:50 on match funding. We should consider what would happen to the rest of the people in the region if the 50 per cent. that is public money were taken out of the match funding. Of £100 expenditure, £45 comes from the EU, £45 is match funding and £10 is from the private sector. If the private sector wants to provide £15, should one reduce the £45 of match funding from the public sector to £40, liberating that £5 to be spent somewhere else in the region, or should it be additional to that funding, which would allow us to continue to expand the programme in that objective 1 area?

When setting up the regional development agencies on behalf of the Government, I tried to get the RDAs to look holistically at their regions, and to consider using finance, wherever it came from, to deliver a strategy. I believe that the way in which match funding is being developed militates against that.

I am somewhat at a loss, not knowing whether the Minister is atempting to shift the responsibility for that decision on to the partnerships in each of the four regions. The Government signed off those programmes when they went to the Commission in November. I presume that the Treasury and Government Departments agreed to the funding profiles within those programmes.

That is absolutely true, but I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, drew it to the attention of those who were making applications that there could be problems with match funding. However, because it was a regional decision, we said that we would live with it. It must be accepted that the programme, which accounts for about 10 per cent. of what it spent, is additional to what has already been put in to those regions.

I appreciate the problems, but the money is additional to the programmes now going on. In terms of match funding, it will therefore be easy. Block grants cannot be made, because they would not follow the particular schemes for which match funding was required and which would be additional to that spending. However, I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and in the Treasury are prepared to consider whether to produce a new list. It is in our interests to ensure match funding to achieve a bigger take, but the decision is taken by the regions. That is what devolution of power is about. Regional decisions are now determining the level of match funding that will have to be raised. We believe that the money is there. We are prepared to reconsider regional selective assistance, which we were asked to do, and other assistance, and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Unfortunately, time has caught up with us. There is much more to put on the record, but there has been a bit of in-fighting among hon. Members so I have been unable to give a full explanation. If hon. Members write to me, I shall respond to them. If they wish to promote another debate, I shall be more than willing to come to this Dispatch Box or the other at any time and debate the subject with the official Opposition.

I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to the level and extent of poverty in London and to ways of combating it.

London is the largest city in western Europe. It is a major international centre of finance and communications and our capital city—a city of immense dynamism and prosperity. For that reason, it has for too long been easy for people to ignore the extent and depth of poverty here. The largest concentrations of poverty and deprivation in Britain are here in the capital city. We have deprived neighbourhoods cheek by jowl with some of the richest neighbourhoods in the world. The City of London is probably the most prosperous square mile in the world, and is next to Hackney and Tower Hamlets, not far from Newham, and across the river from Southwark, where many people live in abject poverty.

The comparisons and contrasts to be found in the capital city read like comparisons between the first world and the third world. Infant mortality in Hackney is 10 times as high as in the London borough of Kingston. Someone living in Newham is twice as likely to die before age 75 as someone living in the London borough of Bromley, about 10 miles away. One quarter of all the families in Tower Hamlets live in overcrowded conditions. Half the children in inner London are entitled to free school meals: all this in the capital city of one of the world's leading economies.

The Government, I am glad to say, have an anti-poverty strategy. We need to ensure that the resources devoted to combating poverty are made appropriately available in London. In London we have the machinery and the commitment to pursue that strategy and make it work. That is a job for the new mayor and assembly. It will be necessary to draw up a strategy to tackle poverty, but that alone is not good enough; we must ensure that the strategy is carried out, so that while everyone in London works to make our city a cleaner, healthier, safer and more prosperous place, we must also give top priority to helping the worst-off families and worst-off areas.

Some London neighbourhoods have an unholy combination of high unemployment and low wages and poor working conditions for the people who have a job, high homelessness or, where there is a home, poor housing, high crime and disorder, and high environmental pollution. A few neighbourhoods have the whole rotten lot of those characteristics. Hamlet says:

"When sorrows come, they come not in single spies

But in battalions."

The battalions are raging through quite a few neighbourhoods in this city.

That unholy mixture gives rise to deprivation, despair and debt. It is estimated that about 300,000 Londoners turn to legal moneylenders, but many more turn to loan sharks. These are the lowest of the low because they victimise people who are already victims. They put poor families in double and treble jeopardy. The legal moneylenders are no better financially because some of them charge real interest rates of 200 to 900 per cent.

We must save people from accruing such levels of debt. One way of doing so is to promote credit unions, which have a vital role—and could have a bigger role— in helping families. That amounts to a good old traditional socialist way for people to club together to help one another, paying in when they can afford it so that people can borrow when they need it. I am usually in favour of creating employment, but if that would help to put loan sharks out of business, I would be happy to dance on their graves.

We need a combined effort, with credit unions offering alternatives and the police and council trading standards working together to help to save people from the loan sharks. When it comes to legal moneylenders, the Office of Fair Trading should look again at the case for maximum interest rates. I do not wish to appear too much like a class warrior, but it remains the case that the poorer people are, the higher interest rates they have to pay. If people working at the Office of Fair Trading were themselves faced with 200 to 900 per cent. interest rates, they might see more merit in setting a statutory boundary to their proposals.

Most people, unless they are very well off, need to borrow at certain times. Poor people are often so desperate that they have to borrow small sums. A poor family might need to borrow in order to buy clothes for the children at the start of a school term or school year, or kit them out for football or swimming, or even to buy a new pair of shoes. Holidays and home improvements are other examples which credit unions can help with. However, the best way of getting people in deprived areas out of the circle of debt and despair is to get them a job. I have always believed that those who want a job should be able to gain one and that, if they are working for a living, they should be paid a living wage. People should be able to work their way out of poverty. It is not true of everyone, I know, but most people who could do a job would like to have one: they would rather receive money through wages than through benefits. I want a London at work, not a London on benefits.

All over the city as I speak, business people, the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, trade unions, the London First organisation, Labour councils and voluntary organisations are all working to make London a more attractive place in which to invest. We need new investors in jobs here. We also need to ensure that when existing firms opt for major investment in new equipment, they do so here rather than going to a green-field site somewhere outside this great city. Such firms want more skilled staff, fewer transport delays and less crime. They want their staff to have better access to decent housing and education. They are unlikely to be attracted by the proposals of one of my rivals for the Labour nomination for mayor who advocates a special London corporation tax. Imposing additional costs on London businesses is the last way to encourage people to invest for the first time or to reinvest in this area.

The mayor and the authority have a massive contribution to make to tackling poverty. As I explained, that will include reducing crime and disorder, improving the transport system and better targeting public funding for regeneration. Our promise to establish a Metropolitan police authority should improve the effectiveness of the Metropolitan police in tackling crime and disorder. Our transport proposals for London should bring about improvements and our proposals to establish a London development agency should mean that priorities for regeneration better reflect Londoners' needs.

All our proposals can help London to retain existing jobs and create new ones. We must use London's strengths to tackle its weaknesses. London has huge advantages—that cannot be denied. It is a major centre of communications at a time when our language dominates world communications. London is a major centre for creative industries. Its universities, colleges, research centres and medical schools are coming up with new ideas and initiatives which, if we could lock on to them, could create new jobs with a future in this city. We must do that: we must get jobs and businesses and offer better training.

London is a largely prosperous city in which, officially, about 250,000 people are out of work. They are mainly men and many are young. A hugely disproportionate number of those who are out of work are black and Asian young people. Black people and Asians are twice as likely to be unemployed as other Londoners. That is wrong. Unemployment is not evenly spread: in some London constituencies, 20 per cent. of the male population are out of work; in some wards, it is 40 per cent. In other constituencies, however, unemployment is less than 2 per cent.

Everyone wants London to be cleaner, safer, healthier and more prosperous. Anyone interested in representing London or being the mayor of London—even Lord Archer before his untimely demise—would subscribe to that idea. However, there is a further aspect if one is a socialist and a member of the Labour party: London must be a fairer place. It will be fairer, with prosperity shared properly, only if we recognise the need for that and introduce positive policies to bring it into being.

That is why I propose to establish a medical officer of health for London, who is nothing to do with the national health service and reports to the mayor and the assembly. Health is important in itself, but it is also a major indicator of poverty: ill health is a product of poverty. I want a medical officer of health for London, to monitor the capital's health, identifying in particular those areas in which people are least healthy, which are the places in which people are least wealthy.

My right hon. Friend mentioned inner London's problems. May I—

Order. This is a 30-minute debate. Without arrangements with the Chairman, interventions are against the rules. There has been no indication that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is willing to give way.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly attempt to deal with the matter that my hon. Friend may have wished to raise. Poverty-stricken neighbourhoods are not confined to inner London. Boroughs such as Newham or Brent—which few are aware are in outer London—are, as a whole, deprived. There are also pockets of poverty throughout the capital, which we must tackle, wherever they are.

Order. Had I known that that was predetermined, I might have been prepared for the event.

It was not predetermined. However, I was aware of the matter that my hon. Friend was likely to raise, which was a logical step from what I was already saying.

The medical officer of health would tackle those things that are systematically making people ill, which include not having a job, being on low wages, having poor working conditions, having nowhere to live or nowhere decent to live and suffering from high levels of crime, disorder and environmental pollution. We must tackle all those issues. That is not a function of the national health service, except as almost a sideline; it is a function of many other organisations in this city. We must bring them together to ensure that we reduce poverty and its evil impact on people's hopes, prospects and health.

Poverty in this city has grown; the inequalities of wealth in this country have grown; and the fact that the inequalities between neighbourhoods have grown at the same time has frequently been ignored. The contrasts have become more grotesque and demeaning for our city and our country. We must reduce the inequalities, partly for the benefit of those who are suffering in the worst-off neighbourhoods, but partly for the benefit of us all.

Some people have warned me that I should not talk about tackling inequality because the idea is perhaps unfashionable and unacceptable to those who are comfortably off, but that has never been my view of my fellow citizens. Those who are badly off want to be better off, but most decent people who are comfortably off do not like the idea that fellow citizens live in deplorable conditions, do not have jobs, are on low wages, have poor working conditions, are subject to high levels of crime and disorder and live in a polluted environment. I have always believed that most decent people want everyone to have a decent standard of living and a proper chance to play his or her part as a fully active citizen in our society and in this city.

It has been the proud effort of the Labour party in London for 100 years to try to tackle poverty. We have achieved enormous success in that the general level is so much better than it used to be, but the inequalities between the worst-off areas and the best-off are simply unsustainable—to use a fashionable word. We cannot have a sound and decent society, or a sound and decent city, unless we tackle those inequalities. Together with many colleagues here, I look forward to working in partnership with people all over London to bring about the changes that we all want.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on seeking and securing this important debate. He has made a characteristically trenchant speech full of detail and practical proposals on how to tackle poverty in the capital. Many of his proposals are on issues that the Government are tackling because he raised them in Cabinet when he was in the Government. He raised the real problem of the misery caused by loan sharks who bear down on poor people. The social exclusion unit has an action team on financial exclusion because of the lead that he gave in the Government. He is right to emphasise that the best escape route from poverty for the vast majority of people of working age is to find work. That is why London needs the kind of leadership that produces an environment in which jobs are created and opportunities are provided.

In addressing the problem of poverty in the capital, my right hon. Friend is right to stress the capital's strengths. It is a great financial centre, a home to business and a global leader in communications, arts and culture. It is one of the truly great cities, and because it has those strengths it has the ability, with the right leadership, to provide a solution to the problem of poverty. The strategy to deal with poverty in the capital will be one of the key issues in the election for London's mayor. Tackling poverty is obviously important to the one household in three in inner London that depends on means-tested benefits.

The problem is not simply for the inner city. If we pull back the net curtains in the suburbs or in prosperous parts of the inner city, we find poverty there, too. My right hon. Friend may represent an inner-London seat, but he has a long track record of sticking up for people on low incomes throughout the capital, as I know because I lived for a long time in Camden, in his constituency. He raised such issues when he was leader of Camden council, on behalf of both the people of Camden and Londoners as a whole. When he was first elected to it, the London borough of Camden was the only council in the capital that provided free travel to pensioners. Through his work, he spread travel concessions Londonwide. He did that even though people from Camden paid for a large part of it through the London equalisation scheme, because it was the right thing to do. It was right for pensioners throughout the capital, including in outer London, to have the benefits that they had in Camden.

Cutting poverty is not only an issue for the poor, because the existence of poverty in the capital imposes costs on people who are not poor. There are the direct costs of providing services for the poor, and indirect costs such as the quality of education provided in London's schools, the state of public open spaces and the fear of crime. Although the vast majority of the poor are decent, law-abiding citizens, crime in the capital costs people on higher incomes through their insurance premiums. It is in the interest of all Londoners, rich and poor alike, to use the capital's strengths to reduce the number of people living in poverty.

When people look back in years to come at the Conservative Government in the last decades of the 20th century, one thing will stand out dramatically: the alarming increase in child poverty. When the Conservatives took office in 1979, one child in 10 lived in a family in poverty. By 1997, one child in three lived in a household on less than half the average income after housing costs. In London, because of high rents and the high cost of living, the situation is much worse even than that: 44 per cent.—almost half of all the children in London, or 680,000 children—live in families with less than half the average income.

Children born into poor families are much more likely to be poor throughout their lives and to die in poverty. They are also more likely to die earlier. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Health, he published a report, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which made it clear that a young male born in social classes 1 and 2 was likely to live five years longer than someone born in social classes 4 and 5.

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a pledge to the nation that we would seek to eradicate child poverty within a generation. It will not be easy to do so. When he published our proposals, people were aghast at the clarity with which we set out the indicators, but we believe that it can be done. Indeed, my Department is making a contribution through the reforms that it is making to the benefits system—not least, after years of its being frozen under the Conservatives, we have introduced the largest ever increase in child benefit. From April this year, parents will receive £15 a week for the first child and £10 a week for any others.

The Department of Social Security cannot eliminate poverty on its own. If we simply increase benefits, we shall lock more people into the poverty trap. The Conservative Government were extremely good at doing that: they doubled expenditure on benefits in real terms, yet they more than doubled the number of people locked out of work and into poverty. All Departments have a part to play, including the Departments for Education and Employment, of Health and of Social Security.

Nowhere is there a better example of that than in the Department of Health. The report "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" makes it quite clear that the most disadvantaged are those who suffer most from poor health. Poor health is linked to community factors such as poverty, low wages, unemployment, poor education, substandard housing, pollution and crime. To tackle poverty, we need a community response: the sort of response that has been provided by the health action zones. For instance, in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, the "How's the Baby Feeding?" project is providing a partnership between the NHS and local people. Local mothers are providing guidance to other parents on feeding their children.

The health action zone in east London and the City has built a partnership with private sector sponsors such as Canary Wharf Ltd. and some pharmaceutical companies. It is addressing the issue of ethnic diversity in London by ensuring that health services are available in the 50 different languages spoken in the east of London. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security launched his poverty strategy at the Bromley-by-Bow centre, which links health services with other community support.

The Brent health action zone provides food co-operatives, welfare benefits advice and improvements to the school health service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras not only talks about poverty; he has a track record over many years of tackling the problems of poverty within the capital. I cannot think of anyone better to lead an effective and sustained assault on poverty in the capital. His track record shows that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is strongly committed to eradicating child poverty, and he is keen that someone with a track record such as that of my right hon. Friend should lead such a strategy in London.

If we are really to achieve our goal of eradicating child poverty, we need such an assault because 18 per cent. of all the children in Britain living in poverty live in the capital. If we do not tackle the problem there, we shall not achieve our national objective. We need to be clear why such an increase in poverty took place under the Conservative Government. It was primarily because they permitted such a huge increase—it more than doubled—in the number of families of working age in which no one had a job. We must reverse that trend.

We have made a start. We are reversing that trend with the new deal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security helped to introduce immediately after the election. The new deal has already enabled 200,000 people to move from welfare to work, 30,000 of whom live in the capital. We have made an important start in the two and a half years since we formed the Government, but much more needs to be done. Of the 20 most deprived communities in Britain, 13 are in London. Three of the 10 local authorities with the highest unemployment rates are in the capital.

To tackle those problems, we need to create jobs. We need to create the conditions that encourage businesses to create jobs. That will not be helped by the proposal to levy a higher rate of corporation tax on businesses in London than on those elsewhere in the country. It will be helped by the constructive partnerships that my right hon. Friend proposes and that he has a track record of leading in the capital over many years.

I am sorry not to have been present for more of the previous debate, introduced by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Having spent many years working for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in the Child Poverty Action Group and many years working in Brixton and Peckham, I am well aware of how Londoners often fail to get child care, mental health and other services to which they are richly entitled. I also recognise the importance of cultural, as well as economic and social, regeneration.

I raise a subject of growing concern to not only my constitutents but those throughout the south-east. After I had the opportunity and privilege to address the House on the subject, many colleagues said that their constituents give a high priority to the question of aircraft noise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for Horsham (Mr. Maude) all asked me to say that it involves not only the people of South-West Surrey. It is causing mounting concern and growing anger throughout the area.

Benjamin Disraeli said that increased means and increased leisure are the two great civilisers of mankind. That may be the case—later today, for example, I shall open an international tourism and hospitality conference at Surrey university—but increased means and increased leisure, as well as the greater prosperity and regeneration of the south-east, are causing a massive expansion in air traffic, with the concomitant noise pollution. A great deal of noise is generated by the inexorable increase in air travel.

I am the first to say that the ever-lowering cost of air transport is another remarkable example of the democratisation of goods in our society. What was once a luxury for an elite few is now a way of life for many. What was once the jet set is now everyday set. We now have marvellous opportunities to reach all parts of the globe—but a growing price is being paid in terms of the effect on the environment and, above all, of noise pollution.

The chairman of British Airways, Lord Marshall, speaking on behalf of the industry at a conference of Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry, said:

"It is abundantly clear to us that aviation growth, which we believe is crucial to UK economic growth, must be achieved within a sustainable environment context."

He went on to concede:

"I admit freely that the aviation industry, in the past, has not been as sympathetic to community or environmental concerns as it could have been."

While airlines advertise their opportunities with great enthusiasm, there is another reminder of the ubiquity of air travel: the roar of the jet engine. Whatever the benefits of the technological revolution, which must not be underestimated, we need to ensure that it does not threaten our traditional and more serene way of life, which often finds its best expression in rural England. Every day, the home counties fear urbanisation, the erosion of the green belt and the pressure for development, which affects constituencies throughout the south-east. The pressure of growing aircraft noise is therefore all the more oppressive. For those in the countryside who happen to live on a flight path of major domestic and international routes, aircraft noise serves as a subtle reminder, every other minute, of the paradox of the opportunities for growth and prosperity on the one hand and the pressures on the environment and the quality of life on the other.

During the summer of 1997, residents in my constituency noticed a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of low-flying commercial planes approaching Gatwick airport, passing directly over villages and causing considerable noise disturbance. That has resulted in significant distress in a quiet rural area where previously aircraft noise has been only occasional, although near Dunsfold aerodrome residents agree that British Aerospace planes have not been a problem as flying and testing times are highly regulated and restricted, and intrusive for perhaps only an hour or two each week. As a result of those residents' complaints in 1997, Alfold parish council began talking to the British Airports Authority and air traffic control. The parish council chairman, Dr. Jenny Masding, was invited to sit on the Gatwick airport consultative committee. A resident for nearly 30 years, Roger Duckworth, wrote:

"there has been a huge increase in the number of aircraft passing over on their way to and from, Heathrow, Gatwick and Farnborough at a relatively low level and overflying aircraft going elsewhere. As a result, there are very few times in the day when I am not subject to the noise of at least one commercial aircraft. As one passes the next approaches."

His observation is instructive because it reflects so many of my constituents' comments. As a Member of Parliament for 16 years, I can tell the Minister that this is a new preoccupation. I have never heard such a volume and intensity of concern and complaint as I have over the past couple of years.

Noise disturbance from air traffic has continued and worsened since 1997, at times making life intolerable. The main problem is incoming aircraft when Gatwick airport is either operating in easterly mode—when the wind blows from the east—or is very still, as occurs in several different weather conditions. Figures from the BAA show that such conditions prevail for 45 to 50 per cent. of the time. Arriving aircraft fly level and low at relatively high power settings from 4 am onwards, which may continue all day until late evening.

Dr. Jenny Masding, the Alford parish council chairman, wrote to me:

"In the early mornings until mid day and again in the evenings the frequency is often one plane every two to three minutes. The effect on our quality of life has been disastrous. Sleep is impossible from 5 a.m. and often difficult before midnight. The noise is intrusive during the day ruining outdoor leisure pursuits and any pleasure in the use of gardens. In addition to this extreme problem of incoming aircraft, for the last year we now have outbound aircraft over flying parts of the villages when the wind is westerly. The numbers of these outgoing planes are increasing and at a lower level so that they are ever more intrusive."

That issue was brought to my attention by a remarkable, tireless and energetic group called the quieter skies campaign over a year ago. Bridget Bloom of the campaign has co-ordinated the efforts and given voice to members in Dunsfold and the surrounding area. Her dedication and professionalism have been greatly appreciated and respected by her neighbours and certainly by myself as the local Member of Parliament.

In passing, I would like to recognise the work of the British Airports Authority at Gatwick. Richard Hilton, for example, has attended meetings in my constituency and listened to the community's concerns. As a result, he is well acquainted with the problem and has provided valuable insight and information on the subject. The flight evaluation unit has made data available and always treats inquiries from me or my constituents with great courtesy.

I was worried about several radio programmes asking me whether I was critical of the BAA. I am not remotely critical; I am merely asking the Minister to strengthen its arm to tighten the guidelines and follow up several specific measures. BAA Gatwick is a private limited company and, as such, can only influence, not determine, operating policies. Only the Minister—I am delighted, as he knows, to see him here today—can create policy on such crucial matters as aircraft routes, speeds, altitudes, flight paths and time slots. I thank him very much for being with us today and for taking time to respond to the debate.

Everyone's goal is to find solutions that are acceptable to the airline industry, air traffic control and those affected on the ground. The key is to craft an approach that does not stymie London's growth as an international city, the development of the south-east region or Gatwick's emergence as an international hub. Our approach must be sensitive to safety considerations—for both the airborne and the earthbound—and, most importantly, we need new guidelines to decrease the current unacceptable level, frequency and duration of noise pollution.

Complaints and concerns have been increasing, as I have already stated. The Surrey Advertiser has been an excellent chronicler of complaints in that regard. On 12 November, it printed a letter from Mr. Woodward of Dunsfold:

"Over several months, the level of low-flying aircraft from Gatwick has increased dramatically; indeed, the increased level far exceeds the national growth in traffic volume … To demonstrate why we feel so aggrieved, on Sunday October 24, between 4 am and 6 am, 30 aircraft flew directly overhead … one aircraft every four minutes. Some were flying well below 3,000 ft. … Noise pollution and disruption of sleep seriously affects the well-being of people and it is therefore the responsibility of the authorities concerned to take appropriate action to improve the current intolerable situation."

I entirely agree with that sentiment.

On 14 October, Peter Bugge, another Dunsfold resident and a former pilot—there are a great many of them around—recorded 11 out of 39 aircraft passing overhead between 4 am and midday at or below 3,000 ft. That analysis was provided by the BAA.

In another letter, Colin Hall said:

"It is clear that once tranquil rural areas now have aircraft much closer to them—in larger numbers, at lower heights, generating higher levels of noise—than ever before."

Dr. Jenny Masding, the chairman of Alfold parish council, has been active in trying to achieve a constructive dialogue and increase the attention that the subject receives. She said:

"The level of concern, anger and desperation felt by Alfold residents is increasing. A village consultation exercise was carried out in 1998 to assess what residents were concerned about and what actions they would like to see taken. A large percentage of the comments received on environmental issues were concerns about noise pollution from aircraft. The parish council receives regular desperate calls from residents concerning sleep problems."

The problem is different from any that I have seen during the past 16 years. As a result of that concern, the council organised a public meeting with the BAA in December 1999, and about 100 local people attended. The level of distress, anger and desperation expressed at that meeting was high and impressed, even perhaps distressed, some of the BAA staff.

In summary, the impact of Gatwick airport on the quality of life in Alfold, Dunsfold and many other villages is extremely alarming, especially as the BAA plans to increase turnover from 27 million to 40 million passengers in only five years. The frequency of night arrivals and the height at which they fly over the area is unacceptable, causing significant sleep problems. The tranquility and rest that people would like in their own homes and gardens are severely at risk. As well as the intrusion and stress that noise pollution causes, many people are worried about the adverse affect on property values of such developments.

The group with which I have had discussions has given much constructive and detailed thought to the matter. It has produced several specific and practical proposals, to which I hope that the Minister, with the BAA at Gatwick and air traffic control, will be able to give a positive response. First, on the routes of arriving and departing aircraft, terminal air traffic control requires aircraft departing Gatwick to follow clearly defined noise preferential routes up to a level of 3,000 ft. I understand that the level is 4,000 ft at Heathrow. When aircraft reach that level, ATC at West Drayton has adopted a policy of diverting aircraft on to their direct route even though they have not reached the end of the NPR. To raise the minimum vectoring level to 5,000 ft and require aircraft to follow NPRs strictly before vectoring off would lead to a significant reduction in ground noise. Clearly, we must ensure that aircraft follow their NPRs with greater attention. There is a mounting lack of confidence in the enforcement of NPRs. What can be done? What are the sanctions for aircraft disregarding NPRs?

Secondly, on the speed of arriving and departing aircraft, the ground noise from jet engines and body drag is significantly increased as the departing aircraft accelerate. Under an International Civil Aviation Organisation requirement, all aircraft should restrict their speed to 250 knots when below 10,000 ft. Although air traffic controllers in many countries insist on that requirement, it seems that the British standard has been more relaxed. We believe that it is crucial that those standards are incorporated in British air traffic service rules. The 10,000 ft level would bring the United Kingdom into compliance with European Union and other international controllers. I strongly urge the Government to adopt a policy that would require aircraft to adhere to the 250-knot limit while below 10,000 ft. What encouragement can the Minister offer? How can enforcement be strengthened?

Thirdly, on altitude levels, the quieter skies campaign suggests that policies should be adopted to extend and clarify the altitude levels of arriving aircraft. I understand that aircraft must reduce their height to 3,000 ft 10 miles from the runway in order to establish a final descent path. It has come to my attention that some aircraft are at or below that altitude well before 10 miles from the runway. To avoid increased noise caused by aircraft flying at low altitude, I suggest that all air carriers abide by the continuous descent procedure promulgated in "Air Pilot". I understand that aircraft could regulate their descent from 15,000 ft to avoid level flight at low levels over open countryside. That would reduce the impact of noise, especially in the early hours of the morning, and would have a major ameliorating impact on my constituents.

I gave the Minister my points in advance so that he could reflect on them. My fourth point relates to night flying. The rapid expansion in passenger traffic at Gatwick and the restricted number of slots available mean that it is only a matter of time before the airlines begin to request more take-offs and landing times, especially at night. At Heathrow, a limit has been set on the number of aircraft movements permitted between 11 pm and 6 am, which is fewer than that set for Gatwick. It would be greatly appreciated if Gatwick were to introduce equally restrictive policies. Only the Minister can enforce such a change. Surely the Gatwick area should be at least as protected as Heathrow.

Some might argue that such proposals may lead to increased fuel costs and higher ticket prices for consumers. It should be noted, however, that fuel and overall costs could be reduced as a result of such proposals. The relative cost either way is relatively insignificant in comparison with the real danger of the emergence of hostility and resentment against air travel in the area.

There has always been good co-operation and partnership with the people at Gatwick. This is a test point. The challenge that we face is how to combine social and economic growth with sustainable development, and how to expand opportunities without jeopardising the quality of life for others. The British countryside is admired the world over for its beauty, tranquillity and peacefulness. I urge the Minister to help to find a way forward.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for raising what is, as she said, an important issue not only for her own constituents but for anyone who lives near an airport. As she fairly acknowledges, air traffic has brought many benefits, although it also has a considerable downside. I shall do my best to reassure her on some of the points that she raised. She may want to follow up some of them by correspondence, as I anticipate that the problem will not go away.

Having holidayed four years in succession at Northchapel in West Sussex, just a little south of the right hon. Lady's constituency, I am familiar with some of the area and some of the beautiful countryside in and around it. We must try to minimise the impact of airports on the environment. At the same time, our policies must and do take account of the economic benefits of a strong and competitive airline industry and we must provide sufficient airport capacity where it is economically and environmentally justified. One of the difficulties that we face is that everyone likes the convenience of airports but no one likes the inconvenience of living near one. One of the difficult tasks that the Government and other authorities must face is how to reconcile those sometimes not entirely reconcilable feelings.

The Civil Aviation Act 1982 empowers the Secretary of State to impose requirements on the operators of Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted airports, and on aircraft using those airports, for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effects of noise. The requirements imposed include departure noise limits, night restrictions, noise preferential routes for departures, and regulations for the management of arriving aircraft, some of which I shall outline.

A noise and track monitoring advisory group monitors the operation of the noise and track-keeping system, the core of which has recently been replaced by a more modern computer system. The group includes representatives from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from the airport, consultative committee members and local authority officers representing the local community. National Air Traffic Services and the airlines are also involved. Gatwick also convenes a flight operations performance committee—there is quite a lot of jargon in this subject—known to its friends as Flopsy. The airline people and air traffic controllers on it examine technical issues.

At Gatwick the general trend, contrary to widespread belief, has been a diminution of daytime noise over the years as older, noisier aircraft have been replaced by quieter ones, despite a large increase in the volume of traffic. The annual noise contour reports, produced on behalf of my Department, tell the story. They show the equivalent continuous sound level experienced on the ground between 7 am and 11 pm during the busiest summer months. Over the past 20 years, the area of the 57-decibel Gatwick contour has more than halved. South-West Surrey, for example, now lies outside that contour and the level of noise experienced there should be lower. Gatwick operates towards the east in daytime, about 25 per cent. of the time on a long-run average. That can vary a good deal annually. In 1995, easterly operations were as high as 47 per cent., but that was exceptional. In 1998, the proportion was only 14 per cent.

Since 1968, my Department and its predecessors have stipulated noise preferential routes for aircraft departing from Gatwick. These routes are designed to avoid built-up areas and so minimise disturbance. However, it must be accepted that some dispersion from the noise preferential routes centre line is inevitable because of navigational tolerance, aircraft characteristics and, not least, weather, especially wind. In practice, that means that there may legitimately be a swathe of tracks of up to 1.5 km on either side of the nominal route. Compliance with this swathe has been improving: over 95 per cent. of departures in 1998–99 complied. Although deviations are not subject at present to financial sanctions, the causes of significant off-track flying are investigated thoroughly. The right hon. Lady and her constituents may be assured that considerable efforts have been and will continue to be made, by the airport and by airlines and controllers in co-operation, to improve compliance.

Once an aircraft departing Gatwick has reached 3,000 ft, air traffic control may, if traffic conditions permit, assign it a more direct course to its destination. That, as the right hon. Lady explained, is called vectoring. It is intended to speed up the flow of traffic, giving the benefit of being able to clear an area quicker and at a higher altitude. As a result there may be greater track dispersion once the required height has been achieved; but the amount of noise experienced by people on the ground will be relatively less than it would be at lower altitudes closer to the airport. The possibility, which she mentioned, of raising the Gatwick vectoring altitude to 4,000 ft is under consideration, but I am afraid there is no possibility in the short term of raising it to 5,000 ft, which is what she asked for; there is, she will be glad to hear, some movement on that point. In December, the release altitude for westerly departures turning east was raised to 4,000 ft. The possibility of a similar relaxation for easterly departures is also under continuing consideration.

The South-West Surrey constituency is around 15 to 25 miles to the west of Gatwick. It is inevitable that it will experience overflights. Two departure routes overfly the area when the airport is operating towards the west. Departures from Heathrow and elsewhere will also overfly, normally at a much higher altitude. Overflight at altitudes of 4,000 ft and more is a fact of life over a very large proportion of the south-east. We are not complacent and seek improvements where possible, but the noise heard on the ground must be taken in perspective with that from other sources that are regrettably endemic to modern life.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of speed restrictions. There is, as she noted, an International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendation—not, incidentally a requirement—that a standard limit of 250 knots should apply below about 10,000 ft. That limit may be lifted tactically by air traffic control, as is done as a matter of common practice. That can be beneficial overall, helping aircraft to climb and clear the area more rapidly. The lifting of the limit by air traffic control does not, however, absolve pilots from responsibility to use speed and power settings consistent with the achievement of noise abatement procedures such as the noise preferential routes.

Arrivals—inbound aircraft—unlike departures, do not follow fixed routes all the way from home to touchdown, because that would remove the flexibility needed to direct aircraft to the final approach track while ensuring safe operation. Maximising the use of continuous descent approach procedures is of prime importance in reducing noise impact. Pilots at Gatwick are requested to use continuous descent as best they can, but air traffic control constraints—in particular, the need to maintain clearance from Heathrow departures—mean that 100 per cent. adherence is not always possible.

At night there is an additional requirement not to join the extended runway centre line below 3,000 ft—closer than 10 nautical miles from touchdown. I accept that that may bring more traffic over the Dunsfold-Alford area, but the rule benefits other areas that would otherwise be overflown more noisily and at a lower altitude. The Department's Aircraft Noise Advisory Committee recently concluded a study of arrivals noise that re-emphasised the importance of continuous descent: a technical report will be published shortly and a code of practice is being developed.

On night restrictions, we appreciate that noise from aircraft can be particularly disturbing at night. We operate a night restrictions policy limiting the number of aircraft that can take off and land between 11.30 pm and 6 am, backed by a quota system in which noisier aircraft count more than quiet aircraft, and the very noisiest are already precluded from operating at night.

The night restrictions regime is reviewed every five years or so, through public consultation. Following the 1998 consultations, the present night restrictions came into force on 31 October 1999 and will continue until summer 2004. I understand the wish of the right hon. Lady and others for a reduction to Heathrow levels of the movements and quota limits at Gatwick, but the Government had to make a balanced judgment, bearing in mind the different nature of Gatwick operations. Nevertheless, the former Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), announced a progressive reduction in the Gatwick night quota, starting with the noisiest aircraft. I hope that that gives some small comfort to the right hon. Lady's constituents.

As to the possible expansion that was announced last March, a study of airport issues in the south-east and east of England, including, of course, Gatwick, will assess the economic, environmental and social impacts and we shall balance these before reaching a view about what additional capacity should be provided, at a particular site, or at all. This is not a blanket commitment to meet demand and then mitigate the environmental effects.

Much work has already been done to minimise the impact of Gatwick airport on the communities around it. We believe that more can be done: work on the wider policies is continuing, and in detail, so as to help to improve environmental performance. In the next few years we shall establish a framework to guide the development of airports for many years ahead. We shall work closely with all interested parties, including the communities affected by the airport operations, to achieve that. I am conscious that I have not been able to meet all the suggestions—many of them reasonable— from the right hon. Lady, but this is an on-going process and I look forward to a dialogue with her on the subject in the months ahead.

It is my view that the human genome research project will transform medical practice in the next 10 to 20 years. The nature of the changes will be dependent on those working in health care delivery and on the public's reception of the new health technologies. Hon. Members recognise that of course the future of health care is linked not only to research but to the future and functions of the national health service, with its on-going ethical and public debates.

The human genome project is being carried out at five main centres, one of which is the Sanger institute in Cambridge. In the next two or three years, the project will lay bare the total genomic information, which is the sequence of DNA written in an alphabet of four letters throughout our 24 pairs of chromosomes. That feat may be compared with unravelling the sequence of words, letter by letter, of 200 volumes of Hansard: the equivalent of two Parliaments' worth. There will be redundancy in both programmes: there will be many DNA sequences of whose function we will be ignorant, but that is also true of some of the words in Hansard.

DNA sequencing involves new technologies and partnerships across the world—naturally, there are arguments between scientists and boffins—and round-the-clock working using high technology. The results of that have been described as revoluntionary by scientists around the world and its implications equated with the discovery of the wheel. As DNA defines much of what we are, it promises to open up new vistas of understanding and activity in the pharmaceutical industry and health services. It will, for example, open up the possibility of molecular diagnosis of known genetic diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's and arthritis. No doubt, genes for other diseases will be discovered in the next few years.

That will be a huge advance, as we shall be able to target drug therapies on an individual's specific molecular genetic defect. Drug design will be specific for each molecular fault, which will be a major change in approach to the treatment of diseases with multiple molecular causes, such as childhood leukaemias, which may have 15 different genetic clauses. There will be sub-classes of patients and potential patients who may be treated as a sub-population. We will be able to target individual populations, with a drug unique to their specific molecular aberration. That drug will be an effective, rational treatment, in contrast to the irrational sledgehammer treatments in medicine today, which have attendant side effects.

A microchip containing people's molecular disease profile will be available to them, should they require it. Those who are clinically normal will be able to predict illnesses to which they are clinically predisposed. Growing knowledge of genetic and environmental interactions, such as the effect of smoking on health and whether people have the gene for lung cancer, will allow people to say, "I'd better not smoke, as I have the gene for lung cancer." People will have such knowledge long before a lung cancer develops.

Other examples of environmental pressures are bad housing and the quality of diet, which affect social groups unequally. There are social class differences in being subjected to different sorts of environment. Preventive measures and the effects of environmental factors will feature much more prominently, as they will interact with genetic knowledge. Health is not isolated from the circumstances or environment in which people live.

The human genome project and the information generated by it will herald a health service in which patients are more knowledgeable. Combined with advances in telecommunications—with the internet, websites and so on—that will force on us another aspect of health care delivery. Doctors will have to be trained to cope with patient demands and new knowledge, and will be required to interact with other health service groups in order to translate such knowledge into treatments. Regional counselling services will not be competent to meet that large demand and more locally organised services will be needed, perhaps on a city-by-city basis. The James Justice Robertson model—I do not know whether that is the right way round, or whether it should be James Robertson Justice, as I am from the wrong side of the tracks and unused to doub-barrelled names—will become a thing of the past.

Teaching and training in genetics and counselling will be the consequences of the human genome project and will have to be on the medical curriculum. Continued learning by the same cohort of medical students will be essential as we learn how gene products interact and understand further intricacies of multiple gene interactions, for example in brain disease and even IQ. More understanding and less pontification should be the hallmark of the new doctor, and partnership between the higher education sector and the health sector should become the order of the day. New doctors for the new millennium, some might say.

A result of the human genome project will almost certainly be to reveal the closeness between DNA sequences or genes among certain organisms, which will be uncomfortable for many of us. The small DNA changes required to shift from ape to man will revise the debate between Church and science. We are already witnessing that in Kansas, where anti-evolutionary forces now operate in the education sector.

On the darker side of the revolution, however, are the activities of Celera Genomics, a private laboratory in the United States, which is hellbent on patenting every part of the human genome, thereby preventing free public access to important information for health care. Other companies are marketing their genetic markers for, for example, breast cancer. They sell them at astronomical prices and hide behind their patent protections. There must be some presidential and prime ministerial intervention at a high level to ensure that the behaviour of multinational companies, which are capitalist buccaneers, does not usurp such a large step forward for mankind. If J. Craig Venter is allowed to get away with his project, it will affect the partnerships developing between drug companies, charities and Governments to make information about the human genome freely available to the world through the bio-informatics system.

In another dark corner is the role of the insurance companies and their so-called right to know, which is being strongly debated and raises deep worries. The genome project will increase knowledge, and issues such as the availability of mortgages, health insurance, life insurance policies and long-term health care allowances cannot miss the scrutiny of the insurance companies. It does not take much imagination to see how those companies might use information about predisposition to diseases.

There is also the prospect that individuals might refuse genetic tests if they feel that they will be discriminated against or lose the chance to receive health care facilities. In the history of health care in the United States, there are many examples of companies discriminating in their hire and fire policies against groups of individuals who are susceptible to, for example, certain chemicals, as they might go to court and seek compensation. The same problem could arise with new genetic testing. Employers might be tempted to insist on such testing to "improve" their work force.

Government policies will clearly have a direct and indirect effect on those issues. For example, no significant practical changes in health delivery will occur without an effective method of disseminating information throughout the health service. At the same time, the public will be drawn into the debate through the media, and advantages and problems will receive the scrutiny of our unbiased press.

Many professionals in the national health service see the changes as a threat, and that suspicion is allied with the enormous strain that they are under, which is currently highlighted by the flu. There was absolute meltdown on the issue of genetically modified organisms, and the public turned against what can be argued to be a bona fide science that may have positive effects on food production. If the Government are not to repeat that meltdown, they must start to engineer technologically driven changes in the health service.

The ethical and legal questions need to be addressed, and I can touch on only some of them. I am afraid that the health trusts are unresponsive to the changes, and there is certainly no evidence that the Government have budgeted for the retraining programme, new equipment or a public debate on the issue. Nor, as I understand it, have they budgeted for new research investment in the project as it takes off into other horizons.

The case for a long-term health care strategy incorporating those problems is unarguable. If evidence-based decision making in the health service is to result in therapeutic effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the human genome project must be tied together with primary care services and health technology assessments. There is currently a great divide between genetic knowledge and clinical practice. Only Government can organise beyond the fragments that make up our health service. With the human genome project, we can move the debate away from the misery of discussing the rationing of health care resources to a real debate on the evolution of rational care. Do the Government have such a strategy?

Genome research will turn medicine on its head. Diagnosis will depend on genetic tests. Patients will ask what chances they have of becoming ill, and we need to plan the restructuring of the national health service before the project comes to fruition.

It is entirely appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) should have chosen the human genome project and its effects on health as one of the first topics for debate at the start of the new millennium. He suggests that the results of that work will be as revolutionary as the discovery of the wheel. He is right. The scientific and technological achievements so far associated with the human genome project are arguably some of the finest to have been seen in the previous millennium—and the potential is greater still.

The human genome project has many implications for health and many applications in health care in the broadest sense, and my hon. Friend traced some of its potential benefits and effects. During the next five to 10 years, we expect to see the development and introduction of some innovative modern technology, including new and improved ways of diagnosing disease earlier and more accurately. Indeed, as he said, we shall be able to identify genetic predisposition to some diseases. For example, we may be able to predict susceptibility to coronary heart disease and design tailored preventive strategies to help people to reduce their personal risk.

Information from the human genome project will also be used to develop new drugs and therapies. We shall then be better placed to target those drugs and therapies to individuals whose genetic profile makes them better able to respond to particular treatments, and with a lower risk of side effects. That is the expanding area of pharmacogenomics, in which drugs will be made to suit people's individual metabolisms and the severity of their disease. That will obviously help us to target our precious drug resources to the most beneficial areas—to where they can make the greatest difference.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, we shall also be able to unravel some of the relationships between the genetic and environmental causes of disease and to identify the combination of life style and environmental changes that will help to reduce ill health. That opens the door to the development of new public health strategies that will benefit the entire population.

The potential of the human genome project cannot be overestimated. The Government's job is to harness that potential. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the genetic revolution is likely to change the focus of health care from diagnosis and treatment towards detection and prevention. It will also force us to embrace new ways of thinking about public health care in general. It also means new operating methods for the NHS. The important question is what the Government should do to ensure that the project delivers maximum health benefit.

Several factors need to be considered. I shall try to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, although not necessarily in order. First, we need to encourage an environment that will support the development of those new, safe and cost-effective technologies, drugs and diagnostic tests. Secondly, we need to be sure that the NHS can use those new drugs and treatments in the most efficient way. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, we need a work force who can keep up with those rapid developments and turn them into practical benefits for patients. Fourthly, we must establish a proper ethical framework to allow us to respond to the genetic revolution and to answer the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that scientific progess will throw up.

I shall run through the Government's approach in each of those four areas. We do not yet have all the answers, but we have the foundations of a strategy to respond to the opportunities and challenges presented by the human genome project. We need to encourage the development of new treatments and technologies to benefit human health. The pharmaceutical industry has already made a considerable investment in sequencing the human genome. It clearly believes that more rational approaches to drug design will be developed and that additional cellular targets for therapeutic intervention will be identified.

To make effective progress in this work, scientists could benefit from access to databases linking genetic profiles to health records. It is worth noting that public and private health care funders are currently considering the creation of a genetic database of about 500,000 individuals for prospective genetic research. Participation will be entirely voluntary, and electronic access to NHS records will be needed to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Ethical considerations can never be far from our minds as we consider the proposals. Even with an entirely voluntary database, proposals to give wider access to detailed patient records and tissue archives must take into account the complex issues of consent, confidentiality, privacy and public acceptability. My hon. Friend is right to say that there must be a properly informed public debate on such issues before we can progress.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about patenting the human genome. I certainly agree that patenting every part of the human genome would be unwarranted and undesirable. Fortunately, the aim of the human genome project is to make nucleotide sequence information immediately and freely available to the international research community without fees, patents or other limitations.

Encouraging widespread research is not enough. We need to ensure that new developments that offer real benefits to patients can be actively promoted and used by the NHS, while ensuring that public safety is not compromised. We already have, of course, a well-developed regulatory system, with the Medicines Control Agency—a world leader in the speed and thoroughness of its assessments. In future, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will also have a role to play. Its role includes the appraisal of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of innovative treatments and the development of clinical guidelines to help their effective introduction across the NHS. Along with and supporting NICE, two key systems are in place to help the NHS to respond to the challenge that my hon. Friend describes.

First, the national horizon scanning centre at the university of Birmingham, which is funded through the NHS research and development programme, identifies significant new developments that could impact on health and the treatment of disease. My hon. Friend is right to point out that early intelligence of those developments means that better strategies can be planned and implemented when they are ready to be taken by the NHS. The national horizon scanning centre is maintaining a watching brief on the outputs of the human genome project and assessing likely impacts.

The second system is the health technology assessment programme—an NHS research and development programme that selects mature technologies and interventions of current importance to the NHS and assesses their effectiveness. Such research and development feeds into NICE, allowing it to provide the guidelines across the NHS to enable the smooth take-up of those new technologies and interventions as they are developed.

My hon. Friend talked about work force issues and training doctors to keep up with progress in genetics. He is right to say that all the knowledge in the world is a fat lot of use if we do not have the trained staff to put it into practice so that patients gain the benefit of the new information. It takes significant time to train professionals to deliver specialist services.

My hon. Friend talked about new doctors for the new millennium. I would go wider and talk about new health care workers for a new millennium, because we need to recognise the implications and requirements right across the NHS work force, not simply for doctors. At present, medically qualified personnel represent the first port of call for the provision of specialist genetic services, but that may not always be the case as the genetic revolution begins to extend the role of nurses and other health care professionals into areas traditionally occupied by doctors.

All professional groups—whether doctors, nurses, genetic counsellors, scientists or others—will need education and training in the new genetics. New courses will be needed. New programmes of continuing professional development will need to be put in place so that people are up to date with the new developments and the advantages that they can bring. That means good dialogue between those in the NHS who need the courses and training and those in higher and further education who may provide them. Such dialogue exists, but the genetic revolution highlights the need to extend it and ensure that we are able to respond swiftly to rapid developments and change.

We must ensure that the right number of professionals is given access to all the pre and post-registration courses that they need. We must further develop the world-class centres that exist in the United Kingdom for teaching and researching genetics and for delivering high-quality genetic services.

The technical and logistical challenges posed by the human genome project are considerable, but we should not forget perhaps the most important issues: the ethical questions that rapid scientific progress in this field inevitably produces. For example, we need to have an open debate on informed consent. Confidentiality for patients is critical. Public trust in NHS professionals and institutions must not be undermined in any way. The question of who is authorised to release or gain access to genetic information raises complex ethical issues and must be subject to well-informed public debate. The right of individuals to know and understand their genetic profile may be paramount, but such matters have implications for blood relatives and children.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the potential for genetic information to be used unfairly to discriminate, perhaps for insurance or employment purposes. Those are serious concerns, and we shall need to be vigilant to safeguard people against unfair discrimination as the technology develops. Insurance and employment matters have been the subjects of reports from the Human Genetics Advisory Committee. In the case of insurance, especially as the range of available tests grows, we are concerned that there should be no unfair discrimination on the basis of genetic test results. We need an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure that people are not deterred from having the tests that they need on health grounds simply because of concerns about insurance-related issues.

That is why we have established the Genetics and Insurance Committee, on which patients and the insurance industry are represented. That committee is drawing up a procedure for evaluating scientific and actuarial evidence on specific genetic tests. Similarly, we are concerned to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination in employment on the basis of genetic testing. The Government expect to respond shortly to the report of the Human Genetic Advisory Committee.

It is likely that the new Human Genetics Commission will return to those issues. The commission's role is to analyse current and potential developments in human genetics and to advise Ministers on their likely impact on human health and health care and on their social, ethical, legal and economic implications. It will advise on the strategic priorities for research and for the delivery of genetic services by the NHS. Finally, and perhaps crucially, it will consult the public and other stakeholders to encourage debate and facilitate the development of better public knowledge and understanding of the many complex issues related to the outputs of the human genome project and its effects on health.

My hon. Friend is right to say that information from the new human genome project will force us to embrace new ways of thinking about public health, the prevention of ill health and health care delivery across the NHS. All those involved in the provision of medical service will be affected, whether they are part of the caring professions, part of the academic sectors, or part of the commercial sectors that serve them. The public should be able to gain an improved understanding of health and the causes of disease, so changing their expectations of health care.

These are exciting times and partnerships between all the key players in the public and private sectors will be essential to respond to the challenges and opportunities that will flow from the human genome project. We need to work together to promote research and scientific progress and to ensure that we have a competent health care work force to deliver the genetic services of the future. Most importantly of all, we all must engage in a public debate on the benefits, risks and consequences of the human genome project and all its spin-offs.

That represents a continuing and expanding agenda, and we certainly do not yet have all the answers. I hope that I can rely on my hon. Friend's support for the strategies that we need to develop and on his contribution to the Department of Health's development of strategies to respond to the human genome project in future. We must ensure that the project's outputs can and will be used to improve the health and well-being of the citizens of this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.