Before I call the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), it might be helpful if I explain what the consequences are of the parallel sitting of the two Chambers. In Westminster Hall, it is Wednesday, and under the Standing Orders of the House our debates will continue according to their allotted time span. However, the Standing Orders are equally firm that we must finish at 2 o'clock, so there will be a fairly large fallout relating to the last scheduled debate. None the less, the debate on which we are about to embark will receive its full allotted time of one and a half hours, even if it is further interrupted. That is the knock-on effect, which is obviously something that might have be to reconsidered when these matters are further examined, but those are the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings at the moment. Without wasting any more time, we should proceed to use the time available as best we can.

In view of the exhausting events of yesterday evening—or is it this morning?—I am pleased that so many hon. Members have come to listen to, or participate in, today's debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on league tables—I use the term "league tables" rather than "performance tables" because the terminology draws attention to some of the issues that I wish to highlight. I draw the attention of the Chamber to the increasing concerns of parents, schools and many hon. Members about the way in which the existing league table system functions. I shall comment on the moves towards a value-added system, and suggest other methods by which the performance of schools could be made clearer to parents, local authorities and government.

It is several years now since the annual publication of league tables was introduced and, for many people, its full implications have begun to sink in as each year has gone by. I must confess that I am obsessively interested in league tables. I find them compulsive, as I am sure many hon. Members do, and I spend many hours poring over them. Having said that, I believe that the current system, which we inherited, is indefensible because of its damaging consequences for many schools and because league tables do not represent the full range of achievements of individual schools.

Over the past few years, it has been difficult to question league tables. In many respects, it has been assumed that if one questioned league tables, one was also questioning the whole national curriculum, the testing regime and other issues established by the Education Reform Act 1988 and, more recently, the drive to improve standards that was consolidated in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Therefore, I want to say at the outset that this debate is not a call for the abolition of league tables, but a call for a review of their purpose and presentation. It is certainly not a criticism of the national curriculum or the testing regime. My only comment about that is that I am constantly amazed that it took state education about 125 years to put such a system in place. I acknowledge that, each year, this Government and the previous Government have made slight improvements to the presentation of league tables, which has helped to set the context a little better. I certainly welcome the Government's attempts to introduce value-added measures in due course, and I acknowledge the continuing work that is being done on that.

It is not that I represent a constituency in which the schools en bloc have a grievance about league tables. Neither the schools in my constituency nor the local authority has any grievances about league tables because schools in Bury, especially in Bury, North, perform extremely well under the existing conventional criteria of publishing test results. I am fortunate to have an efficient and progressive local education authority in Bury which, some months ago, received an outstanding Ofsted report describing it as delivering school improvement and high standards without "fuss or rhetoric". I hope that our debate will also be without fuss or rhetoric. Bury primary schools have been in the top 10 for the past three years at key stage 2, which is an exceptional performance. They were ranked eighth in 1998 and seventh in 1999. Until I pored over the national league tables again, I did not realise that our primary schools are second in the table on gender gaps in English. That means that boys in Bury perform almost as well as girls in English, which is not the case in most of the country.

We are always ahead of our statistical neighbours in primary education and we compare with districts that represent some of the most affluent parts of the country. Only the LEAs of the Isles of Scilly, City of London, Richmond upon Thames, Wokingham, Rutland and Surrey perform better than Bury which, in terms of socio-economic indicators, is a middling district at key stage 2. In 1999, I was fortunate to be able to use an Adjournment debate to praise the achievements of primary schools in Bury.

Last year, our secondary schools were in the top 25 at GCSE level and we achieved the best increase in performance with the exception of Rutland, for which there were exceptional circumstances. Our GCSE results increased from 47.7 to 53.5 per cent. I shall avoid the temptation to list the many exceptional results of individual schools in Bury. We are confident in Bury that our schools will continue to perform well when we move towards value-added measures. Although I do not want to digress, I must stress that Bury schools deliver those results with a level of funding that is in the bottom 20 of all LEAs, even though our indicators of deprivation put us in the middle. However, I shall not go into area cost adjustment and standard spending assessments. Instead, I shall discuss the problems of the system and why people are increasingly dissatisfied with what we inherited from the previous Government.

When the league table system was established, there was a confusion of purpose. Some people argued that league tables would provide parents with greater freedom of information, but of course the information that was provided more freely was selective; it was simple test results. Some people argued that they would provide better information for teachers so that they could monitor children's progress more effectively. Some people argued that they would give an incentive to schools that were performing less well. That reflected the newly emerging market in schools in which competition would drive up achievement in all schools. Those schools that could not compete would decline, lose pupils and go out of business. Some people argued that league tables would provide comparative indicators that would be useful in extending models of good practice from school to school and local authority to local authority.

In recent years, league tables have been used for all those purposes, which are not always mutually compatible. The instrument that might best increase parental choice is not necessarily the instrument that works to drive up standards for all children. There is a complex interrelationship between the needs, which I support, of interested parties. There is a need to allow parents and the wider community access to freedom of information; to provide parental choice; to monitor progress and set targets within individual schools; and to reflect the importance of national policies for driving up standards of achievement.

We have not always been clear about the primary purpose of league tables. We have sometimes been obsessed with making league tables the sole indicator of quality at the expense of alternative methodologies for raising standards in schools. We have put our schools in a framework with good schools at the top, less good schools that are aspiring to be good schools in the middle, and failing schools at the bottom. Schools as institutions—the process of teaching and learning—cannot be reduced to that simplified model. The system provides an enormous amount of invaluable raw statistics, which are fascinating for people who love to pore over such information, but they can have a devastating effect on individual schools and communities.

Although some schools, including many in my constituency, look forward to the publication of league tables with great pleasure, because they know that their excellent exam performance will be recognised, for a large minority of schools and LEAs, that serves to reinforce not just their sense of inferiority but the hopelessness of their predicament. They cannot aspire to the top of the league table under a system that simply measures output. Thousands of schools serve less affluent communities, which are not always in inner cities. They cannot get to the top of the league table because of the community that they serve. They know—every hon. Member will have constituency examples of this—that, every time league tables are published, the comparison between schools becomes sharper. Schools in more difficult areas become conscious of the comparison between their neighbours in more affluent areas and a great number of parents become aware of that comparison. As a result, the number of pupils on the school roll declines the following year. That reduces the budgets of those schools further, which makes it more difficult to deliver the necessary improvements. I shall not go into the recent well-publicised and spectacular examples of such schools, but we all have less well-publicised examples in our constituencies.

The operation of league tables has helped to drive up standards in many schools because of the incentive that is provided by competition, but it has often served to widen the differentials between schools and, ultimately, weaken the comprehensive principle and system in primary and secondary schools. Parents have understandably exercised their freedom of choice to examine the newly available selective information about school performance. They have exercised that freedom of choice with a vengence and the education of hundreds of thousands of children in hundreds, if not thousands, of schools has suffered as a result. Parents cannot exercise their freedom of choice in schools in less affluent areas because they are not socially mobile, they are constrained by geography and they lack financial resources. Those schools cannot succeed in the current system. We have allowed ourselves to be locked into the thinking behind the fatuous concept that schools are like football teams and can be measured only by their position in a league table.

I want to draw attention to specific problems with the system. First, it purely measures output; it makes no reference to input. Every year, I look at the league tables and the schools in my constituency and I know which schools will be towards the top and which will be towards the bottom. I know, too, that the league tables for primary and secondary schools in my constituency reflect not the broad quality of individual schools, but the social structure of the constituency. The league tables are a description of geography, of population and of social class, not of a school's achievement.

Secondly, there is a spiral of decline for schools with poor catchment areas. As more parents exercise their freedom of choice, strong schools get stronger and weaker schools get weaker, to the point at which intervention is needed. Either the weaker schools become failing schools and there is official intervention from the centre, or there is a spectacular collapse, as there has been in schools in some parts of the country, or there is a more subtle intervention, which involves a huge injection of cash, which is far more expensive than it would have been if the problem had been solved earlier.

We must consider the statistical significance of the comparatively small difference in raw scores. We deal with it in one sense, in that small primary schools with fewer than 10 or 11 pupils who are eligible for key stage 2 tests, for example, do not appear on the league tables; but many schools have 12 pupils eligible for the test. A slight variation in that figure because of the illness of one or two children on the day of the test can have a significant impact on the percentage figure.

In the league tables overall, the GCSE scores in Bury last year were, as I said, exceptional. It was the best improvement on the previous year in the country. Is our score of 53.5 per cent. gaining five A to C passes significantly worse than one of our neighbours with 53.7 per cent? I suspect that it is not. I suspect that some of the issues that determine those figures are the policies on exclusions and on entering pupils for exams, which vary widely between schools.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I strongly support the Government's policy of inclusion of special needs children, but does he accept that, if a class has one or two special needs children with severe learning difficulties, for example, a school that has made an effort to include those children could go from the top of the league table to the bottom for no reason other than it had complied with Government policy and parental wishes?

I was about to come to exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made so well. When we consider the impact of special needs children, it is just a matter not of looking at the effect of statemented children in mainstream schools, but of considering how special schools feel when the league tables are published. Special schools are completely wiped out of the picture.

One of the Government's most urget priorities should be the role of special schools, an example of which is Elms Bank school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), which serves all children in Bury. My hon. Friend and I visited that school recently; we are conscious of its enormous achievements. It has a wide range of children with different special needs. The school has worked very hard to establish a system of certificates of achievement for 16 and 18-year-olds, but they appear nowhere in the national league tables. There is a huge amount of added value in special schools and for children with special needs in mainstream schools, but that is not recognised anywhere. The effect of that lack of recognition is to marginalise the issue of special needs children.

I shall focus on the impact of choosing to highlight five A to C grades at GCSE. We know that five A to C grades are chosen because it is the admission ticket to A-levels, but its impact is that any other achievement at GCSE is seen as a failure. When the GCSE was established, the idea was to get away from the old divide between O-levels and the certificate of secondary education, one exam being considered less relevant and prestigious than the other. The difficulty in focusing on A to C grades is that there may be some evidence that borderline children receive more attention—logically, in terms of the approach of individual schools—in order to push children who are functioning at about grade D to get a grade C, at the expense of children who achieve less well. The children who score Es, Fs and Gs may thus be at risk.

I highlight a slight contradiction in the Secretary of State's speech at the North of England conference in which he argued strongly for a restructuring of the curriculum so that post-14 there would be greater attention on vocational achievements, a much closer link between schools and the workplace, and more work-based training for children still at school. That is absolutely the right direction in which to go, but that new area of achievement is completely ignored by the current system, which focuses on the need to gain the admission ticket to A-levels—they will always be for only a small minority—and, ultimately, on the demands of the universities. We must consider children's achievements across the board, across the range of ability.

I differ with part of what my hon. Friend said. League tables have to show the numbers who are not entered for GCSE, or who get one GCSE or fewer. The Ofsted inspectors at the school where I taught, and the local press, focused on that aspect as much as they focused on the five A to C grades. Is my hon. Friend therefore arguing about how we can ensure that that is given equal worth and attention? It is there in the league tables.

I agree with my hon. Friend: it is there in the league tables, and that is welcome. My hon. Friend has a sympathetic local press if the total number of GCSE passes gets the same attention as the number of five A to C passes. Schools in my local authority have an exceptional performance in terms of total GCSE passes, with only 2.2 per cent. of children not getting a single GCSE. That record is one of the best in the country. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is in the league tables; that is welcome, but it does not have the same status, and that is the problem. As Government policy moves towards giving greater emphasis to young people who will not achieve five A to Cs at GCSE we need to reconsider the issue.

I want to highlight another anomaly in the system to give a flavour of some of the problems. We now have the results at 18-plus—the A-level points scores—as well as at 16-plus. The published tables list the individual institutions; there is also an A-level points score for each local authority. In many parts of the country—arguably, in most parts of the country—A-level students are not entirely the responsibility of the local authority. The tables are misleading insofar as further education and sixth form colleges educate increasing numbers of A-level students. Many of those institutions do a superb job, yet the results appear in the tables as the collective achievement of the local authority, when it is nothing to do with the local authority.

I have drawn attention to my specific concerns, which are shared by many people. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to introducing value-added measures. It is self-evident that school should be not about simply producing good results for children who are already performing well when they enter the school, but about adding value to each pupil's individual achievement and bringing out his or her full potential.

The added value debate is a paradise for acronym lovers. Acronyms include ALIS, YELLIS, PIPS, MIDYIS and QUASE. Most schools now use one of those systems or a variant. We are beginning to understand the significance of the value added system, and we recognise the complexities associated with establishing a foolproof methodology.

Since the publication in 1997 of the value added national project, there has been a lively debate about differing methodologies. Head teachers were unhappy about the Government's plans, and the intention is to adopt the individual pupil number system, which I hope will be implemented as soon as possible. I welcome that shift of focus, which will give a huge boost to schools in poorer areas which perform extremely well and bring out children's potential.

However, there will be limitations. The problem remains that, in most parts of the country—although perhaps not in Gedling—parents regard five A to Cs as the be-all and end-all. Non-national curriculum achievements in mainstream and special schools are not recognised. Moreover, there is the thorny issue of comparing like with like. Even an individual pupil number system that tracks children's progress from one year to the next, or one key stage to the next, may not enable us to make such a comparison. The communities that schools serve vary widely, as does the level of funding for schools. I again draw attention to the historic funding problems in my constituency and many others, and to the campaign of the special interest group of municipal authorities to change funding methodology, and that of the newly formed E40 group of local authorities for a national minimum level of funding for all children.

When we compare the fabric, resources, quality of materials and general environment of schools, we discover huge variations, which I am not sure even the new value added system will fully reflect. My feeling is that historically under-resourced schools that serve poorer areas will continue to appear near the bottom of the table.

With regard to 16-plus results, various factors come into play: the impact of the local education structure, be it 11 to 16 or 11 to 18; the number of schools that opted out under the previous regime, and thereby gained enormous financial advantage; and selection policy. There are no level playing fields for authorities or schools within authorities. Once the value added system is in place, the Goverment must consider what else needs to be done to reflect more accurately schools' achievements.

Regarding a school's league table position as a precise indicator of how bad or good it is in comparison with other schools is a gross over-simplification. The issue is far too complex to say that certain schools are good and others bad. A study of Hampshire schools was undertaken by Professor Goldstein of the Institute of Education. He concluded that it is impossible to categorise schools as good or bad. That contradicts the thinking of both this and the previous Government, the approach taken by the chief inspector of schools and the perception of parents. On the basis of his study, Professor Goldstein argued that, to a greater or lesser degree, different schools add greater or lesser value for children of differing abilities in different subjects. In other words, for most schools, there are things at which they are very good things at which they are merely good, things at which they are less good and things at which they are lousy. We are failing to reflect that variety and complexity.

We must ask ourselves what else is important about a school's performance. What other measures could appear in the annual performance statement? I am loth to use the phrase "performance tables" because it implies a rigid hierarchy and simplistic stratification. There is also the question of pastoral care. Schools that find it easy to attract able children at the age of 11 and produce good GCSE results in 16-year-olds and good A-level results in 18-year-olds provide hopeless pastoral care.

There is the general question of quality of leadership and its impact on teaching and learning, school morale, the sense of school loyalty and corporate identity. There is the further question of standards of behaviour, which are usually—but not always—related to performance. Moreover, there are the issues of the quality of governance, parental involvement, the range and richness of extra-curricular activities in sport, art, music and drama, the quality of teaching, the use of new technology, and teaching children to learn how to learn, rather than simply imparting facts.

Most indicators are published in an Ofsted report, which is rarely read in detail by parents. I wonder whether some judgments in such reports could be converted into simplified performance indicators that would provide a brief, broad and more accurate reflection of a school's range of achievements. Every teacher in the country would doubtless groan at the prospect of Ofsted having yet more influence on their activities and the according of greater significance to Ofsted reports, but I mention that merely as one example.

I would also draw an analogy with the further education sector. Since their incorporation, and since becoming subject to the Further Education Funding Council inspection regime, further education colleges have marketed themselves more ruthlessly than many schools. Colleges with achievements to boast about have published in their literature and in the press not only raw examination results but their FEFC inspection report gradings. I have some anxieties about such a marketing ploy, but it seems entirely reasonable to make available to parents a factual record of achievement.

There will always be some institutions that perform less well than others in respect of certain issues, and there is no point in concealing that fact. Freedom of information is essential and will help to drive up standards across the board, but the key question is: what information are we providing? In the past, we have provided highly selective information that focused exclusively on outputs and academic achievement in tests. We have ignored the entire range of other school achievements and the complexity of the education process.

I realise that I have spoken for a long time and that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the Government's position on value added measures and tell us when they are likely to be introduced. I should also be interested to hear her observations on how we might go beyond the value added system. Is the system the end of the Government's thinking, or is there scope for a broader annual statement of school performance that would give due recognition to the qualities that make a successful school?

If we do not move in that direction, the same schools will appear year after year at the top of the league tables, and the same schools will appear at the bottom. The result will be demoralisation. I want a system that recognises the full range of achievement and abilities, and in which children with special needs are included. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, the way in which special schools and special needs children in mainstream schools have been treated is scandalous. Their remarkable achievements should be recognised nationally. We want a system that provides information for parents, management information for schools staff and information to support the Government's efforts to prise up standards. That is the priority. In not paying attention to these issues for many years, we have fallen behind, and I applaud the Government's attempts to put standards at the top of the agenda. As recently published league tables show, those attempts are bearing fruit.

Order. Although the hon. Gentleman's speech was commendable, and a learning experience for us all, it was fairly lengthy. That reduces the time available to us. The agreed protocols of this Chamber are that the Opposition spokesman and the Minister are allowed the last 30 minutes of the debate. Therefore, I appeal to others who wish to contribute to make their points forcefully, clearly and as briefly as possible.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on an impressive tour d'horizon and on the gracious, non-partisan way in which he introduced his remarks.

I agree that the possibility of school league tables arises only because we have a national curriculum—a system of national testing. The hon. Gentleman put it well when he said that it was remarkable that it had taken about 120 years for such a system to be put in place—that was done by the previous Government. I also agree with him that under both the previous and the present Governments the league tables have evolved, improved and been refined. They are much better now than when they first appeared. I share his hope that, in five or 10 years' time, they will be considerably more useful, informative and fair than they are now.

I may take issue with one or two of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I want to adhere to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be brief, so that others can contribute. First, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to a question that a number of schools in my constituency—one in particular—have raised with me, which is the way in which those pupils fortunate, able or well enough taught to take GCSEs a year early are treated, or ignored, in the league tables. That problem needs to be dealt with more precisely. If one takes GCSEs in year 10, it does not count towards the figures for that school. Not only is there a distortion in the figures because those able pupils are taken out of the reckoning, but when they turn 16, a year later, they appear in the league tables as not having sat any GCSEs at all. That bias in the system needs to be tackled along with the many other issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury, North.

My second point concerns the availability of the league tables. We are all familiar with the newspaper educational supplements, which seem to have a large circulation. They are well used by parents, who seem to rely on them. However, we are living in an age of new technology. The league tables are made available on the internet, but I am not sure whether the Department has a clear strategy for using some of the search functions available. One can search within some of the other internet websites—for example, those dedicated to financial issues. One should be able to search not only for the name of a school but for particular categories. One should be able to take account of some of the value added characteristics once they are made available.

The technology can provide a great deal more information to parents than simply a printout of the details of the three or four schools in which they are interested. It should be possible to search geographically, by particular characteristics, or according to attendance or numbers of pupils not sitting examinations. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and also about the progress that is being made towards the full exploitation of technology.

I am also interested in the Minister's clarification of the concept of value added. I have a slight difference of opinion with the hon. Member for Bury, North on that issue. The concept is important and I hope that progress can be made towards it. However, as the hon. Gentleman listed the many criteria that he would like to introduce under that heading, I became worried that the waters might become muddied. Far from providing clear information to parents, we might end up in a position in which no one understood the figures or the league tables, or we might return to the position of 10 or 20 years ago, when only the education professionals understood the data. We must guard against that happening.

As the hon. Gentleman said, we must also be clear that we are comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. We have been talking mainly about GCSEs, but the Government are now encouraging schools to look sympathetically at the provision of the baccalaureate alongside A levels. How will that be treated in the league tables? How are those apples and oranges to be compared? Can one compare them?

Finally, on the use to which the league tables are put, it is now common ground among hon. Members, across party divides, that the tables are a useful information tool for parents and that freedom of choice for parents, although it will always be limited and never perfect, is, none the less, an aim towards which we strive. League tables are a useful information tool in achieving that aim.

In that context, the practical implication of the Government's otherwise commendable policy of limiting class sizes at primary level has been that many parents who would otherwise have had a choice of primary school for their children have lost that choice. I am sure that other hon. Members have experienced this. Siblings are being separated. Families in my constituency are having to make long journeys to take their children to two different schools—often, in a rural community such as mine, the schools are many miles apart. If that problem persists up the age scale into secondary schools, it could have serious implications for parental choice. I would like to hear the Minister's response, because if parents are to have this information, they must have a real chance to use it.

I do not expect the Minister to respond to my final point, but my constituents would expect me to raise it. It is that school league tables have certain implications in an urban area, where schools are often close to one other and transport between one school and another is often not especially difficult. In rural areas such as mine, parents do not have much choice, especially of secondary schools. Until and unless the problems of rural school transport are properly and thoroughly tackled—which did not happen under the previous Government either—parents in rural areas will study the information in school league tables with interest but without a realistic expectation that it will influence their decision over which school to choose for their children.

I am grateful to be invited to speak in this debate and I should like to make a number of matters clear before I begin.

I have a daughter with a moderate to severe learning difficulty. She is now 12 years old. Everyone tells me that she is lovely. I am normally offered that information in a rather patronising way, because what is not normally said is that she is lovely but she will not amount to very much. I have far greater aspirations for my daughter than that. I am delighted by some of the measures that have already been implemented by the Government to recognise that people with special educational needs and with learning difficulties, of which there are a variety, have a right to exist and to be recognised in society.

The first major improvement was in the new deal programme when, suddenly, local authorities and employment services were being called to account about their efforts on behalf of people with learning difficulties. It is wonderful for parents with children in that position to think that someone, somewhere, will take note of them and try to assist them to be fully integrated into our society by virtue of employment. That was an excellent start because a group of people became identified through statistics. Statistics matter when, hitherto, one has not even been considered worthy of a statistic, or worthy of recognition in any formal sense.

I applauded the introduction of the White Paper "Excellence in schools", which was launched by the Department for Education and Employment in October 1997. That set out a programme for consideration by all those who have a vested interest in the development of children with special educational needs. It offered a wonderful blueprint that I, as a parent in that situation, very much welcomed. Commendably, the White Paper referred to target setting and national curriculum assessment qualifications. How are those activities, achievements and targets made manifest in the statistics? The short answer is that they are not. Achievements by special needs schools in relation to the White Paper have never been recorded in the league tables. I reiterate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). They are not performance tables, but only league tables.

Problems are created in primary schools by the absence of those statistics. Every primary school accommodates children with a wide range of educational abilities, but some schools fight shy of taking children with special needs—that is as true in my constituency as in any other. If schools manage to accommodate such children, they move them on or omit them from standard assessment tests. Although that is unfortunate, we all understand why it happens. It is primarily driven by concern about the likely impact of those children on league tables. Having spoken to nearly all the head teachers in my constituency, I know that they are worried about it.

There are two sorts of school. Some are passionate about delivering good education to children with special educational needs, while others are immobilised by their lack of understanding of such children. That is not because they want to be poor at delivering good academic provision, but because they are inadequately supported in that task. The role of head teachers is also important. Some have a personal crusade with regard to children with special educational needs, while others do not.

Two outstanding primary schools in my constituency, Waterloo and Freshfield, have embraced such children—they have taken them from other schools when those schools can no longer support them. Those at the schools work hard and believe that they achieve a great deal, yet the league tables do not reflect that achievement in any way, shape or form. There is no information to tell me, as a parent, how well they have done with that group of children.

For most parents with normal children, a league table offers some choice. Despite its crudity, they can use it to assess which schools are better than the rest. I cannot. There is no choice for parents with children with special educational needs. When we look at league tables, it is impossible for us to tell which schools are striving and performing well for those children. That is unsatisfactory. I want the same choice that is afforded to other parents.

What is happening in secondary schools is even worse, if that is possible. I have before me the league tables for Sefton metropolitan borough, to which I referred when I was considering a senior place for my daughter. Most schools display a range of statistics relating to GCSEs and GNVQs. However, there is nothing about the six special needs schools. In every case, statistics are replaced by the words "not entered". There is my choice—it is "not entered". I do not believe that the thousand or so children who participate in those schools are incapable of gaining some form of qualification. I know that they are capable of it. I also know that there are teachers in those schools who are desperately trying to get the best out of the children. Where is their performance reflected? The answer is that it is not. Although a disproportionately large number of the children will not gain GNVQs or GCSEs, they will gain certificates of achievement. I want that to be reflected and so do other parents who find themselves in a similar position. They want to be able to make an informed choice.

I applaud my hon. Friend's comments about added value. It is a meaningful step forward for schools that are trying to deliver in all sorts of ways other than generally accepted qualifications. There must be some way that people outside the process can recognise that. Statistics are important not only for parents, but for target setting within schools—setting goals for which schools can strive. In Sefton, six special educational needs schools have no public standards against which they can strive to improve. I resent that. They should have those targets so that they can rise to the challenge of improving—in comparison not only with their own record, but with that of other providers in the same area.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could clarify the Government's intentions for added value, referring in particular to how special educational needs schools that do not enter any statistics in the league tables can be encouraged to do so. That will enable people like me—please forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking such a personal view—to be better informed as parents and providers.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has no need to apologise for taking a personal view. It is a strength of debates such as this that personal experience can be brought to bear and I am sure that hon. Members have been moved by her contribution. I remember a debate in Worcestershire about the inclusion of special schools in league tables. There was some unhappiness about the fact that they were shown to be right at the bottom of the pile when the league tables were published. I sympathise with what the hon. Lady said and I hope that the Minister has taken her comments on board.

In the eight minutes that are available to me before we move on to the Government's response, I wish to draw the Chamber's attention back to the big picture. I had hoped to spend some time discussing middle schools in Worcestershire. The Minister recently experienced a rather painful reorganisation of the school system in Redditch—we share a local education authority. Particular problems surround the publication of results as they relate to middle schools. Those schools complain that they are judged on the results of first schools and high schools complain that they are judged on the results of middle schools.

In view of the limited time, however, I prefer to concentrate on the big picture. When the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) opened the debate, he rightly drew hon. Members' attention to problems with the publication of league tables. He spoke convincingly and well and I had great sympathy with what he said. However, he gave the game away a little by saying that he is fascinated by league tables and spends a long time poring over them—as do many other people.

The big issue is that publication of league tables has driven up standards and improved parental choice. I understand that to be the view of the Government. When I began to think about what I wanted to say today, I had a text in my mind, like a preacher: "Never make the best the enemy of the good." When one has a good idea—particularly if one takes it to able and talented civil servants, who are able to see problems in every good idea—there is a dreadful tendency to get so bogged down in worries that one fails to see that moving ahead, even imperfectly, can bring real benefits. We politicians have to be careful about being seen to justify reasons for keeping people in the dark. We have no privileged access to such information.

There is paranoia—or schizophrenia—in the Government's attitude to the subject. I thought that they were radical converts to publication of all sorts of results. I agree with a press release on 8 December which stated:

"The tables show that 11 year olds achieved higher standards in English, Maths and Science in this year's National Curriculum Tests than last year. Some of the most successful schools from across the country have been invited to an event held today at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre to celebrate their achievements."

It is right to celebrate the achievements of successful schools, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so. I hope that, in the same position, we would do the same. However, publication of key stage 1 results must be examined. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will refer to that, so I shall not detain hon. Members with that now.

Another issue, which the hon. Member for Bury, North did not emphasise sufficiently, is that the measures are not just of school successes but the successes of local education authorities. I carefully examine the results for Worcestershire schools, particularly because I have a grievance about the funding received by my local education authority, as does the hon. Gentleman. I still hope that the Minister will be able to do something about that during her tenure at the Department for Education and Employment.

Ten years?

I said tenure. If there were a Labour Government for 10 years, I could think of no better Minister than her to fulful the role for that period, but I hope that that will not be so.

There is no doubt that Worcestershire's low educational funding leads to concern among my constituents that their children are receiving an education that is less good than it should be, and that concern is well founded. It is a great tribute to the education authority and the schools in Worcestershire that we have such good results in the league tables. They show that the desperately low funding does not, mercifully, cause bad results, which is a great tribute to all involved. I believe that the education authority is currently subject to an Ofsted inspection which, I am sure, will prove what a good authority it is.

What has struck me about the debate is how little it has moved on. I looked up the Second Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill, which took place on 19 November 1991. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is now the Home Secretary, but was then the shadow spokesman on education, said:

"We now need to see some Government investment and leadership on how local authorities and school governing bodies can best provide information on and do research into the effectiveness of schools, into their creation of value added, so that that information can be given to parents and governors alongside the crude, raw data."

He was right, but the lack of progress in achieving that added value data, which is so important, is disappointing—I also criticised the previous Government for that. Intriguingly, when my then hon. Friend, Mr. Tim Eggar, wound up, he said something that is resonant today:

"Apparently the only sort of publication that Labour Members will allow is one that is so hedged around with correction factors, socio-economic variables and explanatory footnotes that only a parent with a PhD in statistics and specialisation in sociology could understand it."—[Official Report, 19 Novenber 1991; Vol. 199, c. 174–234.]

That is where the logic of the hon. Member for Bury, North was taking us.

I am Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and we often discuss labelling, which is apparently the answer to all our problems. We label for animal welfare, fat content, genetic modification and so on. The label will eventually become so large that the shopper will be unable to make any sense of it. That is the danger with school league tables. We must not allow the label to become so large that it is impossible for parents to understand what it describes. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) were important and I hope that the Minister will assure us that, whatever changes are planned for league tables, they will not fall into the tempting trap of making the best the enemy of the good. If league tables are to be effective, it is crucial that they are comprehensible.

I turn to added value, which is an ugly phrase, but I cannot think of a better one and it has entered the education lexicon, so we must live with it. It is a vital concept and I was pleased that the Government seemed to be committed to it. That is what their early statements during debates and questions in the House suggested, but there are now worrying signs that they may be resiling from that. A DFEE report in March 1999 stated:

"In the medium term, the performance tables will include measures of the value added by schools to the education of their pupils."

What is the medium term? As Keynes said,

"In the long run we are all dead",

but what about the medium term? A report in The Times Educational Supplement on 26 November 1999 stated:

"no 'value-added' measure is now expected to be published until at least 2003, prompting accusations that the government plans to scrap the idea."

The report continued:

"Harvey Goldstein, professor of statistical methods at the Institute of Education in London, said: 'They are effectively saying that they are not going to do it. They are talking about 2005 or 2006 for a KS2 to GCSE measure, by which time we will be two governments further on."'

I urge the Minister to reaffirm the commitment of her Government to value added measures and to ensure that she will not make the best the enemy of the good.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for introducing the debate and agree with almost all he said, so I shall be brief.

We have no problem with publication of information on schools, but we question the value of the information that is published and the use to which it is put. League tables are good for Government because they allow them to demonstrate that they are meeting their targets and help them to impose and enforce national norms, which is increasingly the case in the education system. However, they are of little use to parents and pupils.

Most parents send their children to local schools and there are good social reasons for that. The children can play outside and can be allowed to walk to school. Some Government initiatives will be satisfied only if parents continue to choose local schools. League tables fire up a notion of parental choice which cannot be satisfied in urban or rural areas. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) referred to the problem in rural areas, but it is equally a problem in urban areas where it is often too risky to choose a school other than in the catchment area. In Sheffield, people come to me every year saying that they tried to exercise parental choice by examining league tables to decide which school was best, but when they failed to obtain their first choice, their catchment school had become full and they were told to ship their children across the city to a school with surplus places, which was, by definition, unpopular and probably poorly performing and which required their children to take two or three buses to go to a school the parents did not want them to go to. That is the reality in urban areas and the notion that parents can sit down, examine league tables and choose schools for their children does not exist in most areas and certainly not in Sheffield. Government pressure is to take surplus places out of the system and parental choice is not possible without surplus places.

We question the value of the Government's original intention to engender parental choice to develop a market. That has not happened and will not happen, unless someone is prepared to fund the sort of system that the Conservatives have proposed with totally free access to schools. The cost would be phenomenal if schools could balloon to a greater size one year and reduce in size the next year as parents made their choices.

Parents are sending their children to local schools. They may examine the league tables and become concerned about their local schools, but they have no option of removing their children. The tables may be interesting, but they do not provide any practical benefit.

When a school is perceived to be poor and remains at the bottom of the league table, great harm can result to its morale, year after year, because no one rises to low expectation. A culture of low expectation is generated within the school and that does an incredible amount of harm.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke eloquently on the issue of special needs. Nether Green junior school in my constituency has an emotional and behavioural difficulty unit. It does a tremendous job with its pupils, and is as good as any other school in the area, but it is consistently down the league tables. Year after year, parents say, "I want to send my child there, but I am a bit concerned because it is down in the league tables." The school does a tremendous job with special needs and non-special needs pupils, but it is aggrieved by those comments. I have every sympathy, but I have failed to get anywhere in changing the system, so that the school can take its rightful place and not have to face the stream of parents every year. The hon. Member for Crosby expressed that effectively.

The hon. Member for Bury, North made a good point about the broadening of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds. It can be a tremendous achievement for some pupils to get a grade D at GCSE, but that is not recognised. We fully support the broadening of the curriculum, which would make both the GCSE and the A-level league table factors irrelevant when deciding whether a school is doing well. There is tremendous work with advanced GNVQs going on at present. We are expecting more, and we need to acknowledge that when considering a school's performance.

One group that may have felt the benefits of league tables is estate agents, who frequently cite them in their publicity. I would argue that they are of limited benefit, even to estate agents, because most parents knew before league tables were introduced what was going on in their area. People from outside may find them beneficial in deciding where to live, but most of them will have chosen where to live by their profession, income and so on. We know that the socio-economic group of an area is a factor in creating a better or worse school. The estate agents' argument is a minor part of the equation, and I would question whether the league tables have added much value.

Our real criticism is, what have the league tables done for the worst off in the education system—for that small, but still too large, percentage who are always on the wrong side of the target and are perceived as failures? Ninety per cent. success means 10 per cent. failure; 75 per cent. success means 25 per cent. failure. We are concerned about the social exclusion unit report, which shows that 9 per cent. of our 16 to 18-year-olds—161,000 young people—are not socially and economically engaged. One of the prime factors identified was educational failure and educational disadvantage. The Government's obsession with targets is laudable in as much as they want to get so many pupils up to a notional average, but if we do not pay attention to the small number who continue to fail by all measures, there can be no true success. I hope that the Minister will say what she believes league tables do for the young people who are most in need, other than simply confirming year on year that they are continuing to fail.

What do league tables do for schools that deal with the most difficult children in the education system? The Government must continue to focus on improving opportunities for the lowest performers, as well as on trying to raise standards generally. They should consider methods such as individual education plans, mentoring and other imaginative ideas that have been suggested to deal with pupils as individuals. We should move away from looking at the averages across the mass of pupils and consider the individual. We hope that the Government will do that, thereby proving that they are interested not only in the many, who make up the mass of the figures in the league tables, but the few who are often on the wrong side of the statistics that people use to judge schools.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing the debate. I know that he takes a particular interest in the subject, and he gave a thoughtful speech this morning. I am not sure that I want to go all the way down the road that he took us, but I recognise his interest in the matter. I note that the Liberal Democrats are interested in traversing that road, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) showed.

For our part, it is now generally accepted that parents have a right to know the information that is contained in the tables; it should be published. It acts as a spur to better performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was right when he said that publication has been one of the factors that has driven up standards. It is worth recalling that that was not always the case. The previous Government began to collect and publish information, in the face of bitter opposition from certain quarters. It certainly was not greeted with acclaim on all sides. That Government had the wisdom and foresight to persevere in the face of all that was thrown at it. By the end of their period of office, there was more general acceptance of the publication of tables. The Government were engaged in preparatory work on including a measure of value added in the performance data, to give an even fuller picture. I refer to performance data based on prior attainments. I shall say more about the different forms of value added later. We are interested in prior attainment and have reservations, to say the least, about other notions of value added.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister the latest state of play in the Government's plans for measuring value added on the basis of prior attainment. I do not want to repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but it did not escape my attention either that there seems to have been a bit of back-sliding on the part of the Government. Having started out stating that they intended to work on value added, they are slipping back. We were told in the departmental report of last year that, in the medium term, the performance tables will include measures of value added by schools for the education of their pupils. It is entirely right to ask what the medium term is in that context.

The Minister should also answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Bury, North. We are interested in the same question, but from a different direction. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he wants to go on, after prior attainment has been taken into account as value added, to look at other measures as well, based on factors other than prior attainment. What is the Government's attitude to that? When they talk about value added, do they mean simply prior attainment, or will they consider other factors, such as social factors and educational performance, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bury, North? We think that that is a dangerous route to take. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is right to say that it muddies the waters and makes things less clear. The hon. Member for Bury, North gave a thoughtful speech, but I was not entirely clear whether he wanted the measures of value added, as he would have them, to be in addition to the league tables that we have, which are based on prior attainment, or whether he wanted them to be replaced.

I should confirm that they would be in addition. My criticism of the current system is its selective use of freedom of information. I want a more comprehensive presentation of information.

If that is so, we need to know the Government's attitude. Do they want to go down that route? Do they want value added to be measured according to social factors? We think that that would muddy the waters and complicate the picture for parents. There would be difficulties in selecting the factors that need to be taken into account in measuring value added. Many factors and considerations would complicate the picture greatly when what parents really want is a measure of the performance of schools and the value added that is given to the pupils through good teaching. The Government need to clarify matters.

There is still work to be done on information about performance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, we want publication of the results for reading and maths at key stage 1 in national performance tables on a school by school basis, to enable parents to see how well those schools are performing. Exactly the same arguments apply in respect of the publication of performance data at key stage 1 as now apply at key stage 2. Parents have the right to know and it will help to drive up standards if such information is given to them. What is the Government's attitude to that? It is an entirely natural development of the existing system that will help to drive up standards. What is the Government's timetable and approach at key stage 2 on value added based on prior attainment? We are aware that the Government said a lot about that early on in their Administration, but we have not seen much action. The Minister needs to say clearly what the Government intend and where they are heading.

The hon. Member for Bury, North is not alone in his fascination for league tables; we are all interested in them. They are widely available and appear in many newspapers. Indeed, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in hoping that they will become available on the internet. The media do not publish such information out of curiosity; they know that parents are very interested in it. It is good that parents receive it, but we would like them to be given even more information. We believe that they have a right to know, because it is good for the education of their children and it helps to drive up standards. We now need some clear answers from the Government on where we go from here.

Given that some hon. Members have been up all night for the sitting of the House, the quality of the debate has been particularly high. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing further discussion of school performance. I am aware of his interest in the progress of schools—in Bury and nationally—and of his concerns, which are shared by the Government. However, I do not necessarily agree with his solution that we need to publish fair, accurate and genuinely comparable information on achievements in schools.

I commend the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. I congratulate the teachers, pupils, governors and the local education authority on their good work, which is represented in the performance tables and, as my hon. Friend said, in other sources of information.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to say a few words about the value of performance tables—and their limitations—and about the Government's progress on ensuring that they are accurate and truthful, and that they give a fair representation of what is happening in our schools. The clear consensus is that the debate is no longer about whether tables should be published, but about what information should be published and how.

The Government are aware of the challenges that have been mentioned this morning. We are also aware of the difficulties of publishing the information. We must ensure that tables promote accountability, but we must do so in a way that supports the Government's educational objectives of raising standards and promoting inclusion. We should celebrate improvements in schools and properly reflect what schools have achieved, given the challenges that they face. However, performance tables should not create perverse incentives because of the manner in which the information is publicised.

The Government agreed that tables should be more than a simple annual report of a school's raw results. We should focus firmly on measures of improvement. I emphasise that I am speaking about performance tables, not league tables. I believe strongly that the tables produce information about the relative performance of schools, although I fear what local and national newspapers might choose to make of the information. The Government can take some responsibility for what is published. However, if we have the power to control the message that goes out about schools, please believe me—we would use it. Some of the messages that hon. Members have mentioned this morning show that the information that we want to emphasise about our local schools is not necessarily what gets into the newspapers.

We have taken steps to ensure that the performance tables reflect matters that we believe are important, and that they do not result in perverse incentives. Our first step in 1997 was to provide information showing the changes in GCSE results, to enable readers of those tables to see whether schools improved their results over the next four years. I note that three secondary schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North maintained or improved their performance between 1996 and 1999. They deserve to be congratulated on that.

We now include information showing trends in GCSE, A-level and AS-level exam results and trends in key stage 2 results. That gives people the opportunity to focus on whether schools are improving their performance. When publishing the performance tables, we single out the top 100 primary and secondary schools that have managed to sustain an improvement over the previous four years. Those schools certainly deserve to be praised for their achievements. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned the event that took place in December to celebrate success. It is important to note that that event was about celebrating the success not only of those schools at the top of the league tables that are published by others, but of those schools that have shown improvement over a period.

We place great emphasis not only on those pupils who achieve five A-star to C passes, but on those who leave school with no GCSE or general national vocational qualification passes—a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we want the performance tables and other published information so as to ensure that schools focus on raising standards for all young people, and that all young people are included in the improved standards.

We have also provided new information on GCSE and GNVQ results by introducing an average points score per pupil. That is quite important, as it addresses the concerns of those hon. Members who thought that the target of five A-star to C grades did not recognise the achievement of teachers who help young people to achieve a D instead of an E grade, which I fully accept can be a great achievement. The average points score ensures that the results of all the young people entered for GCSE exams are represented.

We have improved the information provided on pupils with special educational needs by showing how many pupils with statements of special educational needs there are in the cohort of pupils to whom the results relate. The information provided in the tables will help readers to put a school's results into the context of the school's work with children with special educational needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made a powerful contribution. She eloquently highlighted what I accept is a difficulty, which is how fully to reflect the achievements of special schools and ordinary schools that make an effort to include children with special educational needs. In fact, we receive as many calls for pupils with special educational needs to be excluded from the performance tables as we do for more information to be published in the performance tables about students with special educational needs. That is not an excuse, but I hope that my hon. Friend recognises the difficulty. The fact that we have not solved the problem does not mean that we believe that those achievements are not important. We must continue looking for ways to ensure that those achievements are reflected.

Certificates of achievement are important. When including new qualifications in the performance tables, we must be clear about their equivalents if we are to make a true comparison. That answers the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who spoke of the importance of ensuring a rigorous analysis of the equivalents of existing qualifications. I can assure him that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has undertaken rigorous work to ensure that that equivalence on GNVQs is included in performance tables. I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the way in which young people who take GCSEs a year early are included in the league tables. The results at year 11 are cumulative in terms of results achieved, regardless of whether they were achieved that year or in the previous year. However, if he writes to me on the particular cases that he is concerned about, I shall follow that up.

To turn to some of the substantive points made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, we have also stepped up the pace of developing value-added measures for publication. We face certain constraints in regard to performance tables: we must ensure that we do not overburden schools with checking the information or overload parents with too much information, so that even those who are not performance-table junkies—as most hon. Members present seem to be—will be able to get the information that they need from it.

It is also important to point out that tables are not the only source of information available. I would strongly emphasis the need for parents to look at the whole range of information available on a school—the prospectus, for example, which already gives parents the opportunity to analyse, to take up the point of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), information about key stage 1 results. We encourage parents to look at the whole range of information. Our parents' website, launched last year, also gives parents the opportunity for parents to access it on a geographical basis, or on the basis of their children's ages; it provides information about the school's performance, linked to the Office of Standards in Education and the schools' website. So I hope that we are keeping up with the technological revolution.

The issue of value added is very important. We need to clarify the uses to which we put it. The Government have done important work in their publication of the autumn package, which gives schools the type of benchmarking information that is important in enabling schools to consider how they can use value added to improve the school. The hon. Member for Bury North, mentioned, among other acronyms, the YELLIS and the ALIS schemes, which I used myself when I was teaching and found useful in ensuring that targets are set for individuals in the school. However, there is a difference between the use of the information for school improvement and its use in terms of the publication. There are many calls to introduce socio-economic measures or other factors to adjust the real results published in the performance tables. Although I can understand the motivation for those calls—it may be important for schools to use such adjustment factors within their schools improvement process—we will continue to resist them. We do not want to create a situation whereby schools feel able to use such factors as an excuse for poor performance. There is a big distinction between the best and the least best performing schools in the same socio-economic band and we need to address that.

Considerable progress has been made on value added measures. We need to emphasise that one of the challenges that the Government have faced in bringing them forward has been the need to base them not only on prior attainment, as the hon. Gentleman stressed, but on a pupil's individual progress. He said that the previous Government had made preparations for that, but we found that the mechanisms were not in place to measure pupils' individual progress, which we believe should be the basis of publication. We have now put them into place. We expect the individual pupil information that was first succesfully captured in 1998 to come to fruition in the near future; without having taken that rigorous approach to individual pupil attainment, we would have run the risk of attracting the criticism of those, for example, who have highlighted mobility as an issue that affects schools. We expect to publish in the league tables for 2004 value added for key stages 2 to 4 based on individual pupil attainment. That will be very important. We are already working on pilots for the publication of value added in sixth forms and FE colleges.

First, I should like to say how grateful I am to the House authorities and to Mr. Deputy Speaker for having selected the debate on the future of Rover, which will have an hour and a half of hon. Members' time. It is a matter of significant public interest, especially to the midlands area. As hon. Members will know, the announcement that the European Commission was to launch an inquiry into the Government grant of June 1999 was not made until 22 December, the day on which the House rose for the Christmas recess. Today is therefore the first time that hon. Members have debated this vital subject, which reflects on the economic vitality of the midlands region. We are grateful to have the Minister present. We would like several questions answered about the role of the Government in the awarding of the grant and in subsequent events.

My interest in the Longbridge plant, one of the Rover plants, derives from the fact that it is in my constituency—as well as in that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The majority of the plant is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although, with the prospect of a future planning application, that may not be the case in future. However, that is a matter for another day; today we are discussing the situation at Longbridge.

Longbridge employs around 9,000 people, which is considerably down on the employment figure of around 14,000 of more than 18 months ago, when the Government came to power. The plant has been reduced from what it once was, the biggest employer of the Rover group; Solihull employs about 10,000 people and Cowley about 4,000. Its economic importance to the midlands region is hard to overestimate. The accepted multiplier criterion is that for every one directly employed job there are between three and four others in service and support industry suppliers and so on. The commonly accepted figure is that any threat to Longbridge would have a wider employment impact on the west midlands region of about 40,000 jobs. The prosperity of my constituents and those of many hon. Members is dependent on the reinvestment in the Longbridge works going ahead. That is what we are all here for—to be reassured of that and to establish how the present situation arose, which is one of our principal concerns.

We must face the fact that Longbridge is an old plant; I believe that it will shortly celebrate its 100th anniversary. It has been around for along time, providing prosperity and jobs, and is an old plant for modern production purposes. We must bear it in mind that the need for reinvestment at the Longbridge site is predicated on the fact that productivity needs to rise. Great strides have already been made, and it is a credit to the work force and the management that signifcant improvements have been made, with productivity rising from about 30 workers a car to about 50 for the new Rover 25 and Rover 45. However, productivity must rise if Rover is to have a secure and long-term future in the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why BMW wants to make a major investment in the Lonbridge factory.

Another important factor has been the good faith of BMW since it took over Rover Group Ltd. some years ago. As hon. Members know, Rover has had a variety of owners, and it is a source of contention in the midlands which were the better ones. We should credit BMW for investing in the Rover group when it took over the company. At the time, it was widely speculated that BMW was interested only in Land Rover and having a four-wheel-drive product in their vehicle range, and that it might not show the same commitment to the Rover car itself. It is hard to pin that accusation on BMW. It has put massive investment into the Solihull and Cowley plants.

My difficulty, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, is that Longbridge has come last and has been rather a Cinderella, and we are now waiting for the investment that Longbridge so sorely needs. In fairness, BMW is committing itself to a £1.7 billion reinvestment programme at the plant, which is the largest single inward investment programme for the UK so far. We are obviously grateful that it is showing its commitment to an old plant. It was extremely welcome news when the BMW board made it clear that it wanted to proceed with that.

As hon. Members know, part of that bid was the offer from the British Government of £151 million-worth of aid, to which I shall return later. I emphasise the commitment that BMW has made. The new retro Mini, akin to the new Volkswagen Beetle, is about to be built at Longbridge. We are waiting to discover how it will look. It should be unveiled in October, and people should be able to buy it next year. Its production has already been committed to Longbridge, which is very welcome, and we are delighted.

As someone who used to work in the car industry in a former life, I greatly value that opportunity to debate this important matter. Does the hon. Lady agree that hon. Members have a duty and a responsiblity in arguing for a strong Rover at Longbridge to do so outside the House as well as inside, by their own actions?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be recommending motherhood and apple pie. Of course we all want to support the Longbridge factory and the Rover works, both inside and outside the House, although I may have missed his point.

I am not sure whether I am missing the point, but, bearing in mind what the hon. Lady just said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), does she drive a Rover, and, if not, what car does she drive?

I drive a BMW, owned by the Rover group. I am sure that it would be of great interest for us all to declare our car interests.

I shall do so myself in a minute or two.

Order.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to discuss the important and welcome investment in the Rover group that BMW has made.

The Rover 75 has been a success. Following the intervention of the hon. Member for Worcester, I should like to put it on record that, although there has been much speculation that the Rover 75 has not been as successful as it might have been, in fact it was the third top-selling saloon in its class in the second half of last year, outselling the Alfa Romeo 156, the Audi A6, the Jaguar S-type, the Mercedes C-class and other models. It was also voted import car of the year in Japan, beating, among other marques, Mercedes. The Rover 75 has been a success and is welcome. Land Rover speaks for itself, and is a hugely successful model. The Rover 25 and the Rover 45, which replace the Rover 200 and the Rover 400, have also been well received and, although they have been upgraded to make them more attractive, we are keen for a Rover 30 to be built at Longbridge, which, if we could stick to the original timetable as we still hope to do, would be introduced in 2003.

What, then, is the problem? Why is Rover not simply an untold success story? The problem has partly been the rising value of the pound. The pound has risen in value since BMW announced its £1.7 billion investment programme for Longbridge plant in 1997–98, when the exchange rate to the deutschmark stood at DM2.75. I rang the Library today, and discovered that the pound is valued against the notional area covered by the deutschmark in the euro zone at DM3.22. That is a massive rise in the value of sterling against the deutschmark. In short, it raises the price of the reinvestment at Longbridge for BMW, the German owners of the Rover group, by 15 per cent., which is worrying. The high pound has also encouraged—

Can we assume from the hon. Lady's remarks on the strength of the pound that she agrees with Professor Sämann, the chairman of the Rover group, who said:

"Membership of the European Union has been a major factor in encouraging BMW Group's investments in the UK and therefore safeguards Rover's future.— The next step, full UK membership of the EURO, would consolidate this investment."?

May we take it that she agrees with those sentiments?

Sadly, I do not have that quote in front of me. However, Professor Sämann goes on to say that although BMW, as I fully recognise, would like the UK to join the euro, it does not want us to do so at the present exchange rate. If the hon. Gentleman finished the quote, he would find that the UK's joining the euro at the present exchange rate is not on BMW's agenda. Moreover, if he were serving his constituents, he would also recognise that manufacturing industry has been put on his back—

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was recently reported that Toyota had written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking him to make representations to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee about the strong pound? When I tabled a question to the Secretary of State, asking him whether he had done so, I received the rather ambiguous reply—which I assume meant yes; perhaps we shall hear an explanation later—that it is common for Secretaries of State to make representations to that committee about the strength of the pound. Perhaps I should table another question, on behalf of Rover.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government cannot recognise the difference between a strong pound, which is, on the whole, welcome—the German economy was very successful with a strong currency for many years, until unification created more recent problems—and an overvalued pound. Those of us who represent the midlands would do well to recognise the huge damage caused to the manufacturing sector, much of which is based in our area, by the strength of the pound.

Perhaps the hon. Lady could explain the impact of the strong pound on manufacturing industry in the west midlands by providing statistics, rather than relying on the editorial columns of the newspaper for which she writes a weekly column, The Birmingham Post, which has been undermining the regional economy for many years.

I think that I would be called to order if I sought to defend The Birmingham Post, which is an excellent newspaper that merely seeks to tell the truth about the activities of our Labour Government. I would be happy to point out one of the problems—

No, statistics.

I would like to cite my own statistics rather than those that the hon. Gentleman wants to foist on me. As he knows, BMW recently announced that, because of the high pound and the problems of the exchange rate, it would reduce the outsourcing of its supplies for Rover in the United Kingdom from 89 per cent. to 50 per cent. during the next five years. That is in part due to the strength of the overvalued pound, which causes huge problems for BMW because spare parts are traded in the international economy and it will therefore go for the cheapest sources. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand economics.

I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's concerns about the high value of the pound, and I would like the Government to try to reduce it to a more sustainable level so that we can ultimately join the euro.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked for statistics. Yesterday, The Birmingham Post printed an article headed "Car production races to 27-year high", which showed that there had been an 11.5 per cent. increase in car exports between 1998 and 1999. Also, the report by the West Midlands group of chambers of commerce suggests that manufacturing prospects are optimistic and that, through investment and action to increase productivity, our manufacturing industry is coping with the high pound. I would like the hon. Lady to acknowledge that that is a tribute to the Government's encouragement of such investment.

There is a problem with the pound, and I would like something to be done—

Order. I must remind hon. Members that the debates are short and interventions ought to reflect that brevity.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) makes a point that we can all recognise: that a strong pound has a beneficial effect on productivity. That is bearing fruit, but an overvalued pound creates problems. Our balance of trade figures have deteriorated significantly under the Government. It seem reasonable to conclude that the overvalued pound is one of the reasons for that and for the job losses in the manufacturing sector during the past few years. I am sure that the West Midlands CBI and other trade organisations would confirm that.

The Minister must respond to the problem of the overvalued pound, about which I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry receives many representations. We also want to question her more closely on the award of the grant to BMW for the Rover group, which was announced in June by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

As the Member of Parliament for the area that includes Longbridge, I warmly welcomed the Government's announcement that they were to award £151 million of Government aid to BMW for its investments at the plant. However, in awarding that grant, Ministers should have met the European Union's criteria, because they had to satisfy the European Commission that they had acted properly within those rules. Ministers had to be sure that, without the benefit of state aid to ensure that the jobs remained in the United Kingdom, BMW would have seriously considered relocating the Longbridge plant outside the European Union. Her Majesty's Government had to establish that that was firmly the case before they awarded the grant.

When the welcome award was announced, we all reasonably assumed that the representations, discussions and considerations had been made and that there should be no problem. The fact that the award was immediately followed by speculation that the Commission would launch an inquiry, as I am sad to say that it did in December, raises severe questions about the competence of Ministers' handling of the bid and whether they sought proper reassurances and followed proper guidelines. They would have been fully aware of the European Union's rules.

If the hon. Lady is suggesting that there was no contact between the Department and the Commission when the talks were held with BMW, I can assure her that that is not the case. It is routine for the Commission to take a second look at all such grants after the event.

I would not necessarily dispute what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is not routine for the Commission to launch an inquiry. Of course it considers whether the rules have been complied with, but it does not necessarily launch an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The inquiry raises a question as to whether Ministers properly complied with the rules when awarding the grant.

In response to the press conference of 23 June at which the announcement was made, the Competition Commission said two days later:

"So far the Directorate-General of Competition (DG IV) has had only one meeting with the UK authorities on May 11th last. Since then, apart from some technical queries, there have been no further contacts."

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that such an announcement should have been made at a UK press conference when there had been only one rather tenuous meeting at which the Competition Commissioner was not even informed of the announcement?

My hon. Friend puts a strong case based on that further evidence. It seems that Ministers jumped the gun when making an announcement that was extremely sensitive and important to the economy of the midlands. It was up to Ministers to establish that they had followed the rules, to reassure the Commission that they had done so and to persuade it that the award should not be subject to an inquiry. Clearly, that has not happened.

The inquiry adds to the uncertainty at the Longbridge plant. Having had the announcement from Her Majesty's Government in June that the money would be forthcoming, BMW at Rover was set to invest at the end of last year. The bricks and mortar of the factory's rebuilding should have been put in place in November and December, but that has not gone ahead because BMW is waiting to see what happens. That vital investment in the midlands is not being made because Ministers might have acted incompetently in not ensuring that the rules were properly complied with before they made the announcement.

The hon. Lady normally has outspoken anti-European views. She would surely have used her newspaper column to denounce Ministers as incompetent in the same way if, last year, they had said, "We would like to give the grant to Rover, but we shan't until we have had the fullest possible consultation with the European Community."

I think that the hon. Gentleman makes my point; clearly, Ministers jumped the gun and did not get the proper reassurances. It was up to the Government, not the BMW board, to make the case and establish that the rules had been followed. They should have examined Hungary and crossed all the bases, so that the Commission would have had no locus to launch the investigation. That was not done. An investigation started on 22 December and we now face uncertainty and the prospect of no investment in the plant until summer at the earliest and only then if the inquiry does not find against the Government on the award of the grant. That will lead to further uncertainty about what BMW will do.

That brings us up to date. Having announced the launch of the inquiry, we are now waiting to find out what happens. BMW told me this week that it was optimistic about gaining a preliminary verdict from the European Commission as early as this week. Where do we go from here? The Commission will establish its criteria and assess whether the rules have been complied with. The Government and BMW—as well as other European car manufacturers which also want their say—will then have a chance to make their observations on the findings. That process will take around four weeks, after which the Commission will take another four to six weeks to determine its findings. We are now talking about in excess of two, or perhaps even three, months before we receive a final answer about awarding the grant, which adds yet again to the uncertainty of the process.

I shall be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether the Commission has received all the relevant documentation from the Government to enable it to proceed with the preliminary inquiry. Is she satisfied that the Government acted hastily enough to forward the documents to the Commission to allow it to formulate its conclusions? Time is of the essence. When does the Minister believe that the Commission will reach a verdict, so that we can finally ascertain whether the rules for awarding the money were met?

I affirm the importance of that point. Hon. Members will know that BMW has its annual general meeting in April—approximately the same time that it will announce this year's financial results. We know from press speculation that losses at the Longbridge plant have increased considerably over those for last year. If losses approach the £1 billion figure, as suggested in the press—including The Birmingham Post, which is clearly well sourced—it will inevitably cause concern among board members. If the award of the grant is still indeterminate or even if a conclusion has been reached, it will be a moment of great decision for the future of the Longbridge plant. It would help the BMW board if it knew the status of the grant in time for the April meeting, which would clarify once and for all the investment project for the Longbridge group.

I pay tribute to all the workers at Longbridge, who have shown much flexibility and determination to ensure success by operating changes at the plant. I also pay tribute to BMW, which showed good faith in its willingness to invest in the Longbridge plant, which has existed for 100 years. People in the midlands are tremendously proud of the unique Britishness of the Rover car. We very much want operations to continue at Longbridge, but Ministers must now play their part to overcome the sad and unsettling affairs of the past few months.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing a debate on the future of Rover. It is an important issue, as the hon. Lady has shown in her remarks. However, not everyone in the west midlands would congratulate her entirely on her approach. The biggest problem for the Rover group, and the Longbridge plant in particular, in the past two years has not always been what has happened there. The situation has been hyped up and it has had to contend with damaging speculation about what might be going on round the corner.

Speculation affects confidence and sales. I would not dispute the hon. Lady's figures—that 50,000 jobs in the midlands depend on the success of the Longbridge plant. However, we must be careful to ensure that our actions in this place do not add to speculation and uncertainty, and I am not convinced that set-piece debates at this stage are helping to dampen them down.

The hon. Lady raised several questions about the Government's record and the story so far, which deserve an answer. She sought to attribute blame for delays in the granting of European Commission approval for the deal to the Department of Trade and Industry and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, she alleges, did not prepare the ground before agreeing the deal with BMW. It is a serious charge to assert that Governments do not prepare the ground before taking action that might have European implications. It is particularly serious regarding the Rover group because this is not the first time that European investigations have taken place.

The hon. Lady will know that the Rover group was sold by the Conservative Government to British Aerospace in 1988. In fact, the then Government were prepared to write off the entire debts of the Rover group to the tune of £800 million and then to sell it for £150 million. That deal was questioned in the late 1980s by the European Commission, which found that the Government's actions breached EU rules and demanded a recovery of £300 million-worth of the sweeteners given by the Government to British Aerospace. That whole saga of sweeteners and the Aerospace deal did nothing for the confidence in the Rover group and nothing for the future.

That series of events also led to a National Audit Office report. As we are debating the important role of Governments in these matters, it is worth quoting from that report of 1989. It concluded, after examining the deal:

"the fact remains that the Department's negotiating resulted in British Aerospace paying £150 million for a business which made a profit before interest and tax of £65 million in 1988 … and which also had surplus assets and other benefits worth at least £250 million, of which it has so far realised £126 million".

Despite the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just cited and the current difficulties of the Rover group, would he agree that the industrial performance of Rover in the decade after the sale was considerably better than in the period leading up to the sale, which shows that it was a positive move?

It is certainly true that Rover has progressed, but I would not conclude that the deal was an appropriate mechanism, especially without any tendering, renegotiation or offers to other firms. It was a case of writing off debts of £800 million and selling for £150 million—that is what the National Audit Office report was all about. Many of us believe that the Government could have secured a much better deal for the taxpayer, and it took the European Commission to remind them of it at the time.

I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove was not in the House then. It may even have been before she worked as a journalist for The Daily Telegraph. She was, however, in this place during the early part of last year, when negotiations over the current deal were going on. As I understand it, the hon. Lady's charge today is that the Government did not prepare the way or do enough, and needed to check up on what was happening. As she rightly said, she and I share that plant. It was therefore important that she and I, as local Members of Parliament, made sure that we knew what was going on.

I was interested to read in The Birmingham Post of 19 March 1999 a report about the negotiations that were taking place. At that stage, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had made an initial offer of £118 million to BMW in respect of the deal. The quote that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove gave from The Birmingham Post—I am quoting from the paper, so it must be right—was:

"I am disgusted. The Government knows that the prosperity of the Midlands depends on the future of Longbridge and to offer almost half the money requested by BMW is an insult to us. Stephen Byers should be on the telephone immediately putting this matter right."

No words of caution there about checking that things were in line with European rules. The hon. Lady's point was simply that BMW had asked for a large amount of money, so the Government should go ahead and pay it. An interesting approach to economic policy—whether it represents the Conservative party's new economic policy I do not know.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to offer a riposte to his fatuous remarks. It is obvious that the Government upped their bid by a further 30 per cent. or more when they offered £151 million. I did not realise that the Opposition's role these days is to ensure that Ministers act competently at all times. I just assumed that the Government knew the rules and would abide by them. I realise now that that was a silly assumption and I am sorry.

The hon. Lady has her views on the responsibilities of a Member of Parliament to his constituents and I have my views of what those would have been at that time.

I will move on to what the deal was, what it is and where it goes from here. I have used harsh words about the hon. Lady but I agree with her about the contribution made by the people involved with the plant, especially its employees, and the partnership that they have shown with the company in reaching a ground-breaking deal on working practices, without which we would not be where we are today. All of us should pay tribute to that.

It is a pity—although no doubt it was an oversight rather than deliberate—that the hon. Lady did not pay tribute, as all of us should do, to the local partners who played such an important role in bringing that deal to a successful conclusion. I pay particular tribute to Birmingham city council for its efforts in bringing about an important local element of the deal, to the Birmingham TEC, the chamber of commerce and industry, and to Advantage West Midlands—the regional development agency—which between them were able to put together the package of £23 million that forms an integral part of the deal.

In addition, some £129 million of regional selective assistance was agreed. It is important to put on record what the grant was all about. It was not a grant given because BMW asked those bodies for some money and they said, "Let's pay it." It was not a bail-out. It is important to emphasise that and it is unfortunate that the hon. Lady did not recognise it. It is a deal with clear productivity targets and it is phased over a period. It is about raising skills and about investment by the company itself. As the hon. Lady said, a sum in excess of £1 billion is being levered in through regional selective assistance and the local package. If we add BMW's contribution to the United Kingdom as a whole, there is investment of approximately £3 billion.

The European Commission has chosen to take the issue to a full investigation. I consider that unnecessary. Its decision was made in December and did not follow immediately the submission of the application by the Government and BMW—the Commission had had it for some time, and various questions were asked, and answered. I do not think that an investigation was necessary. When I and Labour MEPs for the West Midlands Simon Murphy, Neena Gill and Michael Cashman met Commissioner Monti in December, we asked him whether the Government had failed to provide information that the Commission had requested. I have to tell the hon. Member for Bromsgrove that Commissioner Monti did not come up with anything on that: he said only that there were still things that the Commission wished to look at. He said that the Government had not failed to provide anything that the Commission had requested of them.

Commissioner Monti decided to go ahead with the inquiry anyway. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has ever attempted to meet the Commissioner, but he made it clear when we met him that he did not see this matter as anything peculiar or as making an exception for Rover. He drew our attention—the hon. Lady, who also presumably takes an interest in the motor industry, will be aware of this—to the fact that inquiries into Fiat and Volkswagen have been launched over deals that involved assistance, although in many respects they were not exactly similar to the Rover deal. Therefore, there is nothing especially surprising about the Rover investigation.

Where I take issue with the Commission—and believe that there is a significant difference between the Rover deal and the Volkswagen and Fiat deals—is that in both the latter cases the money was paid up front, so the Commission's investigation took place afterwards. I do not question the Commission's right to investigate, or the Rover deal itself. What I do question, given that we in Britain have played exactly by the book and—as the hon. Lady said ought to happen—have sought approval before the money is paid, is its decision to investigate after questions have been asked and answered. In my view, that is unnecessary. However, the Commission has decided to go ahead with the investigation. The vital message to the Commission today is that we need a decision soon because that inquiry is about an investment programme to bring a new car to market within 18 months to two years. It is most important that the Commission gets on and makes its decision quickly.

As for the future, the company faces real challenges. A huge number of suppliers in the west midlands and elsewhere depend on Rover group. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove referred to some of their current difficulties. It is true that the pound is causing difficulties. The hon. Lady would do well to listen to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) about what BMW says about that. If, in that context, she honestly believes that sterling should become a sort of hedge currency against a weak euro, and that that would improve the position of exporters in any way, she has a rather curious view of economics.

However, there are things that we can do about suppliers and the component industry. It is important for BMW to understand that it has a responsibility to maintain a healthy supply base in the UK.

For clarification, although we understand that Labour Members are keen to join the euro, it would help Opposition Members if we could establish the rate at which it would be acceptable for the pound to join. Is it DM3.22, as today, or the DM2.75 of 1997–98? [HON. MEMBERS: "That is a stupid question."] It is a relevant question. I regret that Labour Members do not understand its relevance to manufacturing industry.

If the hon. Lady has attended debates in the House, she will know that the Chancellor has set out clearly the criteria that will be important for joining the euro.

Order. A great deal of heckling is going on this afternoon for some reason or another. I ask hon. Members to desist.

Where I take issue with the hon. Lady is with her view that there is an alternative, which is to say that we shall rule out entry, and that somehow that will bring down the level of the pound. That is absolute nonsense, but the hon. Lady had a point in what she said about the difficulties faced by the components industry. Practical things can be done to help. That is why I welcome, as I hope she does, the industry forum—a real partnership between the motor industry and the Government. She should welcome the accelerate programme, which is about improving skills and processes in the component industry, to help it meet the challenges ahead.

If the components industry and Rover can meet those challenges, the future will look bright. Three new models were launched at the back end of 1999. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said, the Rover 75 has been receiving rave reviews and was last year's car of the year according to What Car? The constant speculation about the Rover group's future and issues concerning Commission involvement in car pricing have obviously affected sales. One would not expect otherwise. However, it is good to report that the Rover 75 was the third highest selling car in its class in the second half of last year. Longbridge is already being transformed with investment for the new Mini. Changes in plant have been made to enable it to come on stream at the end of the year.

At Hams Hall in North Warwickshire, BMW is building a new engine plant and in between 18 months and two years there will be a new small to medium car. To enable that to happen, the investment must be unlocked. The European Commission needs to take a decision on the aid package, which I am confident is entirely within European rules, as quickly as possible. I hope that hon. Members will unite in conveying that message to the Commission because Rover is a strategically important industry not just for the midlands and the United Kingdom, but for the European Union. The challenge for the Commission is whether production should stay inside the European Union or should possibly move elsewhere. The facts will, I think, lead to the conclusion that the deal conforms with the rules.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is committed to a bright future for Rover, as am I. Many of my hon. Friends who represent west midlands constituencies have come here today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and for Worcester (Mr. Foster). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) was here a little while ago, in addition to my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, North-East, for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), and for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) has also been here and we have been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley). That shows the commitment of Labour Members of Parliament to the Rover group and the car industry in the west midlands. We are committed to making things work. It is up to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and her hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to decide whether they are equally committed, or whether they want to use the debate to make political points.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing the debate. It is an opportunity to rehearse some of the important arguments on which we need to unite in coming months if the future is to be as bright as we would like. However, despite a comprehensive account from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) other matters need to be given prominence in the debate. The strength of the pound has been mentioned, although no conclusions were reached about how to tackle that problem. It is sensible to think about Rover in terms of what we can see needs to be done.

The considerable rise in car production has been mentioned. It is at a 27-year high. Regrettably, that rise is almost wholly confined to companies other than Rover, whose figures, although by no means disgraceful, have not been contributing in a measured way to the improvement. Why is that? There has been a great commitment to improved productivity at Rover and the new management has offered leadership, which had been absent for many years. Previously, there had been massive under-investment. I can call on my working experience at what is now the Rover group, but was previously British Leyland, in commenting on this matter. Machine tools and much of the kit for producing components for British Leyland were, frankly, dug up from the bottom of the North sea after the first world war. It was appalling equipment. Little or no work was being done on new machine tool technology. At that time, it seemed to be the lean-to car company. No one was prepared to do anything to improve it. Management was as poor as it could be. There was constant friction with the work force. No one emerges from that period with any honour. All the mergers that destroyed distinguished car marques in Britain came to nothing and made things worse.

BMW has brought leadership to Rover and the workers and management have responded well. However, the cost of component manufacture for Rover is much higher than for other major car companies in Britain. That accounts almost entirely for the poor performance. It is higher, first, because of lack of investment. That is serious. I do not know whether even now some of the suppliers are putting the sort of investment into their companies that they should be putting in.

Secondly, the value of the pound and being outside the euro, with no certainty yet of going in, have exacerbated the problem. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove asked whether we could go in at DM3.20. The answer to that must obviously lie in the British economy's performance in the coming two or three years. We have heard Mr. Duisenberg say that if Britain is to find its way into the euro it must do so on the basis of the pound's having been stable against the other currencies for at least two years. That rather rules out a massive devaluation to DM2.50 or DM2.60 as the hon. Lady suggested.

In two years, greater convergence between the currencies may happen. One of the Chancellor's aims is certainly that convergence should be a major test of whether to recommend a referendum on going into the euro. That decision must be made by the British people. Hiding behind a debate on Rover, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove has done this morning, is not helpful in that regard. She obfuscates the issue by talking of Rover without dealing with the value of the pound. She makes no suggestions about how to bring down the value of the pound. The value of the euro reflects the value of the European economy much more accurately than the pound reflects the value of our economy. We inherited that state of affairs from the Conservative Government—a massively overvalued pound and an underperforming economy. There have been improvements in Rover and in the economy. That matter is crucial to the future of Rover and the car industry in Britain.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I have only a minute or two left.

The hon. Lady might not have liked my quotation from Professor Samann, but I could give her more quotations. The chairman of Fiat made a similar case and the chief executive of the Ford Motor Company made virtually the same case. We heard this from Nissan:

"Regarding the UK's entry into EMU, I believe that, the moment the conditions are in place for a successful entry, the Government should take the UK in."

Foden Trucks—a famous name in British manufacturing—has similar sentiments. I think that the shadow Secretary of State referred to Toyota, which was clear on its position having met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It said:

"If there is no change in the long term, then we will have to decide whether even our existing operations"—

let alone expansion—

"should continue."

The situation should be set against the improving performance at Rover due to new leadership and a more inspired approach to work. The work force's agreements, conceding many practices, might have been given more willingly previously had there been a better style and class of management.

We must consider the situation in the context of our position in Europe, on which there is no going back, and the need to make real efforts to ensure that the Chancellor's five principles on entry to the euro are met in the shortest possible period. The decision to enter should be taken by the British public following a proper and reasoned debate, the like of which we have not heard from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.

I am one of the few Members in the Chamber who does not represent a west midlands seat. If I did, I would be arguing as other hon. Members are for their constituents and for state support. I sympathise with their approach. However, I do not hold such a seat and so may enjoy the luxury of considering the subject in a wider context.

My first question concerns what is happening in the motor industry. One hon. Member painted a rosy picture of rapid production growth, but we should consider the comments made by the Consumers Association at the weekend. It said that car industry statistics were a little like election results from the former Soviet Union—they were not terribly meaningful. There is an enormous distinction between production, shipment and sales figures.

The car industry's current problems are serious. The core problem, on which the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) have touched, is the significance of exchange rate problems. No less a person than the chief finance officer of BMW is spelling out rather brutally the significance for the industry. He said a few days ago that BMW

"is considering a large cut in the proportion of UK manufacturers' parts for Rover cars while also invoicing existing UK suppliers in euros".

The company is moving, because of the pressure of the exchange rate, to cut back much of the industry on which many hon. Members' constituencies depend. Suppliers are being forced to take risks on the exchange rate.

I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove mentioned the exchange rate. The word to describe that is chutzpah. It certainly was cheeky. Some of us have listened to the debates from an economic perspective. I have also understood the Conservative position to be that there is no such thing as an over-valued exchange rate. The exchange rate is what is set in the market, and exchange rate volatility is to be welcomed because that is what the market says. If the hon. Lady is now saying that the exchange rate is too high, how precisely is she proposing that it be stabilised? Those who argue for economic and monetary union membership have an answer—the trajectory may be tricky, but at least they can answer, "You fix the rate." How do you deal with the problem if you do not believe in fixing the rate?

Order. I have never fixed an exchange rate.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you have not.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East approached the subject more coherently, but raised questions that went unanswered. The exchange rate is at its present level partly because the Government chose, early in Parliament, to duck the issue of seeking an early political mandate. Had they taken that opportunity, the market would have been given different signals and the exchange rate would almost certainly have been trading at a much lower rate.

However, that is history. For the future, we have Mr. Duisenberg's alarming pronouncement. He is taking the hard line that the British are acting from a weak bargaining position as late joiners who will take the conditions on offer. We are now being told that a two-year period will be enforced, meaning that we would be expected to enter in two years' time at the clearly over-valued current rate. In its report last week, the International Monetary Fund showed that a proper equilibrium rate would be DM2.80, which is way below the present level.

If we do not accept that view of the future, the timetable will have to be postponed, with effects on other parts of the car industry. Toyota and others are asking what future they have in the UK. There is much uncertainty. More than anything else, the debate highlights the huge uncertainty created as a spillover from our not having the EMU entry strategy clarified.

The second issue raised was the Commission inquiry into state aids. I fully sympathise with hon. Members wanting us to get the right result—I hope that we do, too. The Commission's questions about mobility, to use its jargon, are valid. It is questioning whether BMW really had an alternative of going to Hungary. When one studies BMW's published thinking, it is clear that it never seriously intended to do that. Its strategy all along was to be a volume car producer, not to build a branch plant in Hungary. In the long term, its deliberate and systematic involvement with Rover satisfied the strategy. If that was true, British state aid was not needed because its investment was going to proceed anyway. That is the nub of the Commission inquiry. I hope, now that Britain has made the decision, that the Commission finds in our favour. However, it is asking a valid question.

My third point concerns the other Commission inquiry, which has not yet been mentioned, and which has major implications for Rover and the industry generally. It brings into focus a conflict between two Government objectives. It is clear from the Rover decision that the Government are concerned to help the car industry. However, they are also concerned about rip-off Britain, high British car prices and the current block exemption given for the marketing of cars.

From most of the inquiries, the difference between UK and continental car prices clearly benefits not only dealers and car fleet buyers, but the car manufacturing industry. The choice is painful: if we went for cheaper cars for British consumers, there would be a substantial knock-on effect and damage to the industry. I suspect that the authorities can do little about the situation—internet buying is proceeding so rapidly, with so much transhipment of goods, that the car industry's position is being undermined anyway.

The decision has already been made—the Government have committed the money. We hope that the expectations are realised and that productivity improves. However, because of what has happened to exchange rates and because of doubts surrounding the two Commission inquiries, we are led to ask serious questions about whether the continued recourse to large-scale state aid for the car industry is a good use of industrial policy.

I should begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on bringing the debate to the Chamber. One of our great concerns has been that, although the issue has been in the limelight since the announcement last June, there has been no formal representation by Government to the House. I listened carefully to other hon. Members, who clearly have a genuine constituency interest in the matter. They were mealy-mouthed in their support for my hon. Friend having secured the debate. Any of them could have brought the subject to the House during the past seven months.

The matter is important not only to the midlands but nationally. When the announcement was made, it would have been more appropriate for the Secretary of State to make a statement in the House in June because of the size and importance of the company. That would have allowed hon. Members to ask the many questions precipitated by the announcement. More questions have arisen subsequently.

I believe that one hon. Member, although I cannot remember who, said that he hoped that I would not be party political. Would I be? I draw it to the attention of the Chamber that the first I heard about the Secretary of State's announcement was from a press release dated 22 June, which says,

"Rover deal—Invitation to a photocall."

As a result of the Secretary of State making his announcement in a photo call to the press at 9.30 am, the House was denied the opportunity to ask questions at the outset. I was unable to ask questions from the Dispatch Box, so I followed the route with which I am now becoming only too familiar, which is to table parliamentary questions. Tabling questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and extracting answers from him is becoming my life's work, so much so that I am tempted to patent it and sell it to Waddington's. However, we all recognise the importance of the announcement, which was welcomed throughout the House.

On a matter of accuracy, as the hon. Lady might be aware, the announcement was made by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time in the House.

Surely, a proper statement with the necessary time for questions would have been the most appropriate way for the Government to make an announcement. There have been opportunities for the odd oral question, but that is hardly the point. Clearly, when the announcement was made, it raised issues of concern about the Commission's role. We were reassured by the Secretary of State and the Department of Trade and Industry that all would be well, not least because of the concern about mobility which, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) rightly said, is at the heart of the matter and of the investigation that has since been carried out by the Commission. On 25 June, a spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said that the Department was confident that BMW would be able to demonstrate that the project was mobile. Unfortunately, despite those reassurances, the discussions that were held and the preparations that were made prior to the announcement clearly did not go into the sort of detail that might have avoided the extended delay that now exists.

My hon. Friend has outlined how important the matter is, not only to the 9,000 employees at Rover in Longbridge, but to the many businesses in the midlands and elsewhere that supply Rover. As part of my attempt to get answers from the Secretary of State, I asked him about that matter in a written question. From representations that I have received—not only from small suppliers, but from machine tool suppliers, for example—I know that there is concern that a lot of German equipment will now be used in the factory where, previously, UK suppliers had been involved. Among the questions that I asked the Secretary of State in June last year, I asked him to list the criteria under which Government investment in Rover was expected to meet best value. I also asked him what the impact was likely to be on suppliers. Again, I had to prod for an answer, and only when I prodded by way of a letter in August last year did I eventually receive a reply in writing from the Secretary of State, in September.

One of our concerns is the way in which the Government have handled the information. Perhaps, on this glorious day of 1,000 days, there is an opportunity for the Minister to recognise—

One thousand and one.

I stand corrected if it is 1,001. On this glorious day, we are celebrating an excellent floor cleaner.

The delay is causing uncertainty, adding to the speculation about the future, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, not just for Rover, but for the many other companies who supply Rover. I quoted from Mr. Van Miert's response immediately after the announcement was made in June. We all understand the process, which is that announcements are made before any formal application to the Commission is submitted, but we must consider the time and sequence of events. The fact that the Secretary of State rushed to his photo call when he arrived on a plane from China, where he had received some bad publicity, suggests that the art of the spin doctor was at work. It would be risible, were it not for the fact that when spin doctors take precedence in the timing of such an announcement, the proper procedures are not followed and preparations are not properly made. The correspondence between me and Mr. Van Miert's office just a few days later showed clearly that the Commission would have expected and welcomed more detailed consultation with the Government before the announcement was made. I hope that the Minister will learn the lesson that, in matters of such importance when, some seven months later, so many British suppliers are faced with uncertainty, there is a proper place for scrutiny of such an announcement, and that is in the House following the correct representations to the Commission.

This debate is about the future, which, as we have heard, will not be known for another two or three months. Will the Minister update us all on her understanding of the timetable before us? We all accept that there will be a delay. Clearly, the Commission needs to make its inquiries. However, a timetable would add stability because it would enable people to plan. People find it most distressing if they do not know what the time scale is likely to be. If the Minister is unable to make that commitment today, perhaps she would agree to put the information in the House of Commons Library within the next few days. That information must be important to Rover and it will certainly be important to Rovers' suppliers, from whom I receive an increasing number of letters and who need to make long-term plans. If that information is not forthcoming, the uncertainty will continue.

My hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of clarity in these matters. Could we not take a collective decision on behalf of the Chamber to press the Minister to ensure that the urgency that has been expressed today is communicated to the Commission? We really need to clear this up as soon as we can, in the interests of Rover and all its suppliers.

My hon. Friend is right. We have no choice but to accept that there will be further delay, but if the delay could be timetabled realistically, it would take some of the sting out of the wait. As the hon. Member for Northfield said, BMW has made a commitment and is already building new factories. We should take hope and encouragement from that, but clearly any questions that remain unanswered, especially surrounding the £152 million that the Government have agreed in funding, should be underpinned by a detailed timetable.

In conclusion, there has been much discussion about the high pound. I asked what representations the Secretary of State makes on behalf of key industries and manufacturers—I asked that question in respect of Toyota in particular—because the right hon. Gentleman may have made representations to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee on behalf of the car manufacturing industry in the UK. It would be nice to know—if the Minister is unable to reply today, I can table more questions to the Secretary of State because that has a regular slot in my diary—about the nature of those representations. I recall being chided by the Secretary of State for opposing the way in which the Government handed over control of our economy to the Monetary Policy Committee, but if Ministers make formal representations in what is supposed to be a hands-off Government operation, that information should be shared with the House and put on the record.

As for the single currency, to which many Labour Members referred—they are obviously devotees—there is a misunderstanding about who decides at what rate we should enter it. I advise all hon. Members to read, if they have not done so, article 1091(5) of the Treaty on European Union. It spells out that we, the United Kingdom, do not determine at what rate we join the single currency. Member states will decide that by unanimity. It makes sense that they would not set a rate that would severely disadvantage them or advantage us. We are not masters of our own destiny. The treaty makes that clear. In terms of what is and is not a good rate apropos the deutschmark, I remind hon. Members, because it was a stinging experience for those of us who were in government at the time, that we fell out of the exchange rate mechanism at about DM2.75.

I readily congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing the debate. This matter is of enormous importance, not only to those who work in the car industry in the west midlands, especially at Rover, but to the future of the car industry in the United Kingdom and the European Union. I am also grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for enabling the debate to proceed by ruling that in this Chamber it is Wednesday even though in the main Chamber it is still Tuesday.

Both sides of the Chamber has voiced support for Rover and its work force and management, and for BMW's commitment to that company and those people. There were some well-informed speeches, in particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who has for months played an active part in helping to secure the future of the Longbridge plant. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) also made an excellent speech. He referred to the troubled past of Rover, from which it is now emerging.

Rover is a great British brand, but there has been too much talking down of its prospects. I regret to say that even the hon. Lady has participated in that.

I dispute that. The Minister did not read the press release that I issued on the day that the Secretary of State made his announcement, in which I stated:

"I am delighted about the Rover plant in Longbridge and that jobs have been saved."

I made it clear, however, that there would be many questions. The headlines of the press release said: "Good News for Midlands, but there are important questions that need to be answered." I gave my total support.

I was referring to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, not the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Perhaps the hon. Lady has forgotten that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who was her predecessor in the shadow Cabinet post that she holds, opposed state aid. He said that he was not in favour of large public investment to help regions that are hit by job losses and refused to support our decision to give state aid, linked to productivity improvers, to Rover and BMW.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at least the right hon. Member for Wokingham has the virtue of consistency, unlike the hon. Member for Bromsgrove who, in her previous incarnation as a reporter on The Daily Telegraph, denounced state interference, as she would put it, in industry? As a Member of the House, she has often denounced state involvement in the private sector, except when it benefits her constituents.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the absolute confusion in the Opposition's economic policy.

It is worth reminding the Chamber of the real successes that Rover is achieving. In the past decade, it has been the third largest British exporter after British Aerospace and BP. The Rover 75 has won a number of awards, both at home and internationally, including the car of the year award from What Car? It was also voted world car 1999 by top automotive journalists. Land Rover is an enormous success story. Last year, it increased sale by another 16 per cent. to take it to a record level. The Range Rover was the best selling luxury car after Jaguar in Britain last year. Thanks to BMW's investment of more than £3 billion—there is much more to come—and the commitment of the Rover work force and management, the company's prospects are excellent. We need to understand the debate in that context.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and other hon. Members referred to European approval for state aid. There are no rules that require member states to inform the European Commission about proposed investments before they are announced publicly, but it is British Government practice to do that, which is what happened with Rover. Our offer of grant to Rover-BMW was conditional on the securing of European Union approval. That was known to BMW when the offer was made and it has been announced several times publicly.

I am in no doubt that, without the offer of support, BMW would have taken its investment elsewhere. It needed to go ahead with the investment for strategic reasons, but it did not need to come to the UK. The prime consideration for BMW was the impact of the additional investment on the company's overall financial position at a time when Rover cars were incurring significant losses and when an alternative economically viable production site in Hungary was an option. I regret that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has cast doubt on that position. The substantial information that has been supplied to the European Commission since the aid was notified fully bears it out.

It is worth saying that the Hungary option was being seriously talked about a long time before the European Commission decided to examine the issue. On 11 March last year, The Independent quoted BMW's industrial relations director as describing the Hungary option as "a serious alternative" to Longbridge.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who bears out the evidence that has been submitted to the European Commission.

In December, Commissioner Monti announced that he was opening a procedure on the Longbridge case because of his desire to introduce transparency into all such notification of aid by member states. Rover is not being singled out for special attention. The Commission has announced procedures in other recent cases involving Volkswagen and Fiat. It has said that it will apply the approach in all cases of state aid to the car industry.

We have given the European Commission a great deal of information—more than sufficient to support our case and I am hopeful of a successful conclusion to the review. However, when Conservative Members ask that we now stress to the Commission the need for an urgent decision on the matter, I have to ask where they have been for the past few months. We have consistently stressed to the Commissioner and his officials the need for an early decision on the application so that BMW can proceed with the investment and meet the timetable for the new car. I am pleased to say that Commissioner Monti has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State his assurance that the Commission will deal with the matter with due speed. There is no fixed timetable for that process. It is a matter for the Commission, not for the Government.

We shall continue to urge the need for an early decision and we will continue to keep closely in touch with Rover-BMW on the progress that is being made in our discussions with the European Union, just as we keep it in touch with the progress of the European Commission's review. By the time of the next board meeting it will be fully up to date with the status of the review.

I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members feel as I do—that the European Commission needs to streamline and speed up its decision making. I am pleased that the new president of the Commission, Romano Prodi, and the vice-president, Neil Kinnock—a former right hon. Member of the House—are driving forward a modernisation and reform programme to achieve precisely that. Indeed, the Commission has just launched a review of the motor vehicles framework that will include considering the process and the timetable. Its conclusions are expected by the summer.

Will the Minister say when her Department last spoke to Commissioner Monti about the Rover deal? As a consequence of that conversation, were her officials assured that the information needed by the Commission to form a view had been handed over by Her Majesty's Government?

As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken recently to Commissioner Monti and we are satisfied that the European Commission has more than enough information upon which to base its decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and others referred to the Rover supply chain and the uncertainty for many companies, especially those in the west midlands, who have supplied Rover for many years. We must all understand that for Rover to maintain and improve its future competitive position it must have a world-class supply base to match the world-class production facility that BMW will build at Longbridge with its proposed investment.

Throughout the world, not simply in the United Kingdom or the European Union, vehicle manufacturers have been rationalising their supply chain, reducing the number of suppliers that they deal with and trying to secure the economies of scale and technological innovation that can be offered by global suppliers, using the platform now available of intranet and electronic data exchange. Rover-BMW is no exception to that trend. It will certainly mean some difficult decisions, but I am confident that the British suppliers will be able to meet the challenge.

I stress that the rationalisation of the supply chain would take place in any case. The exchange rate issue is only one element of it. Vehicle manufacturing is an intensely competitive sector—that is true worldwide, but it is particularly true in the European market. It means that the car industry, and manufacturing generally, must keep ahead of the game and develop and adopt lean manufacturing techniques and electronic commerce. International comparisons on stock level are a key measure of the success of lean manufacturing and in that respect the United Kingdom's automotive component industry compares well with that of the United States and very favourably with the European industry. That is a testimony to the increasing competitiveness of our supply base.

The Government and the industry know that there is still more to do. That is why we support the industry's efforts to improve its competitiveness through the industry forum that was established by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the trade association. That is a unique initiative which aims to develop and sustain world-leading competitiveness in the UK-based vehicle and components industry, by ensuring that suppliers develop and adopt world-class manufacturing improvement activity and training. Of course, Rover-BMW is closely and actively involved in those important initiatives.

Before the debate ends—

Order. The debate has just ended. Time is up.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce what I believe to be the first debate in the House on the United Kingdom wine industry for almost 16 years.

I want to make it clear at the start of the debate that I am not a wine snob; I have never been able to understand those people who can describe wines as being like a walk down a lane in the autumn sunset and so on. Like most hon. Members, I know what I like—[Interruption.].

Order. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, would Members please withdraw quietly if they are leaving the Chamber?

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Like many members of the public I have always had a preconception about English wine and I confess that until recently it was very negative. I was therefore delighted to be able to taste the wines at Wickham Vineyard in my constituency. I was pleasantly surprised that they tasted superb. The owners of the vineyard had arranged a meeting with the owners of other vineyards in the region who raised several issues about the industry with me. I shall use this short debate to try to raise some of them with the Minister.

There are some surprising facts about the United Kingdom wine industry. For example, I had not realised that because of climate changes resulting in hot summers, the south of England might soon become one of the optimum wine-growing regions. Traditionally, southern France and Spain have been ideal areas for growing wines but they may become too hot. Thus, the south of England could be the best area for good wines.

Members may be surprised to know that there about 400 separate vineyards in the UK. That is not bad for a country that supposedly does not produce and make wine. I understand that the royal household toasted the millennium with a United Kingdom wine: Nyetimber, a sparkling white wine that is grown and made in Sussex. Why Nyetimber? Because it is an internationally recognised wine that has won a number of competitions. It won the sparkling wine category at the Wine and Spirit International competition, beating 8,000 other wines, including the famous Moët. English wines have much to celebrate. There is clearly potential for the industry to grow, and that potential needs to be realised.

We can take encouragement from what has happened in the world in the past 10 or 15 years. The wine industry is full of success stories about upstarts. Ten years ago, people would have laughed at anyone who said that he was buying wine from Australia, New Zealand, Chile or Argentina, but they have been very successful. Wine growers in those countries have been able to market themselves and have caused the French major anxiety. If we get things right, given the climate changes, there is a chance that in 10 years' time wines from United Kingdom will tell the same success story as those from Australia and New Zealand. The Government could help. I shall suggest ways in which they can do so, to which I hope the Minister will have a chance to respond.

European Union laws prohibit us from labelling our wines "quality wines". I shall deal with that and with the use of pesticides and some of the wine industry's concerns about having a level playing field on those issues. I have some questions about the UK licensing laws and the controversial matter of the financial support that the Government can give industry. I want, too, to discuss the positive campaign that the Government could initiate and lead by using more UK wines themselves.

I begin with quality wine versus table wine labelling. At present, a £5 bottle of good UK wine is labelled table wine and a £5 bottle of good French wine is labelled "appellation controleé", which means quality wine. The UK wine industry has rightly asked why it cannot label its wines as quality wines. Although French and UK wines are clearly as good as each other, EU law states that we cannot call most of our wines quality wines because many are produced from hybrid, not pedigree, grapes. A long time ago, hybrid grapes used to have a strange taste, but since then flavours have been modified and perfected, and they now taste just as good as pedigree grapes.

The EU law on labelling is desperately out of date and must be modernised. Pedigree grapes do not make economic sense for the UK wine industry, which must rely on hybrid grapes to survive events such as June mildew. In establishing whether a wine should be labelled a quality wine, the EU must address, not the variety of grape used, but whether the wine tastes good.

Certain other countries are ignoring EU regulations on labelling. Hybrid new world wines that are exported to the UK are labelled as quality wines, but our quality hybrid sourced wine is labelled—one might almost say branded—as a table wine. Something must be done to solve that problem. The Government have tried to help, but they should do more. Their regional wine scheme allows quality UK wines to be called "English counties regional wine", but that is not a great marketing tool with which to take on the rest of the world. More must be done to change EU law, so that our wines can be called quality wines.

There are two ways in which that can be achieved. The first—which I do not recommend, but which the industry wants the Government to consider—is to follow the German Government's example and flout EU laws by allowing our good-quality hybrid-sourced wine to be labelled as quality wine. The second option, which the Minister should consider carefully, is for the Government to give a rock-solid commitment to renegotiate a change in EU law, so that our quality wines can be recognised.

Pesticides and controlling the way in which grapes grow are important issues for the industry. Up to 30 per cent. of grapes are lost each year through mildew. Controlling such losses is clearly essential, because they can devastate businesses in the growing industry. Pesticides to combat problems such as mildew exist and are used by our EC competitors in France and Germany. However, the UK wine industry is unable to use many pesticides because licensing them in this country is too expensive. Licensing the right to use a pesticide can cost a vineyard more than £35,000. Vineyards with small budgets soon discover that such a cost can wipe out the year's profits.

The Government should put pressure on the EC to harmonise EU licensing regulations, so that wine growers in this country can use pesticides that are already licensed elsewhere in the EU. It would be logical for wine growers that have passed EU environmental and safety controls to be permitted to use that licence in this country, rather than go through a separate licensing process which, as I have said, can cost more than £35,000. That would help to provide a level playing field and the necessary tools to overcome problems such as mildew.

I referred to the industry's concerns about licensing laws. If I were a craftsman, I would not stay in my workshop and wait for customers to come to me; I would go out and sell my product. Wine makers are no different, but the licensing laws make it difficult for them to do that. Wine makers want to attend farmers' markets and agricultural fairs. In the past year, the number of town markets has increased and they have proved popular. At any market in France, one sees local wine growers selling their wines and people sampling them. However, our licensing laws make it difficult for UK wine growers to do the same. Even a wine maker who is licensed to sell wine in his own vineyard must apply for a different licence, spend the morning in court and pay extra money whenever he wants to sell his produce at a market. Wine makers with a certain type of licence are sometimes not allowed to sell wine at markets at all.

Everyone wants proper licensee controls to protect youngsters, for example, from alcohol, but there seems to be little danger that licensing laws will be flouted at agricultural fairs or markets by under-age buying. Such markets offer regional wine growers an ideal opportunity not only to sell direct to the public but to influence local businesses and opinion-formers. At the moment, that opportunity is being missed.

The benefits in reforming the law are clear and I ask the Minister to make representations to the Home Office, so that wine makers can apply for a yearly licence that would enable them to attend markets and agricultural fairs. That would be preferable to the overly bureaucratic process of applying for a licence for each event, even where that event takes place monthly.

It is almost lunchtime and I hope that hon. Members will enjoy a sip of wine with their lunch. However, before I conclude, I have a few more points to make about the wine industry. If hon. Members do not know of Wickham Vineyard, which is in my constituency, I invite them to familiarise themselves. Wickham Vineyard supplies the oaked white wine that is available in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that the Minister has tasted it and was suitably impressed. I urge her to encourage her ministerial colleagues to taste English wine—not only wines from my consituency—and to ensure that it is served at official functions. For example, the Department could break with tradition at its next Christmas party and serve UK wine. The Government could ensure that English wine is served at more official civic functions. If the Government were to take that lead, they would boost the industry by showing the world that we are proud of our wine and happy to serve it.

Finally, on the financial support that the Government could give to the industry, they seem strangely unaware of the cross-channel wine trade's impact on UK wine sales. There is a big difference between wine excise duties in the UK and France. In the UK, duty is £1.12 a bottle and in France, it is only 2p a bottle. It is not surprising that, since 1993, when the law was changed, Britons have hopped across the channel and brought back vast quantities of French wine, which I do not doubt was for their own consumption. As a result, UK wine sales have decreased and the impact has been greatest in areas close to the channel tunnel in the south, which is where most vineyards are located. Despite optimism about the industry's potential, one in five vineyards has gone out of business since 1993. Prior to that date and the changes to the licensing laws, the industry was growing.

Is the Minister worried about the channel tunnel trade's impact on the industry? I am not so naive as to suggest that the excise duty, which brings money to the Exchequer, should be reduced. I accept that we must live in the real world, but the Minister must acknowledge that the UK wine industry is suffering as a result of that income. Does the Minister recognise that this is a growing industry that needs our support and does she agree that the Government should consider measures to encourage it?

The Government have rightly provided the cider industry with a considerable subsidy by allowing the first 7,000 litres of cider to be sold excise free. That measure has had a big impact. I have corresponded with the Minister on this issue and I understand that there are technical reasons why the UK wine industry cannot be granted a similar subsidy. However, the principle of Government subsidy for the cider industry, which I support, should, for the same reasons, be extended to the wine industry.

The UK wine industry has shown, through competition, that it can be successful. We know that the climate is changing, and we need to grasp that opportunity. World markets appear to be opening up, and, with good marketing, the public's attitude to wines have changed considerably. They are not now so wedded to the traditional idea of French wine; they are prepared to explore a range of wines from different parts of the country. The industry now needs a kick start and a boost.

I hope that the Minister will address the points that I have made about better labelling, because the UK industry will be held back until we can have quality wine. Until we have a level playing field relating to pesticides, 30 per cent. of crops could continue to be wiped out each year. We also need to address the licensing laws. Above all, I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to give a commitment that the Government will try to use UK wine more freely in civic functions. I hope that they will also get behind the industry and support a big marketing campaign, so that we can proudly say to the world that our wines can compete, and so that, in 10 years, it will be quite common for UK wines to be up there with Australian and French wines.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in this short debate. It is a pleasure to see you, my constituency neighbour in the north-east, presiding over it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman said that this had been the first debate on UK wine for 16 years. I am sure that he is correct; I certainly do not remember one during my time in the House. I am glad that he has given us the opportunity of raising issues that are of concern to the UK wine industry and its future. The hon. Gentleman's constituency contains vineyards and his county, Hampshire, contains about 10 per cent. of the vineyards in the United Kingdom. I therefore understand his interest in the issue.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of climate. He expressed the opinion that, given the climate changes that we have already witnessed, and those that may happen, the prospects for the UK wine industry will be very different. However, we need to retain a sense of realism. Evidence of the favourability of climate is not so strong. Although the weather has become warmer, those warm days can give way to cold, clear skies at night, especially in the early spring, and frosts have been known to damage the early growth of the vine. The question of climate is not, therefore, entirely straightforward. We shall bear it in mind as we examine the future of the UK wine industry, but it may be too soon to make any definite predictions of how it may affect the industry's expansion.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that we are part of the European Union and its agricultural regime, and that the wine industry must operate in the context of the Community's wine regime. The rules of that regime are complex, and we are taking a keen interest in recent proposals to change it. We are interested in the effects that those changes would have not only on the European Union wine industry as a whole, but on the UK industry and its prospects.

Those complex rules often appear, to both growers and Governments, to have been designed to benefit the larger, more established wine-producing members, sometimes to the detriment of smaller-scale producers and of the UK industry. However, the Government defended the interests of the UK wine industry during this year's review of the wine regime as part of Agenda 2000, and established important pointers for the future.

There will be no changes in the permitted wine-making practices. The present arrangement for enrichment with sugar for deacidification, and for minimum natural sugar levels, will continue. That contrasts with a proposal for reform several years ago, which, if implemented, would have created serious problems for the domestic industry. Equally important is that no ban on new vines will be imposed on the United Kingdom until average production over five years exceeds 25,000 hectolitres a year. Despite the hon. Gentleman's confident predictions, it is unlikely that we shall exceed that amount, given that our present production level stands at about 15,000 hectolitres. That would be a rather dramatic expansion. We are, therefore, glad that our position was safeguarded in the recent round of negotiations.

The hon. Gentleman rightly drew our attention to the matter of hybrids, and their use in the wine industry. English and Welsh producers are penalised because the ban on the production of quality wine from non-pure wine varieties—non-Vitis vinifera varieties—will continue. It is also clear that the hybrid varieties in our climate have much to contribute to the success of our industry, as well as being environmentally friendly. The hon. Gentleman was right about the use of hybrid varieties elsewhere in the world.

For those reasons, the Government insisted, and the European Council agreed, that the Commission should finance an independent study into inter-specific varieties, and report to the Council, if appropriate, with proposals for amendment and modification. That report will not be completed until 2003, which sounds like a leisurely timetable. However, one realises that that is not the case when one thinks of the physical requirements of the tests and studies to be carried out in order to provide the database in the European Union that we will be able to use in future.

I commend to the hon. Gentleman the Government's achievement during those negotiations in getting that study under way. Many fierce interests we defended in any negotiation on the European Union wine industry, so agreement on the study was an extremely useful outcome for us. We hope that it will provide the possibility for change.

The new regime, agreed under Agenda 2000, is designed more closely to align production with demand in the European Union. However, it will place no additional requirements on our producers, There are financial schemes available to Community wine producers that have not been available to producers in the UK, but much of that expenditure has been, and will continue to be, on market management arrangements designed to tackle surpluses and chronically low prices in parts of the European Union.

Obviously, English and Welsh wine is not in surplus, and can, and does—in line with the arguments about quality that the hon. Gentleman advanced—command relatively high prices. The decisions that have been made at European level are aimed at a problem that we do not have. Furthermore, member states in which market control mechanisms are in operation have accompanying compulsory requirements, in the form of red tape, that would be inappropriate for our industry, which prides itself on quality and innovation and would not welcome being subject to requirements that are designed to tackle problems that are specific to certain regions of the European Union.

Quality and innovation are the keys to the commercial success of our wine producers, even though the commercial environment in which they operate is demanding. A few years ago, in order to support and encourage our producers, the then Government—I am not making party political points at the moment—introduced a quality wine scheme that promotes high standards through compulsory analytical and organoleptic tests—in other words, professional tests on quality standards.

As the hon. Gentleman said, a similar regional wine scheme, which permits the use of hybrids, was recently introduced. As he expressed some doubts as to the real value of that scheme, I point out to him that it was introduced at the industry's request, and represented a joint attempt by the industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to draw consumers' attention to the variety and quality of our wines. It is better to have that scheme, which covers a variety of areas and kinds of wine, than no scheme at all.

The success of the scheme is monitored by a joint industry and MAFF committee, which meets regularly to discuss and make amendments to the rules in the light of experience, and to consider and evaluate matters such as evolving market conditions. That leads me to the obvious but important point that my Department is keen to work actively and continually with the industry on all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in order both to avoid disadvantaging the industry unfairly in Europe and to look at ways of moving the industry forward in future.

It is possible for the wine industry to apply for grants under some of the schemes that the Government have introduced in recent months. For example, UK wine producers have shown some interest in the agricultural marketing scheme. The Government have brought forward similar schemes as part of their proposals for the rural development regulation.

The Government would be able to consider expenditure for the UK wine industry under Community finance for restructuring. However, it would be up to the industry to come forward with a well-thought-out and detailed plan at the appropriate time. Funds are not likely to be large and, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will know, there is currently huge pressure for available funds from agriculture in general, given the difficulties that are faced by several sectors. Given the nature of that competition, I do not want to sound over-optimistic. However, the possibility exists, and it will be for the industry to consider whether it can take advantage of it.

I shall try to touch on other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised. As he will understand, the level of excise duty is a matter for the Chancellor. Although it is an important issue, we cannot grant producers discriminatory preference on the basis of their location in the UK. We must not fall foul of European rules in that way. Respect for European rules is absolutely crucial at the present time, and I would not want to flout them—as the hon. Gentleman suggested at one point—especially given our difficulties with disrespect for the rules on the part of the French.

Order. Time is up.

I am pleased to have been given this opportunity to highlight the campaign by my constituent, Mr. Raymond Hook, who is here today, to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of his beloved wife, Vicki, on 5 April 1996. In doing so, I shall describe the shoddy way in which Mr. Hook has been treated and the inadequacies of current NHS complaints procedures and, I hope, make a powerful case for the reform of those procedures. I shall also be seeking an assurance from the Minister that she will use her powers to grant the independent medical review for which Mr. Hook has been striving, and to which he is entitled.

Before I continue, I apologise if my delivery is somewhat less energetic than usual. I am suffering from that dreadful flu bug—although not badly enough to prevent me from pressing my constituent's case.

I am aware that there is considerable media interest in the case, and I have been critical of the way in which Mr. Hook has been treated by the NHS. However, I also wish to put on the record my appreciation of the NHS in Berkshire, which coped with unprecedented pressures over Christmas and the millennium period. Those were made worse by the flu virus that I have brought with me today. I have seen a report to the board of Berkshire health authority on its performance over the holiday period, and it makes a mockery of the recent over-hyped scare stories about the NHS that have been appearing in some sections of the national press.

It is worth highlighting three points from the report. First, the detailed planning paid off, and the extra moneys that were made available by the Government were put into primary care, thereby protecting the emergency beds and helping the NHS to cope with the flu outbreak. Secondly, waiting lists were shown to have risen by less than would normally be expected under such circumstances. Thirdly, there was only minimal disruption to the work of the acute hospitals, and they were soon back to carrying out routine elective surgery. That is clearly at odds with the attempts of some of our newspapers to portray our health service as an organisation in deep crisis.

I shall now describe the plight of my constituent, Mr. Hook, and the less than satisfactory service that he has received from the local health authority. Mr. Hook came to see me at one of my regular advice surgeries on 27 March last year, some three years after his wife's death from a brain tumour. Since that time, apart from a period of intense grieving, Mr. Hook has been tirelessly seeking to get to the truth as to why his wife Vicki was not referred by her GP, Dr. Sanders, for a scan in time for medical treatment that stood a good chance of success. He has exhausted all the avenues that are open to him in the face of obstruction and intransigence from the Medical Defence Union and bureaucratic delays, including the unforgivable loss of medical records by the health service management. Mr. Hook has been to the health service ombudsman, who, tragically, could not help. Although his jurisdiction to cover complaints about GPs had recently been extended, it only covered events that occurred on or after 1 April 1996.

The alleged misdiagnosis by Dr. Sanders occurred in January 1996, less than three months short of the qualifying date.

Mr. Hook made his first complaint through the national health service complaints procedure in March 1997, 11 months after his wife's death, and immediately fell foul of the rule stating that a complaint must be received within six months. I do not know how a bureaucrat can be so brutal and heartless as to construct a set of rules that take no account of the depth of grief and loss incurred by someone. It is fundamentally wrong to treat a complaint about plastic surgery in the same way as a complaint about the loss of a life.

After much argument and delay, the objections were overcome and Mr. Hook was offered local resolution. He was told that his complaint would be investigated by the head of the general practice concerned. That led to the second problem—Dr. Sanders was the head of the practice concerned. How could that local resolution be satisfactory? Understandably, Mr. Hook refused local resolution and took his complaint direct to Berkshire health authority. A hearing was established under a convenor in January 1998 to consider an independent review of Mr. Hook's complaint against Dr. Sanders. Despite the ruling that, with hindsight, Dr. Sanders' diagnosis was incorrect, the convenor rejected Mr. Hook's request and he was again referred to the ombudsman. To add insult to injury, Mr. Hook was denied access to the clinical advice that was made available to the convenor. That was monstrously unfair and unjust.

In May 1998, Mr. Hook again wrote to the health service ombudsman outlining the circumstances of his wife's death as he saw them and the failure of Dr. Sanders to refer Vicki to a neurological consultant as a matter of urgency, despite advice from her optician. Tragically, an appointment with a neurologist was received for 24 June 1996, 11 weeks after Vicki's death.

Vicki's medical records for the preceding four years showed constant headaches, blurred vision, double vision, extreme tiredness and the comment "all very bizarre". Despite that, when she visited Dr. Sanders on 12 January, she was told that there was nothing to worry about and that there was only a problem of tunnel vision. During the February of her last year, Vicki's condition continued to deteriorate and she had become incontinent. Dr. Sanders then called in a psychiatrist, who sent Vicki to a psychiatric hospital, which arranged for her to see a consultant neurologist, Dr. Hyam, who immediately arranged a brain scan for the next day. That scan revealed that Vicki had a brain tumour in an advanced state. She was transferred to the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford and died in the intensive care unit following a biopsy on 5 April 1996. Subsequently, Dr. Sanders told Mr. Hook and his daughter that in his opinion the tumour had been forming over the previous four years and that he would have done things differently with hindsight. At around that time, some of Vicki's medical records mysteriously went missing from the local hospital trust in Reading.

Hopeful that the ombudsman would find in his favour, Mr. Hook was shattered to be told that he was still falling foul of the 1 April 1996 rule. He had been sent, deliberately, round the same circle a second time for no purpose.

Not being someone to give up, Mr. Hook commissioned his own medical report. Having finally obtained the necessary medical records, Dr. Rogers produced a devastating critique of the situation on 6 October 1998. It claimed that Vicki Hook should have been admitted to a medical ward much earlier and that, if she had been, it was possible that her life could have been saved. Mr. Hook then presented his new evidence to Berkshire health authority in November 1998 in support of his call for a full, independent, medical review. That was rejected and as the local community health council was unable to help and he had exhausted the NHS complaints procedures, his only remaining option was to seek the help of his Member of Parliament.

I have the greatest respect fo the new chairman of Berkshire health authority, Mr. Bernard Williams, but it was he who eventually ruled that Mr. Hook could not have an independent medical review because Dr. Rogers' work constituted a new opinion rather than new evidence and, furthermore, it was felt that such a move would be liable to a procedural challenge by the Medical Defence Union and result in a field day for lawyers. That is a stunning indictment of the NHS complaints procedures.

I have read the recent evaluation of the effectiveness of the complaints procedures, which was published in September last year by the Public Law Project. It provides instructive but unpleasant reading for those who are responsible for the NHS. For example, it criticises local resolution because it lacks impartiality and transparency. It is scathing about the ability to deal with complaints that raise serious questions about performance, conduct or competence, which may place patients' lives at risk. In other words, it is high time that the conflicts of interest and the impression of professional collusion and cover-up were ended. The report calls for greater independence and efficiency in the establishment of independent reviews.

My constituent, Mr. Hook, asked me to make some specific points when pressing for reform of the NHS complaints system. First, time limits should allow for a proper period of grieving. Secondly, local resolution cannot be achieved with an individual GP practice when the complaint involves the head of the practice or anyone in that practice without some independent input. Thirdly, why are people told that they have only six months in which to lodge a complaint, when it took Berkshire health authority 12 months to decide not to grant an independent medical review? There must be an open and transparent appeals process. Fifthly, relatives of deceased patients must be told of their right to see copies of the patient's medical notes. Finally, is it right that the GP who provides the first medical assessment of the complaint may be drawn from the same health authority area?

I want to read a short extract from Mr. Hook's last letter to me, which makes the case for action more powerfully than I ever could. It states:

"I can fully understand why people stop trying to see an independent review with what I have had to go through for the last three years and I feel it would be better if people's hopes of obtaining an independent review were not put up as an option in the first place. This merely adds to the cruelty of the situation.

If you cannot get a review when two medical reports are completely at odds with each other when can you get one? The word 'independent' is wrong as all decisions taken are 'in house' and are not transparent. My advice to anyone contemplating trying to get an independent review is don't unless you are prepared for many brick walls to be put in front of you and a long hard struggle.

Surely the Government wants an N.H.S. procedure that has the confidence of the public—not one that in certain circumstances leaves the bereaved feeling bitter and disillusioned? Please press our Health Ministers to look again into the situation surrounding my wife's death. We cannot bring her back but I don't want others to suffer as I have been made to."

My efforts have merely moved matters to the desk of the chairman of the NHS region and from there back to the new chairman of Berkshire health authority, but to no avail. Mr. Hook's last hope lies with the Minister, and I trust that she will rise to the challenge. I hope that she will use her powers to grant Mr. Hook his independent medical review and change the NHS complaints procedures to ensure that others are not forced to endure the same indignities that have been imposed so unfairly on my constitutent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) for bringing this case to my attention. I also preface my response by thanking him for his powerful and supportive words about the way in which his local health service has dealt with him in the past few weeks. I offer my sincerest condolences to Mr. Hook for his loss and appreciate that trying to pursue his complaint must have been traumatic for him. I have examined the case and I should make it clear from the outset that he has now exhausted the NHS complaints procedure.

My hon. Friend asked me to use my powers to compel Berkshire health authority to grant Mr. Hook an independent review panel to investigate his complaint further. At the same time, my hon. Friend, using powerful words such as "collusion" and "collapse", said that he wished that the complaints procedure were independent. It is independent in the sense that, as a Minister, I have no powers to order the authority to do anything. The mandatory framework for the NHS complaints procedure is set out in secondary legislation, so it has the force of law. Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues have any authority within that legal framework to instruct the NHS to deal with a particular case in a particular way. That is entirely right and proper.

It is clear from my hon. Friend's remarks that Mr. Hook, having been unable satisfactorily to resolve his concerns through the NHS procedure, approached the health service commissioner—commonly known as the ombusdman. Unfortunately, however, the commissioner could not investigate the substance of his complaint because it related to clinical decisions taken at a time when they were outside his jurisdiction. I can appreciate that this must have been very frustrating for Mr. Hook, but primary legislation, such as that governing the role of the ombudsman, is not generally made retrospective. Inevitably, some people will find themselves on the wrong side of the implementation line.

The ombudsman has some power to be flexible, but only if he has good reason. He will make the decision. He can look at how an NHS body has dealt with a complaint, even if the substance of the complaint is outside his jurisdiction. I do not know whether Mr. Hook has approached the ombudsman about the health authority's handling of his case, but if he has not, he may wish to consider doing so. I remind my hon. Friend, however, that the ombudsman is not obliged to take up every case that is submitted to him, even when it is within his remit. The ombudsman is entirely—and rightly—independent of both the NHS and Ministers.

I turn to the issues raised in the powerful letter, which my hon. Friend quoted, from Mr. Hook, in which he said that he would not want anyone else to suffer as he had. I want to say something about the Government's initiatives, the NHS complaints procedures and the project to which my hon. Friend referred. We must start by recognising that people who are ill are at their most vulnerable. They have a right to expect the NHS to provide them with the treatment that they need and that is appropriate to their condition. That applies whether they contact their GP or have to stay in hospital. The previous Government left the legacy of a two-tier complaints procedure, which we shall tackle shortly. When dealing with a service that relies heavily on human beings, errors will occur, as none of us is infallible. When mistakes occur, it is our challenge to examine the issues and put in place systems that try to minimise human errors to the lowest level possible. Patients and representatives need to express their dissatisfaction and concerns when mistakes are made.

The current complaints procedure was implemented in April 1996, following a major external review of the previous arrangements, which had generally been accepted as unsatisfactory. The new system—if it can still be called new after four years—has been to develop a mechanism that is basically the same, whichever part of the NHS a patient wants to complain about. It focuses on complaints being dealt with quickly but thoroughly at local level. A wholly new, more independent review of the complaint has been introduced for those cases that cannot be resolved by local action. A non-executive director of the NHS body concerned re-examines the complaint and reaches one of three decisions. I remind my hon. Friend that there is often a presumption that because the convenor is a non-executive director, he is part of the system, but non-executive directors are appointed by the Secretary of State. They are an independent part of a local structure and they are expected to act as such.

If the matter cannot be resolved locally, these non-executive directors may reach one of three decisions. They may decide that more can be done locally and advise accordingly. They may take the view that all that could reasonably be done to satisfy the complainant has been done and that no further action can be taken. Finally, they may decide that the issues can be resolved through a formal investigation by an independent review panel.

These changes represent a major sea change and are simply the beginning of a much wider process. The change that is most marked is in the primary care sector. In the past, GPs and family dentists were used to a system that was constrained by having to consider complaints only in terms of whether the standard terms of service had been breached. That was an adversarial, disciplinary approach that tended to leave both complainant and the individual complained about dissatisfied. Now they are expected to have effective practice-based procedures for dealing with complaints. Understandably, it has taken a while for some practitioners to get fully to grips with the new world.

When a system that brings about such significant changes as this one is put in place, it is inevitable that it is not welcomed across the board. Independent commentators have felt the system to be impartial, which is a good deal better than what we had before. We are aware of the criticisms, some of which have been very public—not least the recent report by the Select Committee on Health, when it inquired into procedures relating to adverse clinical incidents and the outcomes in medical care. We shall, of course, respond formally to the Health Committee.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an independent evaluation of the complaints procedure, which is under way. It is a major UK-wide study, it is about half way through its work, and it is looking at all aspects of the system. We need to examine the whole system; it is not piecemeal reform. The study has three key objectives: to highlight barriers to the effective operation of the procedure; to suggest ways of overcoming them; and to identify examples of good practice that can be shared with the NHS as a whole. Again, we want to ensure that good procedures are in place wherever a patient lives. The evaluation project's final report will be submitted to the Department of Health at the end of this year and we shall consider it carefully.

I was particularly encouraged this morning to read the parliamentary briefing issued by the NHS Confederation, which supports the evaluation project and our commitment to a complete and systematic examination of the procedures, rather than piecemeal tinkering at the edges. Such a conservative approach is exactly what we want.

My hon. Friend mentioned the research on the complaints procedures published by the Public Law Project last year. The study focused on the complainant's perspective, whereas one of the key features of our evaluation project is that it will be informed by the experiences of a whole range of people involved in the operation of the procedures. It is worth mentioning, too, that despite the clear statement of consumer focus, the PLP study interviewed only 36 complainants during the two years of its work. Our evaluation will involve literally hundreds of interviews. We welcome anything that will contribute to an informed debate on the issues.

Will the Minister deal with one matter that I raised and say whether the current evaluation, which is welcome, will cover time limits for complaints to be received? If not, will she ensure that it does? My hon. Friend said that Ministers have little power to intervene in complaints. Is she saying on the record that no Health Minister has ever intervened and that Ministers have neither the ability nor the power at least to express a view to the chairman of the health authority?

I remind my hon. Friend that discretion is already available to investigators. Strict time limits are set for medical negligence cases, but discretion to deal with complaints about procedures is exercised by the ombudsman.

As to impartiality, we must recognise that, when Government Departments set up independent structures to investigate procedures, Ministers have the responsibility to satisfy themselves that the structures are formed in such a way that they can respond. However, once the process is started in a particular case, it is impossible for procedures not to be properly followed. In this case, the procedures were followed. However, I would like to take it further.

I do not want anyone to be under the impression that we are not deeply committed to improving the system. It is not perfect. It needs improving, hence the PLP evaluation. Despite our feelings that 36 complaints may be a small base, I put it on record that the team is evaluating the report and there have been continued contacts with the complainants.

In the limited time available, I want to be sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the work that goes into reducing the incidence of complaints arising from the practices of general practitioners or doctors working in hospitals. It is important not to focus only on how to deal with mistakes; we try also to ensure that the number of mistakes is reduced. The NHS should function in a way that keeps mistakes to an absolute minimum, and all parts of the NHS should work to the same standards. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the national service frameworks will help the NHS to achieve that. Clinical governance, underpinned by a statutory duty of quality, will provide the NHS with the mechanisms for translating national standards into high-quality local services. However, neither NICE nor the Commission for Health Improvement can provide a quick fix.

I want to focus on our work in relation to general practitioners and doctors. To meet the high standards that we expect from general practitioners and doctors, we must ensure that those few who do not work hard and with total commitment—I stress that the vast majority do—are dealt with fairly quickly. Last November, the chief medical officer published the consultation document that began the process, entitled "Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients". The second part of the title is the most important. The document sets out a new approach to how the NHS and the medical profession deal with poor professional performance.

The document makes proposals in five key areas. First, it suggests better prevention and earlier recognition of poor clinical performance. Secondly, it would require fast and effective action to evaluate emerging poor individual performances by referring them to an assessment and support centre that will advise on appropriate action. Thirdly, it suggests a consistent approach across all grades and types of doctor, including those in primary care. Fourthly, it suggests a closer working partnership between the NHS, the General Medical Council, the royal colleges and other professional bodies. Last, and by no means least, it would require strong patient participation in the new mechanisms. Taken together, those proposals will create mechanisms that will allow problems to be identified quickly, before patients are put at risk, yet provide the necessary help and support for the clinician.

Separate from those proposals, but parallel with them, the General Medical Council has plans to introduce revalidation, to ensure that the continued inclusion of a doctor's name on the medical register represents an assurance that the doctor has kept up to date in his chosen field and remains fit to practice.

I am only too aware that my remarks will have been of little comfort to my hon. Friend's constituent. I acknowledge that. However, it would have been wrong to offer Mr. Hook false hopes, when the fact is that few options are left to him to enable him to pursue his complaint further. Nevertheless, I would not want him to think that his efforts—and those of my hon. Friend, who has spoken on his behalf—have been in vain. The south-east regional office of the NHS executive will be working with the health authority to ensure that the lessons from this distressing case are learned. And there are lessons to be learned. Equally, it is vital that we get to hear about cases like Mr. Hook's.

If, as the Minister said, procedures had been properly followed in this case, will she please explain why there are lessons to be learned?

Even though procedures have been followed, it does not mean that their implementation cannot be improved or that we should not consider changing the procedures or the framework.

It would be wrong of me to offer hope or to promise something that cannot be delivered, but it is important that cases like Mr. Hook's are brought before such a forum as this, and that we should be able to revisit them. We should not consider only forward-looking complaints procedures, although we recognise that they are not satisfactory. We should look back and revisit the procedures that have been followed.

I assure my hon. Friend that we will give careful consideration to the matters that he has raised today. I would not want him to go away feeling that his time had been wasted. It was a valuable debate, and I am grateful to him and his constituents for being here today.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.