Like other hon. Members, I have been up all night, so if I seem a little inarticulate, it is because I have not had much sleep.

I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was not a good start.

Order. I can see that the hon. Member is going to have some difficulty this morning. He really must not compromise me in that way.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best.

I am delighted to have secured this morning's debate. It is on a subject that has become very worrying in the light of recent Health and Safety Executive reports about data falsification by British Nuclear Fuels plc at its Sellafield reprocessing plant. Indeed, the issue has become even more pressing since I first requested this Adjournment debate, as the problems at BNFL have now forced the resignation of the chief executive.

On 1 December 1999, the Secretary of State for Defence announced his decision to award the contract to manage the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to AWE Management Ltd., a consortium that comprises Serco Defence Support, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Lockheed Martin Corporation. On 1 April 2000, the new contractors will take over from Hunting-BRAE, the consortium that has run the site since 1993. The new contract is worth £2.2 billion and it is due to run for 10 years. The consortium will also manage the nuclear warhead assembly plant at Burghfield on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

That announcement raised several questions in my mind, not least what grounds there could possibly be for awarding the contract to a consortium that included BNFL, a company not noted for the excellence of its record on nuclear safety. Was that decision made on the basis that it would save money, or was it made because Hunting-BRAE's record was felt to be inadequate? Hunting-BRAE was convicted as recently as 13 December 1999 of illegally discharging radioactive tritium from AWE into a stream that passes through the village of Aldermaston and then feeds into the river Thames. The company had previously been fined for a plutonium leak that contaminated two people who worked at the site.

It would be appalling if the Government were to admit that the contractor had been chosen purely on cost. I hope that no Government, of whatever hue, would put cost ahead of safety at such a sensitive site. If the Government's grounds for choosing the new contractor were health and safety, however, as I hope to demonstrate this morning, there are good reasons for thinking that an equally appalling mistake has been made, even when all the concerns about HuntingBRAE's safety record are taken into account.

As time has gone on, and as more details have emerged about the scandal of the fuel rods at Sellafield, I have become increasingly worried about what the reasons behind that decision might be. At its Sellafield site in Cumbria, BNFL manufacturers mix uranium-plutonium oxide fuel pellets—MOX pellets—combining them with other components to make complete fuel assemblies for use in nuclear reactors. The fuel assemblies are then supplied to countries, including Japan, Switzerland and Germany.

Problems arose, however, in August 1999, when BNFL discovered that its technicians were falsifying data measuring the size of the MOX fuel pellets. The Health and Safety Executive called in its nuclear installations inspectorate to investigate. Although the NH report stressed that the matter was a contractual issue between BNFL and its customer—in this case, a Japanese company—it was clear that what had happened was a deliberate breach of operating procedures at Sellafield. BNFL's initial investigation was found by the NII to be too narrow because it had been rushed. It had also assumed that the problem of falsifying data was confined to one shift, which we now know not to be true. The NII concluded that, although various individuals were at fault, there had also been a systematic failure that

could not have occurred had there been a proper safety culture within the plant.

Although there was no excuse for process workers deliberately falsifying data to avoid a tedious job, management allowed that to happen and therefore bore a large measure of responsibility.

A second report, requested by the chief inspector of nuclear installations, found that there had been deterioration in safety performance at Sellafield and once again expressed concerns about control and supervision at the plant. Three significant issues needed to be addressed. First, there was a lack of a high-quality safety management system across the site, a problem compounded by "overly complex management structure". Secondly, insufficient resources were available to implement even the existing safety management system. Thirdly, the report referred to the lack of an independent inspection, auditing and review system within BNFL.

The report concluded:

Without a vigorous independent inspection, auditing and review system, the Health and Safety Executive does not see how BNFL can make acceptable and timely progress in delivering a high-quality safety management system.

If that is true of BNFL at Sellafield, why should anyone believe that such a company will have got its act together in time to take over the management of AWE on 1 April and to deliver a high-quality safety management system there?

It is clear from both the reports that the BNFL management allowed a catalogue of errors to occur at Sellafield and that safety fell well below the standard that NII requires of a nuclear installation. Since the first press stories, five process workers at Sellafield have been sacked, and this week we have heard that the company's chief executive, John Taylor, is also expected to resign. On Monday, The Independent reported claims that the chairman of BNFL, Hugh Collum, had alerted Ministers to his concerns about the company last October, well before the Government announced the decision on the new contract. The investment bank advising the Government on the public-private partnership for BNFL apparently expressed similar concerns. The Government knew that there were significant problems with BNFL well in advance of their announcement of 1 December, so if the contract goes wrong, they must share a large part of the blame.

The Government should also have been aware that Lockheed Martin, another partner in the AWE Management Ltd. consortium, has a safety failure record that—believe it or not—rivals that of BNFL. I understand that the company has managed four sites with a nuclear role on behalf of the United States Department of Energy and that one of them is now under a new contractor. The sites—a plant known as Y12, the Oak Ridge national laboratory, the Idaho national engineering and environmental laboratory and the Sandia national laboratory—have all been subject to safety failures similar to those that occurred at BNFL's Sellafield plant.

I could hardly believe that an Office of Oversight existed when I read about it, but there is something called that in America. Its name does not mean that it has missed something out by mistake, but merely that it oversees other people. The Office of Oversight, working on behalf of the United States Department of Energy, reported that workplace safety and environmental protection at the Idaho plant had deteriorated over four years. In October 1997, two people operating the reactor at the advanced test reactor critical facility were found to have falsified records—that rings a bell—to show that the safety systems had been tested as required when they had not been. The safety systems are supposed to shut down the reactor automatically in an emergency. In the previous month, six workers were contaminated because of the violation of nuclear safety rules. At Oak Ridge, the Office of Oversight found that the rate and seriousness of reportable accidents and incidents was increasing. On 5 November 1999, enriched uranium operations at the Y-12 plant were halted after a practice run failed to demonstrate that the plant was ready for the safe restart of enriched uranium operations.

Lockheed Martin's safety record worries me and my constituents sick, not least because the problems identified by the Office of Oversight closely mirror BNFL's failings. The two companies are remarkably similar. Many hon. Members will have heard the "File on Four" programme about the failures and will be equally worried. It is of particular concern that the Secretary of State, in spite of the findings, decided to award the contract to a consortium that includes not just one but both those companies.

When The Independent published the story about MOX fuel, I immediately wrote to the Minister urging him to reconsider the decision. I have not received a response. During last Monday's Defence questions, in response to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who is also concerned about the future of Aldermaston and Burghfield—I am glad to see him here today—the Secretary of State said that the Government

have instructed the Chief of Defence Procurement to examine the terms and conditions of the new contract to ensure the preeminence of public health and environmental safety as they affect the workers and the facility, and also the general public.—[Official Report, 21st February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1223.]

He went on to say that the NII can impose high safety standards before granting the licence to the new contractors. Frankly, that is not good enough. Indeed, it is of little comfort to my constituents, many of whom are worried about what is going on at Aldermaston under the NII-regulated regime.

The safety records of BNFL and Lockheed Martin speak for themselves and must not be dismissed lightly. The Minister cannot pass the buck by insisting that the Chief of Defence Procurement is responsible and that the matter has passed from his hands.

Even if the safety considerations, hugely important though they are, do not persuade the Minister to cancel the newly signed contract and re-tender it, there is another reason why re-tendering will be necessary. To survive as a company, BNFL needs customers, but its customers know that it has grossly misled them over the sensitive matter of the honest and accurate description of fuel rods. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were the manager of a Japanese, Swiss or German power company, would you dare to purchase fuel rods from a company that had misled you? If you were brave or foolhardy—enough to do so, would you not expect the citizens of your country to rise in protest at such an appalling decision? It is inconceivable that any of BNFL's customers will be willing—or will be allowed by citizens of their countries—to continue to trade with a company that has shown itself to be irresponsible in the handling of highly sensitive materials.

Without customers, BNFL cannot survive. Questions hang over the future of Sellafield. It is reported that other countries are calling on us to shut it down. If BNFL fails to survive, where does that leave the new contract? It might be possible—technically at least—for the consortium to continue as the management of AWE with Lockheed Martin, an American company, in sole control of the United Kingdom's principal nuclear weapons establishment. But even if the contract terms make that a theoretical possibility, and I do not know exactly what is in the contract, I cannot believe that it would be acceptable to any British Government. The only other possibility is that the collapse of BNFL, which must happen, leads to the collapse of the new contract. Would it not be better if the new contract were broken now and re-tendered rather than if it collapsed in a few months?

My constituents' concerns are not based on any hostility to AWE. Indeed, many of them work there. However, they are concerned about its future and want to know that those responsible for managing the site can be expected to put safety before anything else.

It would be much the best thing if the Minister now declared that the safety concerns with respect to BNFL and Lockheed Martin had persuaded him to cancel his newly signed contract. If he will not do that, I predict that the collapse of BNFL will force him into that position in the near future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel), who in this context should, I suppose, be described as my hon. Friend, on securing this important Adjournment debate. Like him, I have been involved in the issue for many years. We both attended the successful community inquiry in Reading in 1993 just after he was elected. That dealt in detail with the health, safety and environmental aspects of what happens behind the wire at AWE Aldermaston.

The community inquiry, which was chaired by the eminent Queen's Counsel, Helena Kennedy, concluded that we suffer from the British disease of secrecy. It is not that my constituents or the people of Newbury, Wokingham or elsewhere want to know how an atomic bomb is made, but they have a right to know that what happens during the process is not a danger to them or the local environment. I share the concerns of many people who have campaigned for many years for a culture of greater openness at AWE Aldermaston.

In 1993, the management regime changed to something affectionately known as GOCOGovernment-owned, contractor-operated. Some naive people, mainly on the left, have argued that that in itself led to a diminution in safety standards. That is fundamentally untrue. The Ministry of Defence will admit in quiet, private moments that many of the problems at AWE Aldermaston occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, when the safety culture was even poorer than it is now. One of the problems of my constituency in particular, being downwind and downstream of AWE Aldermaston, is that at times of flash floods all sorts of radioactive materials are washed off the site. They have probably been buried for many years. The Ministry of Defence and whoever operates AWE Aldermaston do not know where, because the culture at the time in question was so different.

What I have described does not mean that since 1993, when immunity was lifted and the site came under the regime of the nuclear installations inspectorate and other bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive were given a locus, the safety regime has been at all satisfactory; it is just that the lid has been lifted a little. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, there has been a prosecution in Newbury magistrates court. Two workers were contaminated as a result of plutonium leaks. If I may correct the hon. Gentleman slightly, on 13 December—the case is referred to in an early-day motion tabled in our names—the Environment Agency prosecuted the management of AWE Aldermaston for deliberately discharging radioactive material into the Aldermaston stream, which, before it flows into the Thames, flows into the River Kennet, from where Reading's drinking water is taken. That was a flagrant breach of safety procedures and the law, and a matter for some concern.

No wonder local people, including my constituents, are worried about the management regime at the plant. The decision to award the contract to AWE Management Ltd. was for most of my constituents a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. We have heard about the appalling safety record of Lockheed Martin. I have been in contact with several people at AWE Aldermaston and elsewhere. In some cases, for employment reasons, they contacted me anonymously.

When they heard that Lockheed Martin was in the frame for the contract to run AWE, the overwhelming message was, "God help you." As was highlighted, its track record in the United States was little short of lamentable. That was before the blatant and deliberate falsifying of nuclear data at Sellafield occurred.

Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Baroness Symons towards the end of November, informing me of the new management arrangements. I was concerned then, but I am far more concerned now that I have heard what has happened in Cumbria. The resignations and Ministers' statements that followed did not further reassure me—they made me absolutely convinced that the contract must be reviewed and that safety, and the interest of the local and national environment, must be made paramount.

I shall quote from a letter that I received two days ago from a worker at AWE Aldermaston, who signed it "A very concerned Worker". From the style of writing, I think that it is one of several communications that I have had over the past couple of years. It begins:

Dear Mr. Salter, I note from the recent press cuttings that you have some concern relating to the management of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield, although your concerns seem only to be focused on the performance of the current contractor, HuntingBrae. While your concern has an undeniable basis, a far more significant concern has arisen in that AWEML will be taking over the management contract from April 2000 for a… period of 20 years. The first question you must ask yourself, is why did HuntingBrae lose the contract. Current opinion within the workforce indicates a lack of safety performance and a slowness in taking remedial action.

He lists details, and continues:

A further failure may have been the fact that the Liquid Effluent Treatment Plant for Radioactive Waste is still inoperable after eight years, and we are still using a plant that was condemned in 1977.

If it is true that HuntingBrae lost the contract through poor safety performance, why then are AWEML being allowed to manage such hazardous sites, bearing in mind the safety track records of BNFL and Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, which begs the question—

the first question that I should pose to the Minister—

are MOD PE Contracts Branch competent to carry out the required technical assessment.

In recent interviews with Junior Ministers, a lack of knowledge of the poor performance of the incoming contractor both at Sellafield and in the US has been profound.

Interface with AWEML during the lead in phase to the new contract engenders serious misgivings on the new contractors grasp of the management function required to control such hazardous processes.

My correspondent's next point worried me gravely. He wrote:

Throughout the early life of the new contract, the workforce is to be downsized by a further 1,500 personnel, although no specific areas have been identified as redundancy targets.

During the tenure of HuntingBrae the workforce has been seriously depleted, to such an extent that much of the technical knowledge and experience, particularly in the nuclear and chemical process areas no longer exists.

In an instruction to me, he wrote:

What you should be pursuing is the terms of the new contract—

and the way in which the Department concluded that a consortium including Lockheed Martin and BNFL were suitable for managing an atomic weapons establishment.

I should briefly pose five further questions. First, will the Minister give insight into what research the Department did, before awarding the AWE contract, into Lockheed Martin's record in the United States? Secondly, was the Minister made aware of how poor Lockheed Martin's safety record at the four sites that it managed for the Department of Energy in the United States was? Thirdly, is the Minister aware that members of the work force are unhappy that an American company will be running the UK's nuclear weapons plant? Fourthly, exactly what role will BNFL play in maintaining the UK's Trident programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment? Fifthly, have the recent revelations about MOX data falsification at Sellafield caused the Minister to reconsider his decision to award the Aldermaston and Burghfield contract to AWE Management Ltd?

The need for ministerial intervention is clear. Only yesterday, I learned that an electrician was burnt on site at AWE Aldermaston and is currently undergoing treatment at a specialist burns unit for his injuries. AWE's track record on safety, under the MOD, Hunting-BRAE or any other management regime, is simply unacceptable. Will it be improved by the involvement of BNFL and Lockheed Martin? I think not. To put it simply, people who tell lies, falsify data and prove themselves to be untrustworthy should not be allowed to play with nuclear weapons, and they should certainly not be put in charge of this country's nuclear defence capability.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) for asking those questions and for leading the debate on these sensitive issues in recent months.

I share many of the worries of the hon. Members who represent neighbouring constituencies. Burghfield is in my constituency and, as far as I can judge, my constituents' concerns fall into two categories. I say, "As far as I can judge," because I have received only a couple of letters on the issue in quite a long time. However, I suspect that that is not a fair reflection of the underlying concern. Those who are most directly involved express the first concern. Those who work in the organisation are worried in case too many jobs are cut, which not only would affect their immediate family circumstances but might jeopardise safety by removing too many people from the work force. The whole work force needs to be reassured that the new contractors, whoever they may be, will make safety their overriding priority and understand the need to motivate and retain a good work force who are dedicated to that task. That emphasis on safety must come from the top, but it must infuse the whole organisation. We need a work force who are persuaded by their management that safety is their overriding priority and who are given the operating climate and facilities to enable them to get on with the job of ensuring that safety is guaranteed.

The second worry of my constituents is more general. They wish to be reassured that they are living near a safe installation that will not pollute the rivers and jeopardise health. Several inquiries have taken place to investigate whether the incidents that are known to have happened so far have had any adverse consequences on the health of the general population. As the hon. Member for Reading, West said, there may already be several nasty substances on the sites, which might leach into water courses during heavy rains or flooding. We would like to know more about that, as well as about what action will be taken in future to clean up and contain any problem that has accumulated over many years of operation.

Is the Minister at all persuaded by the comments of the hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West that the position is so difficult that the contract needs to be re-tendered? That is one way in which the Minister could proceed, but the Minister must also consider the contractual arrangements that have already been entered into and who else might be able to provide a better future, and he must think about the pickle that he has got himself into by having gone so far against the advice of the hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West. I am not one of those who has wanted to conduct a public debate about the issue because, although I share the enthusiasm of other hon. Members for openness and sensible publication of information, I believe that these sensitive issues are best sorted out by those in the know, whenever possible. I try to achieve that by correspondence rather than by rushing to the local newspaper.

A second possibility, which the Minister may prefer, is to continue with the current contract, which will come into operation on 1 April if nothing else changes. If that were to happen, the least that the Minister could do for the local community would be to explain what action was being taken, especially in the light of the discoveries at BNFL Sellafield, to ensure no repetition of any such conduct under the new contractual arrangements.

Some of the employees and many of my constituents, if asked, would expect a full review and statement from the Minister on how the new arrangements will differ from the mistakes made by participating companies in the past. We should need more than mere words; we should need a formal agreement to show that safety had been written into the contract from beginning to end, that there would be a substantial tightening of working practices and that safety would come from the top and be the absolute priority. It would also be useful if the Minister were to provide a statement on how any accumulated problem in the organisation would be approached. That statement should cover the questions of substances possibly already on site, and of staff training and motivation, so that the concerns expressed by Members and their constituents could be properly addressed.

I make those proposals in a constructive spirit, because this issue is too serious to turn into a party political row. One could say that Ministers were being complacent, or that they were not keeping up with the job. I received some very complacent answers from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—now the Leader of the House—when she was in overall charge of nuclear safety at the Department of Trade and Industry. However, this is not an appropriate occasion for that kind of debate.

This matters to our local communities, and I am here as a representative of my constituency. I agree with much that other Members have said, but I wish to make my own statement in my own way, because it is important for the Minister to understand the feeling in the constituency about the sensitive issues of employment and safety that predominate in local debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on securing this debate. It would have been unnatural if Parliament had not had an opportunity to discuss such an important matter at a time when the contracts for supervision of the two facilities might be about to be changed, against the background of the failures of the existing contractor and by the prospective contractors. It is extraordinary that the Government should place a contract with a consortium, both of whose partners have so dubious a safety record.

The hon. Member for Newbury summarised clearly the track record of British Nuclear Fuels and Lockheed Martin, and I need not go over that ground again. I understand that the Oak Ridge and the Idaho incidents have, rightly, been treated very seriously in the United States, which will affect the willingness of other public authorities—or, perhaps, private corporations—in the United States to put their trust in Lockheed Martin as a suitable manager of nuclear installations.

We have a great deal to be proud of over the past 50 years in the British nuclear industry. It would be wrong to conduct this debate without recognising that Britain had the first commercial fission reactor, and that the Aldermaston facility has done a superb job in providing for our essential nuclear deterrent over 50 years. Safety failures have occurred from time to time, but that should not eclipse the record of considerable achievement, for which we are all enormously grateful.

The British nuclear deterrent played a significant part in keeping the peace, and in our eventual victory, in the cold war. We must pay tribute to the generations of British scientists and engineers who have done a superb job. British Nuclear Fuels, which reprocesses nuclear fuel on behalf of some extremely sophisticated customers, has a fine record. There are no customers more sophisticated than the Japanese, Swiss and Germans. They have placed their confidence in British Nuclear Fuels and, as a result, very important business has been generated in this country.

In marked contrast to that positive record, we should be particularly concerned at recent events at Sellafield, which constitute a betrayal of that record and of the traditions of a plant that has served the nuclear industry and this country well for a long time. It was right for the chief executive, Mr. Taylor, to resign, although I assume that he was unaware of, and certainly did not authorise, any errors of commission or omission in respect of safety procedures under his control. It is right that those at the highest level should take responsibility for such a serious incident. Any putative successor should be made aware that, should a similar incident occur, his career would come to an end as well.

Mr. Taylor has taken the right action, and it is right that individuals involved in safety failures at Sellafield should also be fired, but even that response is not adequate. There is prima facie evidence that deliberate, wilful and reckless breaches of safety rules have been compounded by the falsification of records. I shall go no further than to say that, if that is true, the individuals concerned should be subject to criminal sanctions. It is not for me to pre-judge decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities or the courts. However, Parliament should establish whether the law provides a suitable basis for an appropriate response to allegations not merely of inadvertent omissions—which, although they would not justify a criminal sanction, might justify a sacking but of reckless and deliberate safety failures. In such circumstances, mere corporate sanctions or the sacking of the chief executive is insufficient.

For all the reasons given by the hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Workingham (Mr. Redwood), nuclear safety is important. Before we can reassure the public on this matter, we need assurances from the Executive branch of Government, and I hope that we shall hear them in a moment. It is also important that the legislative branch of Government take the matter on board by ensuring that the law is adequate and the penalties and legal deterrents appropriate to the gravity of the case. Mr. Cook—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing very well, and I do not wish to disturb the flow of his argument. However, all hon. Members will appreciate my reminding him that, when the House, in its wisdom, embarked on this experiment, it was decided that this Chamber should be an extension of the whole House, and that the Chairman be addressed as "Deputy Speaker" unless a Committee is in session. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate guidance on that matter.

I certainly appreciate that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise wholeheartedly for that breach of protocol. This is the first time that I have taken part in a debate in this Chamber, and I hope that that might be considered a sufficient excuse, but I certainly take on board your point and I apologise for my mistake.

The hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham were right to speak as they did. Given their constituents' profound anxieties about some of the recent safety failures, including that at Hunting-BRAE, which appears to have polluted the Kennet, they spoke in extremely measured tones. I can imagine the pressure that would be placed on me if there were a threat, let alone a case, of that kind in Lincolnshire. All three hon. Members showed considerable moderation in their comments. Their demands for reassurance from the Government are entirely reasonable, and I hope that they will be satisfied.

The central questions to which the Minister must give a concrete response are: what confidence we can have that these failures, which appear to be almost systemic in British Nuclear Fuels and Lockheed Martin, will not be repeated under the new contract? What new procedures and sanctions are in place? What is new about the way in which the contract has been framed?

I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with another issue. What is the role of the Ministry of Defence, especially the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, in such contracts? The Government plan to privatise DERA; they expect to raise £250 million pounds from doing so, and if they do not get it there will be another hole in the military budget. Is DERA acting as a dispassionate adviser to the Government on the specifications and negotiations involved in the contract? Is it a source of reliable independent technical advice—which the Government clearly need—or a potential rival bidder for the contract? In other words, is it one of the companies, which hon. Members have asked the Minister to list, that is an alternative to the Lockheed Martin and BNFL combined consortium? Clearly, one organisation or corporate entity could not adequately fulfil both roles without conflicts of interest arising.

Safety requires three key elements. First, it requires engineers and scientists of the greatest technical competence. Secondly, it requires the highest motivation and integrity—not only internal integrity, but an external framework of discipline in safety that includes the necessary sanctions for misbehaviour. That is essential in generating a culture in which safety is considered to be a central and non-negotiable element of the conduct of operations. Thirdly, it requires a proper set of checks and balances. A clear distinction between the role of the contractor and that of the customer is essential, so that it is plain who is advising one and who is advising the other, and how the chain of responsibilities operates. There must be no conflict of interest and no fudging of responsibilities.

I believe that I can help the hon. Gentleman about DERA. The letter that we received from Baroness Symons when the contract was awarded stated that two consortiums had been unsuccessful, one of which included Hunting-BRAE. DERA was a member of that consortium, and is thus part of one of the competitor consortiums that bid for the contract when it was awarded to AWE Management Ltd.

As the hon. Gentleman may have surmised when I was speaking, I had at the back of my mind a slight suspicion that circumstances might be as he just described. I preferred to ask my question of the Government openly. Nevertheless, a response is required. It is important that we receive the relevant assurances from the Government. Time constraints should not interfere with the Government's ability to deal authoritatively with such important issues.

I certainly do not feel constrained by time. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) excused himself for his performance on the grounds that he had been up all night in the Division Lobby. We would not otherwise have noticed. Unusually, and unnaturally for a Liberal Democrat, his speech was remarkably brief, which has allowed me more time.

Before I respond in detail to the points made, I want to take the opportunity to send best wishes on behalf of all hon. Members to the member of the contractor's staff who suffered flash burns in an electrical accident at Aldermaston yesterday. He is in a stable condition in hospital, and we hope that he makes a speedy and complete recovery. As you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been asked to withhold his name to protect the feelings of his family. We do not yet have a report on the circumstances or causes of the accident, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) did not wish to imply that we already knew those circumstances, or that there was a particular cause.

On the main point of this debate, the MOD fully shares hon. Members' concerns about the safety record of the consortiums that bid for the running of AWE at Aldermasteron, and, indeed, the winning consortium. The Ministry fully supports the strong line taken recently by the Department of Trade and Industry in setting up an inquiry into BNFL's safety culture at Sellafield. That is clear evidence that the safety watchdogs established to oversee nuclear installations in this country are willing to act independently, quickly and robustly when incidents of such a nature are identified. I applaud such vigour, and I am sure that the watchdogs would be equally critical and responsive should such an incident affect any MOD installation.

As hon. Members know, the Department of Trade and Industry is due to produce a detailed report on BNFL by the middle of April, which slightly constrains today's discussion, in terms of the Government's response. Clearly, it would be inappropriate and imprudent for me to prejudge the issue today; I am sure that hon. Members will understand that. However, I should stress that the MOD is working closely with the officials carrying out the inquiry, to examine whether there are implications for safety operations at Aldermaston. Not only will we study the inquiry's findings carefully, as hon. Members would expect, but, if lessons are to be learned, the MOD will insist that they are fully implemented. Furthermore, I emphasise that, if necessary, existing contractual arrangements will be extended, or direct MOD management imposed, until new appropriate arrangements are made for the longterm running of the site. It is unusual to reach such a conclusion first, but it is appropriate in view of the concerns expressed by hon. Members. It makes clear the direction in which the Government are moving.

I am also aware that similar criticisms were levelled in the media, and repeated in this Chamber today, in relation to Lockheed Martin, which is one of the three shareholders in the new consortium. Those criticisms relate to its safety record at its facilities in the United States. Those facilities are subject to the closest scrutiny by the US regulatory authorities. In line with our traditional strong relationship with the United States on the defence and the scientific side, which has rightly been the subject of many comments in the House over the years, we understandably maintain regular contact with them.

The United States Department of Energy, the responsible authority, recently issued a report on an incident at the Oak Ridge facility in December last year, in which a number of workers were injured. We are studying the findings to see whether there are any lessons to be learned for AWE. However, the independent British nuclear installations inspectorate reviewed the incident at the time, as it does all incidents that may have a bearing on operations at Aldermaston or elsewhere, even if they take place outside the United Kingdom, and concluded that the Oak Ridge case had no bearing on the operation of our installation at Aldermaston. Hon. Members who have had any involvement with the nuclear industry will know that there is a regular exchange of information between the major operators and inspectors around the world to ensure not only that lessons are learned in each country but that the highest standards are maintained.

The media suggestions that Lockheed Martin's contract to run the Oak Ridge site has been shortened as a result of its alleged poor safety record appear to be unfounded. We have looked into the matter, and I am advised that the contract has been extended and that the company is competing for the new contract when the current one expires.

As the Minister probably has better sources of information than I do, will he confirm, or perhaps refute, the suggestion that has been put to me that the United States Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, has refused Lockheed Martin permission to restart operations at the Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee

because of security concerns and its—

Lockheed Martin's—

failure to demonstrate in a practice run that it was ready for the safe restart of enriched uranium operations?

Is that report correct?

I am not sure whether two issues are getting mixed up here. One is the general relationship between the United States Department of Energy and Lockheed Martin. The second is its view on whether a certain plant is technically ready and able to start up. One could have confidence in a company's general competence, but might consider that a piece of equipment was not yet ready and required further work and testing, particularly in the nuclear industry, to have the greatest possible assurance that it would run satisfactorily. There are a number of extremely competent defence contractors, but we would not necessarily accept a piece of equipment if we were not satisfied that it was technically compliant.

I shall look into the quote from Bill Richardson. However, following our inquiries, our opposite numbers in the United States Department of Energy have not suggested that their confidence in the company's overall performance has been undermined by the recent incidents. I give the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) the undertaking that, if he will let my office have a copy of the item to which he referred, we shall look into the matter. For the reassurance of the residents in the area, as well as anywhere else, we want to be clear about any uncertainty felt by anyone, especially someone of the standing of Bill Richardson. Previously, he was the United States representative at the United Nations and a distinguished congressman for New Mexico, a state that contains several of the USA's nuclear facilities, including the Sandia laboratories and the Los Alamos facilities.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 February, we have instructed the Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley, to examine the terms and conditions of the Atomic Weapons Establishment contract to ensure the preeminence of public health and safety as it affects the public and workers at the facility. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the skill and expertise of the plant workers, many of whom are at the leading edge of technology and science, in maintaining and advancing our nuclear deterrent. It would be improper not to use the debate to report the public's appreciation and understanding of their capability and dedication.

I am grateful to the Minister for his commendation for the staff concerned. However, will he tell us why the Chief of Defence Procurement has only now been asked to consider whether the contract is sufficient in terms of its emphasis on health and safety? Would it not have been rather better to consider the contract before deciding what would be the new consortium?

With the conduct of an installation such as AWE Aldermaston, safety questions are inevitably at the forefront of our thinking. In the light of incidents extraneous to Aldermaston, notably at Sellafield but also in the US, it was only right and proper to ask the Chief of Defence Procurement for further examination and insurance. That seems appropriate, and I can imagine the criticism that we would have faced had we not done so. It does not mean that we believe that the procedures are unsatisfactory, but it is obviously right to take this action, due to current public and parliamentary concern.

We have also insisted that all BNFL nominations to senior positions at Aldermaston are fully vetted and are unconnected to the incidents at Sellafield. That is important in the light of hon. Members' comments in the debate. If necessary, BNFL will be asked to replace nominations with other candidates of proven experience and reliability.

However, I stress that the safety of the Aldermaston site has always been our top priority, and we are determined to ensure that safety is not compromised for any reason. The new consortium is due to take over operations at Aldermaston at the beginning of April, subject to the caveats that I mentioned earlier. It will happen only if the independent regulator, the nuclear installations inspectorate, is fully satisfied that the consortium is in a position to implement the highest safety standards possible and is therefore willing to issue a licence to run the site. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford outlined the need for checks and balances, and the independence and vigorous approach of the inspectorate is a real check and balance in the nuclear industry in this country.

The licence is a precondition for the new contract to take effect. Even then, the licence can be revoked by the inspectorate at any time if safety standards are neglected for any reason. In addition, the Ministry of Defence maintains full-time compliance officers at the site, with the authority to inspect any aspects of activities and to examine any report or paperwork relating to operations. If those officials have any qualms over safety matters, they are obliged to report them immediately to the MOD. Again, the Ministry of Defence—as the customer—has the power to suspend operations at the site and to cancel the contract at any time if safety matters are being affected adversely. I want no one to be in doubt that we shall exercise those powers if the situation requires it.

I am delighted that the MOD will not shirk its responsibilities to suspend operations or the licence if there is proof of safety breaches at AWE Aldermaston. Will the Minister say how many prosecutions it will take for the MOD to adopt that position? How many rivers will have to be polluted? How many prosecutions will there have to be in a magistrates court? Can we know what is, and what is not, an acceptable level of breaches of safety procedure under the law?

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall deal with that matter when I deal with individual safety incidents. I stress that we shall insist on retaining the high level of safety standards that is already maintained. We shall be looking to whoever operates the site to act positively to improve current standards.

Before I come on to the record of Hunting-BRAE, on which I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, it would be as well to go into the history of the site and explain how the particular situation has arisen with regard to its management. In the middle and late 1980s, AWE was struggling to complete its capital building programme and, equally significantly, to recruit, train and retain staff in sufficient numbers to cover the increase in work load that was created by the need to build and deliver the warheads for the new Trident system. For several years, such a problem had seriously concerned the Select Committee on Defence, which, as late as 1989-90, expressed the view that

the manpower difficulties to which we referred last year have worsened … Unless the remedial measures proposed prove effective, there is now a significant risk that some elements of the programme may fail to meet their scheduled delivery dates.

The remedial measures that the Defence Committee had in mind had been announced on 5 December 1989 by the Ministry of Defence. They involved the full contractorisation of the establishment, with land, buildings and other assets remaining in Government ownership—Government owned, contractor-operated, a GOCO site. The Ministry of Defence added that that move would require legislation and, until that could be achieved, it intended to appoint a managing contractor who would concentrate initially on manufacturing work and site support, and who would strengthen the establishment by bringing in, during 1990, a small number of experienced managers from the private sector. The MOD emphasised that there would be no change in the direction or purpose of the establishment's programme and that the first objective was to reinforce rather than replace existing AWE management.

It is worth while for me to dwell on the concerns of the Select Committee at that time. It was told that safety considerations would be one factor in the award of the eventual contract and that it was one of the areas where it was intended that the contractor would not be allowed to change or compromise on the current high standards. However, the Committee considered that, although the MOD compliance office would provide additional levels of scrutiny and audit, there was clearly some potential contradiction between the imposition of new management who were intent on change and the need, rightly, to maintain the existing safety culture. The maintenance of high standards in the face of management pressures to reduce costs would, thus, be dependent on the calibre of staff and resources allocated to the compliance office.

The issue of radiation dose limits was a further factor that concerned the Defence Committee, with potential contractors having to bear in mind the possible financial implications for future liability for compensation.

The 1989–90 Committee concluded:

It is essential that the move to contractorisation is not rushed and that the details are very fully worked out before the contract is awarded. In particular, safety and security issues should be fully explored, and detailed and binding standards applied to all four sites set out in the invitation to tender and in the eventual contract. The financial implications of the proposal need further consideration and we remain concerned about the potential for conflict between commercial pressures—the need to make profits—and the requirements of the health and safety of staff at AWE and of the general public, of security and the work programme. We hope that by the time we come to take evidence on this subject again, the MoD will have made greater progress in establishing the detail of its plans and be able to offer satisfactory assurances on these points.

I mention those points because many of the concerns expressed by hon. Members were similar to those that we have heard today; in other words, that has rightly been a continuing theme.

By the 1991–92 Session, the Committee noted the MOD view that the interim contractor had made an encouraging start and had continued to meet stringent safety and security standards while achieving its programme commitments. The most significant element of that Committee's report, however, was that, for the first time in several years, it expressed no concern about AWE's ability to recruit and retain the necessary staff.

In the event, Hunting-BRAE took over the management and operation of AWE under the first term contract on 1 April 1993. As hon. Members will know, Hunting-BRAE was one of the companies that sought the new contract. Hon. Members asked about the composition of the various consortiums. The Hunting-BRAE contract included the existing members Brown and Root, Hunting Engineering and DERA, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. AWE 2100 comprised Babcock Facilities Management, W. S. Atkins plc and an American firm, Science Applications International Corporation. The winning consortium, AWE Management Ltd., comprised Serco Defence Support, a British company, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Lockheed Martin, which, although primarily an American company, has a significant and increasing presence in Britain, which is very welcome.

In the seven years since Hunting-BRAE took over, it has delivered the programme. It has done so without increasing staff numbers. In fact, the numbers now employed at AWE are substantially lower than at the start of its tenure. Impressive as those achievements are, they would have been of no benefit if safety standards had been allowed to fall. I am pleased to remind hon. Members that no such diminution occurred.

The 1992–93 Committee noted that there had been several safety-related incidents at the establishment over the previous 15 years, the most recent involving the release of a small amount of radioactive material from a damaged container on 8 December 1992. The Committee reported that there was some unease among staff and members of the public and that that could best be assuaged by an independent assessment of safety levels at AWE. It therefore welcomed the fact that the Health and Safety Executive was undertaking a review of safety procedures and emergency arrangements and considered it important that the findings were made available to the public.

The results of that review were, and remain, important. The Health and Safety Executive concluded that, although AWE was acceptably safe, its safety arrangements were not demonstrably safe, and weaknesses existed in health and safety management. The HSE made 18 primary recommendations and a further 46 to which it required a response. It referred not to Hunting-BRAE, which had only just taken over the contract, but to the circumstances inherited from the previous management regime.

Most significantly, the HSE recommended that the Secretary of State for Defence should remove AWE's immunity from the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which would make the establishment subject to nuclear site licensing and bring it in line with other civil nuclear facilities. That immunity was subsequently removed, and Hunting-BRAE went on to achieve site licences for the Aldermaston and Burghfield sites in July 1997.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West asked about prosecutions. Two prosecutions were brought by the nuclear installations inspectorate. The first was brought on 18 February 1997 under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, and involved an employee working with adhesives in a confined space who was overcome by fumes. The company involved was fined £2,000 and a further £2,000 costs. However, although the incident was regrettable and unfortunate, it did not involve nuclear materials, being more of a traditional industrial accident.

The second prosecution, which has already been mentioned, was brought under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 following an incident on 15 December 1997, when plutonium oxide was released during removal of a filter and was inhaled by three workers. The company was criticised for an inadequate safety culture, and was prosecuted and fined £22,000 with costs of £3,000.

The third prosecution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford mentioned, was brought by the Environment Agency and related to discharging water contaminated with tritium into the Aldermaston stream. The Environment Agency stated that the discharges did not present a threat to public health or to the environment and, indeed, accepted that AWE could continue to allow such discharges. The Environment Agency's complaint related not to the nature of the discharges but to the fact that Hunting-BRAE had not sought formal permission from the Environment Agency to allow the discharges as it should have done.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the discharges were within limits but were unauthorised. However, the company had no way of knowing whether the discharges would be within limits, because they were the result of flash flooding on the site and the inability of the ground water storage system at North Ponds to cope. The incident involved low-level radioactive unstable nuclear material, and the company had no idea how much was involved. Because of the inadequacy of its control mechanisms, it had no option but to allow the discharge to go into the water course. In different circumstances, the company might have reached recommended safety limits.

The level of radioactive tritium in the tanks was sufficiently low as not to pose a threat to health, as the Environment Agency fully accepted. It was not a case of keeping dangerous materials that were fortuitously diluted; there were low concentrations of tritium, and, as I understand it, the Environment Agency had subsequently accepted AWE could continue to discharge down that route. It was rightly concerned about what it saw as inadequate procedures in AWE for seeking and obtaining authorisation to take such action, and it is right that the organisation should be called to account for that. We must get the issue into perspective to decide whether there was or would have been a threat to public health. We should bear in mind the way in which the media tend to deal with anything radioactive and the fact that the public are not necessarily able to ascertain levels of radioactivity and risk.

I may have some advantage over my hon. Friend, perhaps because he has not been fully briefed. Is he aware that one of the reasons why the management of AWE Aldermaston was in the invidious position of having to let an unknown quantity of contaminated water run into the water courses was that the Pangbourne pipeline was operating to capacity? Is it not a matter of severe concern that the pipeline is starting to flake? The management of AWE Aldermaston has a problem: if it puts too much water down the authorised route, uncontrolled amounts of plutonium and uranium will flake off the scale that has built up on the pipeline for 40 years. Shortly, Ministers will have reports on their desks recommending that the Pangbourne pipeline be shut down and that an evaporator be installed. Would that not be a far better way of avoiding this Mickey Mouse system of getting rid of contaminated water from a contaminated site on the edge of my constituency?

Again, my hon. Friend has included the answer in his question. The matter would be resolved by engagement between AWE and appropriate regulatory authorities. It was self-evident in his points that they are engaged in those discussions, and we will await the outcome. That is the right way to proceed and it provides the checks and balances that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said were required in the system. We must ensure that those checks and balances are working, and my hon. Friend's contribution showed that they probably are.

The Minister is describing failures relating to safety procedures that are found to be inadequate by experience and to inadequate investment and renewal of equipment. Does he accept that corporate sanctions are appropriate in such cases? The ultimate corporate sanction is to deny a contract and to exclude the company from future bidding; other corporate sanctions involve fines. When different cases arise, however, I hope that the Minister will accept my earlier argument. I referred to cases in which procedures are in place but in which individuals wilfully and knowingly decide to breach them and, as was alleged about Sellafield, extend their misbehaviour by falsifying records. Does he agree that criminal sanctions are appropriate in such cases and does he believe that the criminal law is adequate for that purpose? I hope that he will address that specific point before he concludes his remarks.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray beyond the bounds of my ministerial responsibility, even if not beyond those of the debate. His points should be directed at Ministers responsible for legislation on health and safety at work, for nuclear safety legislation and for the control of hazardous substances. He may need to check how his Front-Bench colleagues feel about extending the concept of corporate liability, but he may be aware that some moves have been made in that direction. I fear that we are stepping beyond the bounds of the Ministry of Defence and into areas controlled by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment.

As well as the cases that I have mentioned, eight enforcement notices and 22 lesser communications have been issued by the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Environment Agency. Like prosecutions, those notices demonstrate the vigorous independence of the regulators and their determination not to compromise on safety at nuclear installations.

The Minister said that the new consortium was still seeking a safety licence. Will he tell us what safety remit or requirement is being imposed on that consortium in the run-up to the granting of a licence? Has that remit been strengthened or amended in the light of recent events?

The body that grants the licences, the NII, is independent of the Ministry of Defence, the Government and companies. It would be improper for the Government to engage directly in discussions between the incoming or outgoing consortiums and the NII. The inspectorate has an independent role within the regulatory framework. Consequent upon changes in legislation, Aldermaston and Burghfield are being treated as civil nuclear installations for the granting of licences.

As I said in response to a previous query—this may answer the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—we are satisfied with the safety provisions of the contract. In view of the present controversy, we believe that it is appropriate to ask the Chief of Defence Procurement to revisit those sectors to ensure that measures providing for the maximum possible safety are included in the contract. However, that is slightly different from the licensing of a company by an independent regulator.

I partly accept that, but I hope that the Minister understands that the public and Parliament regard the Government as the ultimate custodian of public safety and public interest in the matter. It is not of much interest to the public to know that different people with different hats are responsible, and that the Minister cannot answer for them.

I hope that the Minister will extend his answer a little to try to offer my constituents and those of the other hon. Members here today some reassurance that, in view of the public's concern and the concerns mentioned by the two hon. Members who represent the area, the Government have taken a grip on the matter, that higher and better standards are expected and that they have taken appropriate action.

The Department of Trade and Industry has ordered an inquiry into Sellafield. I am reluctant to be drawn into speaking of the independence of the regulatory authorities on matters of health and safety, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. We would rightly be criticised if Departments that could have a direct interest were seen to intervene directly in the affairs of independently appointed regulators. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that propriety must be maintained. That does not mean that Ministers and Government are unmindful of the need and desirability for health and safety matters to be considered, but it is enormously important that we maintain the integrity and perceived independence of the regulatory bodies. I accept that, when there is a question of profit and loss or pricing levels, more of a public debate is held. However, the Government—as customer, not just as legislator—should have an interest in the health and safety implications of their operations. Equally, it is vital for the maintenance of public confidence that we respect the independence of the regulators and the licensing authorities.

Within that context, I reject media suggestions that Hunting-BRAE lost the contract because it had a poor safety record. Indeed, hon. Members made allusions in that direction today. It is untrue. All three of the consortiums involved in the bid were fully compliant on safety standards. That is one of the main criteria for being considered in the first place. Hunting-BRAE did a good job of running AWE. That was one of the factors that encouraged the MOD to renew the Government-owned, contractor-operated system. Hunting-BRAE also put together a strong bid for the new contract. Indeed, all three bids from the consortiums that I identified were impressive.

During its tenure at Aldermaston, from 1993 until now, Hunting-BRAE positively promoted a safety culture by encouraging staff to report, on a no-blame basis, and anonymously if preferred, any safety-related incidents that came to their notice. Several thousand such incidents were reported, the great majority of them minor. Supported and encouraged by the MOD, the company also adopted a policy of transparency on safety matters. That included establishing local liaison committees, whose members, including local people, as hon. Members will know, are regularly briefed by officials from AWE, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Environment Agency.

Since we are getting close to the end of the time allowed, will the Minister use some of it to answer two further questions? He has just told us that he did not exclude other consortiums for safety reasons. Can he therefore tell us on what grounds the successful consortium was chosen? Also, will he deal with my earlier point and tell us whether he or his Ministry conducted his investigation into the likelihood that, given BNFL's problems, there would still be a BNFL in a few months' time? How did that affect his choice of consortium?

The winning consortium was ahead in all apects of the requirement, although all the bids were compliant. I outlined earlier how we shall respond on the other matters following the outcome of the inquiry next month.

The Minister gave an outline of future possibilities for BNFL, but I was asking what effort he made before the contract was awarded to look into the possibility that BNFL might not exist in a few months' time.

BNFL exists and is a major company. It would be improper to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry.

The site, as I said, is also open to visits from interested parties such as Members of Parliament, and it attempts to publish as much information as possible about its activities. It is ironic that many of the media scare stories about AWE, billed as the results of investigative journalism, rely heavily on information put in the public domain by the company, but quoted misleadingly. Safety reports are regularly placed in the Library of the House of Commons. The local liaison committee includes councillors, members of the public and local authorities. Annual reports are published and presented to the public and there is transparency of safety incident reporting among the staff.

Hon. Members will recall that newspaper reports in October claimed that AWE had been at risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident several times in the previous 12 months and that it broke safety guidelines so often that only luck had prevented an accident worse than that at Tokaimura in Japan. That is simply not true. It was sensational journalism of the worst kind, and I am sure that the Members of Parliament concerned deplore it. We are pleased that Hunting-BRAE has tried to promote an open culture.

In conclusion, although the consortium will have the day-to-day responsibility for running the Aldermaston site, it will be subject to independent safety regimes, many of which I have outlined. Those will include Ministry of Defence compliance officials operating at Aldermaston, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and the NII.

I begin by apologising because, although it is Wednesday morning in Westminster Hall, I am still in Tuesday night. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I make mistakes.

The debate is about housing in London. London is the capital, but it is also a world city, bearing comparison with Tokyo and New York. As a result, it attracts people from all over the United Kingdom and the world. It is a city of diversity. Many communities live within London's boundaries. They have different cultural backgrounds and many languages are spoken. It is also a city of contrasts. Great affluence sits beside deep-seated deprivation. For example, the City of London is probably the most affluent area in the European Community, but it sits cheek by jowl with Tower Hamlets, which is one of the most deprived areas. Nowhere are those contrasts more stark than in housing. London is a city of mansions and slums. It is two different cities, and there is inevitably a great disparity betwen the housing choices that are available to the citizens of those two cities.

The pressure on housing in London is acute. That has an impact on all aspects of London life, from the needs of the London economy to the life chances of its ordinary citizens. In the public's mind, the pressures that are associated with housing are those that are highlighted in newspaper headlines on soaring house prices or market rents. Often, however, the pressures involve that other city within the city and reflect the problems of homelessness, which is vividly displayed by the common sight of people sleeping in central London streets. For many Londoners, the idea of housing choice is an illusion.

The more affluent people in London look to the owner-occupied sector to solve their housing difficulties, but during the past year, prices have spiralled by 23 per cent. In January this year, the average price for a London house was £159,000, and a first-time buyer had to pay £120,000. The comparison of those costs with the average salary of key professionals, especially in the capital's public sector, displays a stark difference. A teacher who works in outer London is lucky to earn £20,000 and would probably earn less than that, perhaps about £18,000. Such a person is priced out of the market. He or she would probably be able to take out a maximum mortgage of just over £50,000, which would not go far in the context of prices in London today. Indeed, two teachers who are a married couple might just about be able to buy a home, but they would still be far short of the average amount needed by first-time buyers in London.

In a yet-to-be published report on house prices sent to me by the London chamber of commerce, the rapid increase in house prices was characterised as reminiscent of the boom in the late 1980s. That is not the only organisation to make that comparison. Indeed, last week, at a lunch for mortgate companies, Howard Davies outlined some research carried out by the financial service authorities into the nine biggest mortgage lenders, which have more than 50 per cent. of the mortgage market. The report highlighted the increasing generosity in lending by those mortgage companies, which are using salary multipliers of three and a half to three and three quarters. In addition to that generous lending, there is an estimated £83 billion of non-mortgage debt in the marketplace, we have high interest rates and, unlike in previous housing booms, inflation is unlikely to erode the value of mortgages because it is so low. That combination of factors led Howard Davies to urge lenders to act more prudently.

There is no mystery about why Howard Davies suggested that. Last year—eight years after the previous recession—30,000 properties were repossessed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the spiralling increase in house prices must be moderated. I would go further and say that, in consultation with those who set mortgage interest rates, the Government should consider introducing measures that will create sustainable home ownership. The previous Government failed miserably on that project and I hope that this Government will make a better fist of it.

There are more modest increases in the private rented sector—just 9 per cent. last year. A typical twobedroomed property, if someone is lucky enough to find one, costs £278 a week. A similar property in Manchester costs £65. That shows the disparity that has emerged in the private rented sector between the capital and the rest of the country, which can be traced back to a decision by the previous Government during the late 1980s to deregulate rents. The Minister at the time said, "Let housing benefit take the strain." Well, it did take the strain, and they did not wait long before deciding to introduce restrictions on the amount of housing benefit that they would allow to take the strain. Those restrictions took the form of local reference rents and single room rents. However, because of the concern and scepticism about the impact of the introduction of those restrictions, they agreed to review the operation of local reference rents and single room rents after two years. The Conservatives were no longer in government two years later, but the review was carried out by the present Government, and it demonstrated what most people at the time already thought: that, if a cap is put on housing benefit, that will undoubtedly restrain it. I am afraid that there is little evidence that the much-vaunted prospect that it would restrain rent increases has happened. There is a lot of evidence, however, that it has had no effect in London. The Conservatives' proposition has not come to pass.

The important feature is the impact on tenants. Research conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security said:

Few tenants were successful in negotiating lower rent levels with landlords … landlords said that they would rarely reduce the rent when a tenant was facing a shortfall as they saw paying the rent as the tenant's responsibility.

The evidence from reports and research suggests that the shopping incentive represented by local reference rents and single room rents does not work. As the departmental report says, landlords will not reduce rents, an especially important factor in areas such as London where there is a gross shortage of rented accommodation, and where all power is in the landlord's hands. Severe hardship is placed on tenants because shortfalls must be made up, normally through their ordinary benefits. The report also shows that, in almost four in 10 cases, the shortfall was about £20 or more. Inevitably, tenants had to take a large sum from benefit or fall into arrears. Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who have fallen into arrears and have eventually been evicted from their properties.

What is the net outcome of the two years' experience of the shopping incentives introduced by the previous Government? The Residential Landlords Association commissioned a report based on the Government's housing benefit statistics. It claims that more that 300,000 low-income tenants in England have been driven out of the private rented sector by the housing benefit restrictions since 1996.

The problem in the social rental sector is not affordability, as it is in the other two sectors, but access. Access is difficult because there is an acute shortage of suitable and affordable accommodation. That is a major issue for all London Members of Parliament. The problems in inner London, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke some weeks ago, were reflected in parts of outer London. One in four of the constituents who come to my surgery are involved in housing difficulty; the cases are mixed, but the vast majority relate to the lack of affordable rented accommodation. Neither the local authority nor I can do anything tangible to assist them. The situation must be remedied. The reason why it is so stark is relatively straightforward—250,000 housing units in London have been lost through right to buy since 1980 and have not been made up. There has been some building, a substantial proportion of which has been in the housing association sector, but it goes nowhere towards making up that loss.

Factors other than right to buy are involved—the matter is more complex than that. Net new lettings in the social sector in the past two years have fallen by 17 per cent., causing a crisis in the London housing market. The consequence has been greater housing stress, especially for those on low incomes who have limited choices. That is reflected in many different ways, one of which is an increase in the numbers on housing waiting lists across London. Almost every authority other than those that choose not to put people on housing waiting lists shows that increase. As I can vouch from my own local authority, many people live in dire circumstances and cannot be helped because there is no accommodation.

Another consequence is a massive increase in the use of temporary accommodation—30 per cent. over the past two years—and, the worst of all worlds, the reintroduction of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which has doubled to 6,000 and is rising. It is the most appalling accommodation to send young families into. Those statistics measure the hidden homeless, not the high-profile person sleeping on the streets. People living in bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation, sharing the misery and squalor of a hotel bedroom, face real problems.

The Association of London Government has called it the worst housing crisis ever, rather like Classic FM, which calls every record produced the best ever. That is perhaps hyperbole, but it gives the flavour of the crisis in the social sector in London. Last year, 40,000 people were accepted as homeless, and the number is rising. Because all the permanent and temporary accommodation has been taken up, the system has silted up, with disastrous impact on the single homeless.

Most people think that the single homeless are young and mobile people from other parts of the country who can be flexible and move on. That is not always the case. On its telephone hotline, Shelterline, Shelter deals with many single homeless people, many of whom are middle-aged, whose patterns of employment and/or social living have been disrupted by changes in the London market. Such people are now excluded from help. Although Shelterline rings around for hostel or temporary accommodation early in the morning, it cannot meet their needs: they are put back on the street.

What needs to be done? I begin by welcoming the Government's initiative to help rough sleepers, "Coming in from the Cold", which has started a process that we believe will reduce by two thirds the number sleeping on the streets by 2002. I welcome the additional hostel places that that programme is making available and, in particular, the permanent units of accommodation that will provide a long-term solution for those who are on the streets. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg. If we are to address the wider homelessness problem, we must increase the supply of affordable accommodation.

That may sound surprising, but that recommendation has appeared in almost every report produced about London's housing crisis. The London Housing Federation's report "Closing Doors" says:

there is an urgent need for the Government, together with the new mayor and Greater London Authority, to act to tackle the shortage of decent affordable housing for those living and working in the capital.

London Pride Partnership, a private/public sector partnership, called for a programme of new build to provide affordable accommodation. The idea behind that was to

provide a major economic boost to London—reducing dependency on benefits and bringing work to many. The programme meets an opportunity as well as a need.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said in his last debate on this subject, the Association of London Government has introduced an action plan to deal with the immediate homelessness crisis in the capital, which will provide 5,000 additional units of accommodation over the next three years.

The Government also face a major challenge to address what is happening in London. Enormous misery exists among the homeless who live in squalor in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, many of them with young families. This is also an economic issue, because of the need to house key workers and professionals to make the London economy more efficient. The only way to do that is to increase the availability of affordable accommodation. The opportunity is the spending review 2000, which Ministers are discussing. If they listen to this debate, I believe that money will be made available to the public or private sector, or a combination of the two, to ensure an increase in the availability of affordable accommodation during the next five years.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for securing this debate. It follows a debate that I secured on 19 January on the problems of housing in inner London. I welcome the Minister again today. I suspect that he will return to this Chamber increasingly in the future, because the deep concern of London Members of Parliament about housing in the capital will not go away. Consistent pressure will be put on the Government to intervene much more in housing in London.

As the Minister and hon. Members will be aware, housing problems in London are markedly different to housing problems in other parts of the country. Buying a house in London in the private sector is far more expensive than anywhere else in the country apart from the richest parts of the south-east. Private sector rents are astronomical compared with any other part of the country, and council rents tend to be slightly higher. The increase in the provision of social housing is much smaller in London than elsewhere.

We are asking the Government to recognise that London has a serious and peculiar problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton pointed out, London is not a city of two halves, but a city of three quarters and a quarter. Three quarters of the population are not finding life easy, while a quarter find life extremely comfortable. The kind of inner-London constituency that I represent is portrayed as wealthy and a home to all things upwardly mobile. Although such people undoubtedly live within it, the majority of people with whom I deal in my constituency—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) also has this experience—are living on below average or average incomes, and are finding life very hard.

The National Housing Federation report, "Closing Doors", which I am sure that the Minister has seen, is an excellent document that sets out the problems of council housing, private ownership, owner occupation and private rented housing. It then sets out the average private sector rents in London. In my borough, the average is £196 a week for a one-bedroomed flat, while, to rent a house in my constituency, one could easily pay £500 a week. Given average house prices, it is impossible for anyone living on an average income in central London—or almost anywhere in the capital—to even think about buying, unless they have an inheritance or other means of investing a large dollop of capital in a house initially. On average incomes of between, say, £15,000 and £17,000 a year, two people together—a joint income of £34,000 a year—would be lucky to get a mortgage of £90,000 or £100,000, which would not even touch base on a two-bedroomed flat in most parts of London. That is the stark reality.

The effect of the property boom on London as a whole is profound in many ways. All public agencies believe that they can cash in on the property boom by selling any piece of land that comes anywhere near their grasp, because there is a huge demand for land for private sector building. The social housing of the future is being sold as the empty land of today.

The London property boom is pricing poorer people out of central London. The problems experienced by teachers, nurses, lower-paid hospital medical staff, postal workers and others are becoming increasingly well-known. Unless there is greater intervention in the housing market and social housing in London, a truly disastrous situation will arise in respect of people who do essential jobs in inner London. To judge by local schools in my community, excellent young teachers who are determined to turn our schools around and contribute to the community are entering the profession. However, life is not easy for a young teacher who lives in a bedsit or shares a flat with three or four other people. No one wants to live that kind of life for long. After a couple of years, such teachers move to an area where housing is cheaper and the job is perhaps a bit easier, and the community and the children lose talented teachers. The same can be said of nurses, doctors and almost any other community skill that this country and our society desperately needs.

The Government must bear in mind the example of the previous Government, who were profoundly opposed to virtually every action taken by local government, and in favour of selling off all public assets cheaply. In effect, they were selling £10 notes for a fiver. For a while, that was politically successful, but London is now paying the price in terms of housing problems.

The Government should accept that London's problems differ from those in the rest of the country, and look at the public provision of housing. On taking office, they said that they would release capital receipts for housing improvements. That policy, which was commendable, necessary and welcome, and which I wholeheartedly endorse, has helped to deal with some of the backlog of repairs to major estates in London. In May 1997, Islington—despite what The Daily Telegraph repeatedly says, Islington does not differ markedly from the rest of London—had a repair backlog totalling £500 million. That is just one borough. Were that sum multiplied to take into account the whole of inner London, the resulting figure would be massive. Capital receipts will not meet that repair bill; new money must also be spent.

Capital receipts from the sale of housing will not meet the cost of replacing houses that were sold off and thereby lost to the public sector. That is partly because a discount is offered on council property—it has been reduced to £30,000—and partly because many valuations of council property are peculiarly low. Many find those valuations difficult to comprehend, given private market prices and the valuations put on council properties that were subsequently resold to people who did not need social housing. I know that this is a politically difficult issue for the Government to grasp. We are talking about a social demand, rather than a prsonal desire to make as much money as possible and obtain the cheapest possible housing. However, the reality is that we must look at the housing needs of the community as a whole.

The Government are right to spend money on estate improvements. In a previous debate, I mentioned the anticipated success of the single regeneration budget schemes in King's Cross, Finsbury Park and other areas in my borough. I fully commend tenant participation and tenant self-management. A couple of weeks ago, we had a successful conference on tenant participation in the borough of Islington; 350 representatives of tenants associations and residents groups turned up, and it proved to be a useful day's discussion. I welcome such developments. However, I do not welcome the pressure that is being put on local authorities to transfer their housing estates and stock to housing associations. That is presented as a free choice. Tenants can vote yes to the council or yes to a housing association. However, it is not a free choice because, given the borrowing restictions that are placed on local authorities, it is unlikely that they will be able to make any money available for the huge regeneration that is required on estates. That money is available only through housing associations.

I am worried that we are creating a massive community of housing associations, in which tenant participation, representation and democracy is sometimes good, but often truly appalling. The brick wall of administration that one comes up against in housing associations is far worse than local authority democracy. Although many people criticise what local government does, ultimately one can choose to elect or not elect one's councillor, but that is not so for one's housing association. It is important to protect democratic choice. Will the Minister deal with the need for a genuinely level playing field in estate transfers?

I turn to the administration of housing and housing needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton rightly mentioned housing benefit and the way in which the 1996 change in the regulations has lost many people their homes in the private rented sector. We should seriously consider the cost of housing benefit within our society. The Conservative Government had a passion for rent deregulation—ending any form of rent control and saying that the market rent must be paid through housing benefit. As a result, the public are creating millionaires every week through the bed-and-breakfast system and the private rented sector, because housing benefit has to pay the rent, whatever it is. I do not want to punish tenants or reduce their choice, but is it the best use of public resources to subsidise private landlords when we should be putting money into bricks and mortar for the future of the public? We should seriously consider how housing benefit can best be delivered.

I also ask the Government to examine the cost to local authorities of administering housing benefit. The benefit was created in the early 1980s, and local authorities were required to administer it—although there is no record of any authority wishing to do so; it was forced on them. The quality of administration varies enormously. During the debate in this Chamber on 19 January, I raised the problem of housing benefit administration in my borough. A company called IT Net runs the contract there and in the neighbouring borough of Hackney. The administration is appalling, as are the tension, stress and distress that that causes people. Many people have been threatened with eviction by the local authority and housing associations because their housing benefit has not been paid. An unknown number of private sector tenants have been threatened with the loss of their tenancies, which sometimes happens because people's benefit has been poorly administered. I am told that 24,000 unopened housing benefit application forms are held by my borough alone, and that Hackney holds a very large number. That figure represents 24,000 people who have, I presume legitimately, applied for housing benefit, and are not receiving it simply because the quality of adminstration in the privatised service is poor.

I do not expect the Minister to be an expert on the administration of housing benefit. That is not his function; he would not have time to do anything else if it were. However, I ask him to examine seriously the quality of service delivered by the privatised companies that have become involved in housing benefit in London, and the untold misery that they are causing.

Elderly people come to my advice bureau week after week in desperation and in tears. They are unaware that their rent is in arrears until the council tells them that that is the case because their housing benefit has not been paid. They try to trace their form, which has gone missing, and they are deemed not to have applied because there is no receipt date. They are then told that their rent is at least six months in arrears. They are in a desperate state as a result. I cannot stress too strongly how awful that is, at a human level, for those people. I want the Government to insist that local authorities administer housing benefit properly, and that those companies that cannot deliver the service should lose their contract immediately. That contract should then be given to a body that can deliver, preferably through the public sector.

The solution to housing problems in London has to be greater investment by the community as a whole in affordable rented housing for people who need it, otherwise social divisions and tensions in London will grow. The property boom is fine if one is already on the ladder. If one is nowhere near the first rung, one loses out entirely, and is faced with a lifetime of high rents. Private sector rents represent a higher proportion of salaries in London than in any other part of the country or, probably, of Europe. The Government must build on their achievements in estate improvements and in the rough sleepers initiative and, above all, put public money into building affordable rented housing.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate, and on his presentation of the case. I agree with his arguments, and with those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

I approach the matter from an outer London point of view. Outer London is often considered an affluent area, without housing problems. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, that is not the case. Areas of deprivation and housing need, and unemployment blackspots, often exist alongside affluent areas.

My constituency of Upminster is part of the London borough of Havering, and is effectively divided into two parts. One consists mainly of owner-occupied housing; the other contains part of the Harold Hill estate—a large, suburban estate built to accommodate the severe housing needs of inner Londoners after the second world war. Those people moved out to Harold Hill in the late 1940s and early 1950s. In many ways it was a fine estate, planned by the London county council and later administered by the Greater London council and, most recently, the London borough of Havering.

However, the first of the area's problems that I shall outline is its geographical position, which is relevant to the debate, especially in the context of outer London. It is completely surrounded by green belt. On one side, it is next to the M25, and there is also green belt between the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London borough of Havering, so there is little room for expansion into what would be greenfield sites. The green belt is preciously guarded and will continue to be so. Most of the land within the designated housing areas is taken up. Small pockets remain for development here and there, but there is little scope for increasing the supply. The housing is mainly low density, and there is limited opportunity for creating high-density housing within a planning context. That helps to create the scarcity.

In relation to the social factors, I echo the points made by my hon. Friends about the right to buy. There has been very high take-up of the right to buy in the area, because the available accommodation consists mainly of houses. That has led to a great reduction in the local authority's ability to meet the need for affordable housing. One must also consider the effect of the presence of an ageing population. People who moved out to the area just after the second world war are now in a later stage of their life. Many of them have lived in their houses since the early 1950s and will continue to do so. However, given that the actual number of people occupying each house is smaller, the housing stock houses fewer people.

Compared with other constituencies, mine belongs to the premier league in respect of the age of the population, which is very high. Matrimonial and family breakdowns mean that fewer people live in each house. Many young people remain unmarried for longer, which again leads to an increased demand for housing. As for the owner-occupied sector, the price of houses is very high. It costs about £250,000 for an average size semidetached house. Although statistics show the borough to be below the London average, the overall average disguises the real position.

The local authority housing stock is significantly smaller as a result of the right-to-buy scheme. Housing association stock is scarce because few associations in London have been able to move to the outer boroughs to expand their housing provision. Housing in the rented sector is scarce, too. Most owner-occupied housing is not available for rent. All that has led to a significant housing problem. The number of households on the housing register is 1,511 and the number on the transfer waiting list is 1,243. In the local authority sector, the average waiting time for a transfer to a three to four-bedroomed house is 38 months and for a twobedroomed house, it is 32 months, so we can understand how such a problem impinges on those who require housing in the area.

What does the present position mean? Many families now live in cramped conditions It is common for a family living in a two or three-bedroomed house to find that alternative accommodation is not available in the local authority sector, the housing association sector or the private sector. Often, when people get married and/or have children, they cannot find accommodation and have to live with their parents in crowded conditions. About 60 per cent. of my advice surgery cases are about housing. My constituents tell me horror stories about the conditions in which they are forced to live. Such living conditions result in health problems, dissatisfaction, disenchantment, social exclusion, family breakdown and, in some cases, crime. They lead to significant social costs, such as costs to the health service, social services, police services and the legal aid budget. Such knock-on effects lead to investment in failure rather than success.

We must bear in mind the effect on public services. During the past fortnight, two head teachers have written to me complaining about their inability to attract teachers to the area because appropriate housing is not available, as a result of which they cannot provide the school curriculum that they want to provide. The Metropolitan police service has a similar problem. Frequently, after a few months new recruits move out to other parts of the country where housing is less expensive. How can the problem be resolved? I support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who said that there was a need for urgent intervention. Local authorities and other agencies should work with the private sector to identify brownfield sites. We need a programme to drive that along.

In the public sector, we must ensure that there is a programme working with housing associations to reduce the number of people waiting for accommodation. If the local community can see a reduction in the numbers on the waiting list, it will be confident that the problem is being tackled. At the moment, the opposite is happening, and lists and numbers are increasing. We must deal urgently with those serious problems.

There is a programme in east London for the regeneration of docklands and the Thames gateway. That will attract jobs to the area, but the lack of affordable private sector housing will have a detrimental effect on the regeneration programme. Employers will not be attracted to the area if the opportunities to create employment are reduced because the work force cannot find housing. Education is fundamental, as is the crime reduction programme. We all endorse such programmes and wish them success, but if we do not deal with the housing problem, they will be put in jeopardy.

I, too, would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for securing the debate. Housing is one of the most important and least discussed issues in the House, which remains a scandal when we consider the situation that faces many Londoners, including many of my constituents.

I would like to echo everything that has been said about the need to tackle homelessness in London. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), needs little reminding about many of the issues that we have raised. Good work is being done. The rough sleepers initiative is a fantastic start, and I am confident that, with extra resources and Louise Casey in charge, the targets for reducing homelessness will be met.

The problem that affects my constituents and other Londoners most acutely is invisible homelessness. In Tower Hamlets, there are almost 17,000 households on council waiting lists, 12,000 of which are in my constituency. In the past three years, I have met almost 1,000 families that live in overcrowded, substandard housing, and hundreds that live in homes that are damp and in much need of repair. There are so many stories of personal tragedy that I cannot compress them into a few minutes. When I come out of my surgery, I sometimes feel as though I need counselling, and that I am suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. I cannot believe that there is so much human misery in 21st-century Britain, and I wonder whether British people—not to mention colleagues in parts of the country that do not face the crisis—realise what is happening.

Two weeks ago, a woman visited my surgery to explain that her entire family—her, her husband and her three daughters—lived in one room of a bedsit flat. Some people in my constituency live with six people to a room. There is a family of 13 in two bedrooms. A 19year-old woman came to see me who had lived in the same bedroom as her father for her entire life. That should be unacceptable and unnatural to Parliament, the Government and the country. It is a Dickensian life style. Moreover, poor housing obviously worsens health problems, creates family tensions, prevents children from doing well at school and reduces their chance of finding and retaining fulfilling employment. Not since the aftermath of the second world war have a Government poured the necessary resources into low-cost affordable housing. Instead, social housing has been provided on the cheap, and the social costs have been reaped later.

In my constituency, the new deal for communities has recognised many of the entangled problems of housing. I pay tribute to the Government for having introduced that programme, because it is truly radical. It empowers the community to say what it wants and gives it some control over housing, which traditionally only middle-class people have had. Working-class people have, on the whole, not had such control or empowerment. In addition, it tackles the problem holistically, which has not been done before. The programme is truly wonderful, but it is truly not enough. It affects only a small number of my constituents, and we have not been able to roll it out or to use the principles that it embodies in other areas.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the cost of housing in London has spiralled out of control. I am worried, having witnessed it in my own constituency, that soon London will contain only the very rich and the very poor, and no one in between. That is especially clear from the experience of my constituency, as the City is pushing eastwards almost hourly. Local people and key workers are being pushed out. A nurse on £20,000 a year—a good wage, one would think—has absolutely no chance of buying a flat in my constituency. The same goes for other professions such as teachers and policemen, which goes a long way towards explaining the difficulties in attracting, and, more importantly, retaining staff in vital public services in London.

I am pleased that the Government have promised £35 million to build new homes and refurbish and repair existing properties in Tower Hamlets over the next year. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that that is three times the funding that the previous Administration provided, and means that the Government have invested an additional £40 million in housing in the borough in just three years.

That money will help to ensure that urgent repairs and improvements to council properties are completed, and that some families living in overcrowded conditions are rehoused. It is more money than we have received from any Government in recent memory, but it is not enough. We need year-on-year increases in the housing investment programme for local authorities in London. That programme should ensure that teenage boys and girls do not have to share bedrooms with each other or with their parents, that people with disabilities are not stuck on the top floor of a block without a lift, and that people born and bred in the east end do not have to leave. We fail to give people hope if we do not tackle overcrowding and squalid conditions, which is the moral argument, and we fail economically if we cannot provide people in inner London with a home fit to raise a family, which is the economic argument.

Social housing must be not only decent but affordable. Council rents in Tower Hamlets have in the past compared favourably with those in other-London boroughs and housing associations. The decision to keep rents low was right at the time and helped keep many residents out of the poverty trap. Unfortunately, however, residents are paying the price for that now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that a rent rise of 25 per cent. in just two years is not sustainable. I also hope that he will act on my public plea and ask his colleagues in the Treasury to grant Tower Hamlets an exemption from the rent rebate subsidy limitation regulations. If that is not granted, all the Government's excellent initiatives in Tower Hamlets will be negated by the huge rent rise.

I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the concerns about the Court of Appeal's decision to block the Government's plans to protect sitting tenants who are paying registered fair rents from high rent increases. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but the Government plan to petition the Lords to reopen the case. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that every London Labour MP backs the Secretary of State in that petition. If it were rejected, my hon. Friend would have the support of every hon. Member to introduce primary legislation that would reverse the effect of the judgment and restore the limits on registered fair rent increases set in the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rents) Order 1999.

In conclusion, I should like to put the importance of housing in perspective. The case that I mentioned earlier, of the woman who came to my surgery, never leaves my mind. Her four-month-old baby had died and the doctor's notes said that it was due to the housing. It is a matter of life and death, and there is no greater social exclusion than death. Given the Government's commitment to tackling social exclusion and addressing child poverty within the next 20 years, I hope that they recognise that that can be done only if the housing crisis is tackled. Tower Hamlets is not in a position to make good the historical underfunding and poor-quality housing in the east end. To my deep regret, it is not hyperbole to say that children are dying because of housing conditions. Will my hon. Friend undertake to inject the necessary urgency into the debate and give housing what it requires—money?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this key debate. I should like to consider several questions: whether there is a housing shortage—that is an easy one to answer—what the impact of the shortage is; where and how the housing should be built and who should be allowed to build it; what other measures will help the shortage; and finally, if time allows, what role the mayor and the Greater London Assembly will have in regard to housing.

On my first question, there is no doubt that there is a shortage of housing. Many hon. Members have cited evidence of a shortage: surgery cases, the actions that local authorities have to take—my own has had to call a halt to transfers—and soaring house prices. According to an estate agent in Kew, there are some nice starter homes in Kew costing £400,000. I am not sure who can afford starter homes at that price, but it is certainly not nurses or policemen—perhaps it is people in internet start-up companies. There are also the predictions. It is said that another 3.8 million homes will need to be built by 2021. There is clearly a shortage.

What is the impact of the shortage? We are witnessing a boom and bust in house prices. The hon. Member for Edmonton referred to a 23 per cent. increase in house prices. Overcrowding and homelessness are problems both on the streets and in some accommodation, where people are sometimes forced to stay for longer than they would like because they cannot afford to buy a local house. There is also the clear impact on public services and on public-sector workers to which other hon. Members have referred. The best example that I can think of is a school that tried to purchase a nearby house that became vacant. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful, but it had wanted to provide cheap, rented accommodation for young teachers who could not afford to live in the area. Does the Minister accept that the Government need to consider London weighting and decide on action to make living in London more affordable for key workers?

There is broad agreement that housing should be built on brownfield sites, which is exactly what is happening in London. Clearer guidance on cleaning up contaminated land will be needed, and it becomes more important as the easier brownfield sites are used up, leaving heavily contaminated sites that require clear rules to be brought into use. A subsidy such as the greenfield development levy could be used to cross-subsidise the cost of decontaminating such sites to bring them into use. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister may be considering that proposal, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.

The problem can also be addressed by bringing into use unoccupied properties located above shops, but that will require much greater co-operation between a raft of organisations. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a site in my constituency where clearly the housing trust, a number of retailers—including a large retailer, Lidland others, such as the freeholder, should get together to improve security and to make what were fairly pleasant flats much safer for residents having problems with people breaking in at the back of the property.

The next question is: how should new housing be built? If there is a positive side to the requirement for large numbers of homes to be built in London—Shelter cites a figure of 600,000—it is the opportunity to do something about sustainability. Properties can be built using tighter building regulations, improved insulation standards and greater energy efficiency, and can be placed closer to transport links as part of the sustainable integrated transport policy. Why are developers still allowed to build retail premises close to high street locations with good transport links—the areas where young people want to live—with no flats above them? Why is that empty space left, when it could better used?

Who should be allowed to build the homes? All the organisations currently building them should be allowed to continue, whether as registered social landlords or private developers, but local authorities should also be allowed to build. I cannot understand why the Government have inherited the previous Administration's reluctance to let local authorities build. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, at least people are able to get rid of local authorities when they do not like what they are doing on housing—an option that is not open with some of the other providers. Why cannot local authorities borrow to invest in housing stock?

What measures could help this dire situation? First, we could consider introducing tougher penalties for private developers on small sites who adopt a build-andrun philosophy. Such developers quickly build a development and go, as Nova homes has done in my constituency. They run away and leave the new occupiers with properties that are on unfinished roads, without streetlights or adequate landscaping. Government support is needed to ensure that developments are of an acceptable standard. In addition, there should be more part-rent, part-buy schemes for people who are entering the market for the first time or who are in difficulties and want to reduce their mortgage payments by switching to a part-rent scheme until their financial situation improves.

The mayor and the GLA have a positive role to play in housing. That needs to be highlighted because the mayoral debate has focused on personalities rather than policies, which is a scandal. It puts Londoners off what should be an exciting initiative. Instead, the wheeling and dealing, the fixing and fudging, have devalued the mayor's currency. There is an opportunity for the mayor and the GLA to get the different parties together and to use the spatial development strategy and the mayor's facilitating role. They could identify the housing need in London, which local authorities may be a little scared of doing. But when a local authority has played its part and delivered on its housing figure, the mayor should not impose an excessive quota so that the local authority has to make up the shortfall if other local authorities have not played their part.

There is clearly a shortage of housing in London. Everyone knows that. It has a massive impact on the ability of local authorities to house the homeless and asylum seekers, and to tackle overcrowding. There is broad agreement on where housing should be built. We have an opportunity to do something about the sustainable nature of homes. There is, of course, controversy over who should build them, but simple measures can assist us in dealing with that problem and help to tackle the housing shortage. However, the Minister must answer the outstanding question of whether the Government have the political will to solve the housing crisis which, according to the Association of London Government, is the worst ever. If the Minister does not make that commitment clear, I hope that it will be given in the housing Green Paper. I look forward to the Government providing the financial means to prevent the housing crisis from turning into a housing catastrophe.

I too congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate and the excellent way in which he made his case. Given his experience with the all-party group on homelessness and housing need, he is well informed about the subject. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, the subject is important. It does not get aired enough in the House of Commons. The hon. Lady in particular knows some of the desperate problems that many of her constituents face in inner London.

London is not simply a microcosm of the housing problems that people face throughout the country. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, it also has specific problems, not least because of its high property prices and the high living costs that go with them. It is a tale of two cities—of three quarters and a quarter, as he non-metrically put it. Bearing in mind the Government's key pledge that everyone will have the chance to live in a decent home, it is interesting to note that the contributions that have been made, especially by Labour Members, highlighted the problems but contained little praise for the Government's achievements, with the exception of the rough sleepers initiative and the limited new deal projects in Bethnal Green and Bow. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, it is truly not enough.

When on earth will the long-awaited Green Paper on housing be published? There is a housing crisis in London. About 184,000 households are on waiting lists and the number of households in temporary accommodation has doubled. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has doubled in the past two years to about 6,500.

The Association of London Government estimates that the number of temporary accommodation households will have risen to at least 51,000 by 2002. That will be a record. Temporary accommodation causes enormous disruption to families and to the communities in which they live and from which they are being pushed; it disrupts schooling, especially of children with special needs, and employment. That has a knock-on effect on the rest of the country, because many of those families are pushed out to resorts on the south coast, such as Worthing in my constituency.

Another subject that has not yet been raised is the fact that about 19,000 destitute asylum seekers, including families with children, are housed by London social services departments in temporary accommodation. That puts enormous pressure on temporary accommodation. Shelter estimates that about 40,000 households are officially recognised as homeless by the London authorities; that figure probably represents more than 100,000 people. Another factor is that about 56 per cent. of those people are estimated to be from ethnic minorities. It is thought that that problem is felt disproportionately by those from ethnic minorities, not least those living in the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow.

I have not mentioned the problem of rough sleepers. Despite the initiatives undertaken by the previous Government, particularly the rough sleepers initiative started in the early 1990s my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), more than 400 people still sleep rough on the streets of London every night. I would like to see more being done to help with the medical problems that many of those people suffer. I also want greater preventive measures to be taken to stop the break-up of families, which leads to young people, particularly those younger than 16, leaving home and living rough. The problem will not be solved by the appointment of a £90,000-a-year street czar whose opening gambit was to say that we need to destroy the culture of kindness—whatever that may mean.

Hon. Members have spoken of problems in the private market. We are experiencing a housing boom, and there is every chance that it will lead to a housing bust. The Chancellor would be prudent not to allow that; he often speaks about prudence and wanting to get away from the boom-and-bust mentality with which he so easily labels the previous Government.

There are many two-bedroomed flats; for example, I saw some in Hampstead advertised at the weekend starting at £400,000. There is a chronic shortage of affordable housing. None of us would deny that. The north-south divide causes enormous problems, with the great prices of London property being set against the much lower prices of the north-east and north-west of England. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the number of repossessions is starting to creep up again.

There is a shortage of affordable private rented accommodation; that part of the market represents only 10 per cent. of all housing. We need to encourage the expansion of private rented accommodation, not merely put extra regulatory burdens on that sector. One problem is that lenders do not treat private rented landlords as favourably as they treat social housing landlords and other publicly backed agencies when it comes to raising capital. That is a barrier to more money being made available to that sector.

Other hon. Members have touched on the fact that we need not only more homes but homes that are inhabitable and that do not suffer from fuel poverty, as many do. I am sure that many hon. Members will support the reasoning behind the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, which we shall soon consider.

So far, the Government response has been a lot of promises, reports and hot air. A study of the DETR annual report clearly shows a significant reduction in the total public expenditure on housing. The capital spend through the Housing Corporation has dropped from more than £1 billion in 1996–97 to a projected £686 million in 2001–02, and the revenue spend has been considerably reduced. The Government have reduced the social housing building programme for the coming year by more than 25 per cent., which equates to 8,000 homes that will not be built. When does the Minister expect Government spending on housing to return to that of 1993–94, under the previous Government?

The subject of council house rents has been raised in the press recently. We are promised words soon from the Deputy Prime Minister on the possible equalisation of council and private sector rents. In somewhere such as Westminster, council rents—currently about £50 or £60 per week—would rise to £200 a week. That sounds like a crude approach that would result only in ghettoisation, with poorer people forced into cheaper rundown areas outside central London and some of the boroughs that have already been mentioned. I hope that it is not the crude attempt that it was portrayed as in the newspapers. If it is, the Government will succeed only in creating even greater housing apartheid.

Much work is going on. Let us not forget that the housing associations were a success story of the previous Government, bringing far more private and voluntary sector money into housing and freeing up local authority resources to concentrate on other priorities. Let us not forget the great success story of large-scale voluntary transfers; they were initially opposed, but more than 100 local authorities have now taken them up. The Alliance of Councils for Successful Stock Transfer was formed at the LGA conference last July to promote greater use of such transfers. Let us not forget the previous Government's imaginative rent a room proposals, and the estates challenge money.

We want to see a more imaginative and more radical approach, to bring precious resources into housing. We want to see a ladder approach to the provision of housing, with the homeless on the lower rungs given maximum mobility, and with private home owners on top. The Government and local authorities should work together to provide the encouragement and incentives to people to move up from rung to rung. Too many people are caught in a trap of declining public housing, often on hostile estates, lacking the resources to move out or up. Tenants are less likely to move out of social housing if other options become more expensive. The problem is being exacerbated. One wonders if that is why the Labour candidate for mayor of London currently occupies a council property in inner London.

We must see clear rewards and incentives for good public tenants who look after their homes and who do their bit for the community. There is precious little incentivisation at the moment. We must see greater encouragement for councils to improve turnaround times for unoccupied housing, with schemes to allow worse dwellings to be renovated by willing tenants with grant help, who could then qualify for a share in the house. We need much more imagination regarding flexible tenure, allowing young people especially to get their foot on the rung through accumulating greater shared ownership in houses. Schemes such as "do it yourself shared ownership" worked well. The Government must do more, and much can be achieved through imaginative community-based solutions, but they need to be sustainable and long term. Above all, we need a holistic approach, especially on homelessness.

I shall end with a handful of questions for the Minister, to which, given the shortage of time, he might like to reply in writing. When shall we see the housing Green Paper? What plans does he have to produce a register of brownfield sites, especially in London when—or if—we see spending on new housing match the rhetoric and achieve the 1993–94 levels, so that we might not go for the soft option of new build on greenfield sites? When will the Government give details of the replacement for the estates renewal challenge fund, which is due to end next year? Will it involve real new, rather than recycled old, money? What practical proposals does the Minister have to promote affordable housing, and what definition of affordability would he use in the social rented sector? What is he doing to stop young homelessness at source, and to promote the maintenance of family home environments?

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) touched on the role of the new mayor and the GLA in tackling housing problems. What priorities have been set for them, and what will be the role of the mayor's spatial development strategy in promoting the development of affordable housing? Finally, why have lenders to the social housing sector been told that no decisions are being taken on London housing until after the mayoral elections, and that the Government office for London is simply minding the shop at the moment, and not making any operational decisions, while we all suffer the crisis that we have heard so much about today?

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for initiating this important debate on a subject that I know is dear to the heart of every London Member. I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends have been up all night. It obviously takes more than an all-night sitting to deter my hon. Friends from representing their constituents as forcefully as they have done today.

The debate is the second that we have had in the past month or so on this important issue. As has been pointed out, the subject will not go away. I fully expect to be back here discussing the same issues in years to come. The problems are large and there are no overnight solutions.

I lived in inner London for many years until 1985, when I moved north and, of course, I am here three or four days a week. I therefore have first-hand experience of the problems described by hon. Members. In particular, there has been mention of the stark contrasts—as if between two different planets—affecting people who live cheek by jowl in different parts, or even different streets, of London. Where I come from, in the north, we have a different problem—a surplus of property. However, before any hon. Members cast envious eyes, I remind them that that brings its own social problems, which I do not wish on them when they have enough of their own.

It takes some restraint to reply in a dignified manner to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). I do not recognise the figures that he read out—or rather, I think I do, but he gave a clever interpretation. He asked when we would return to the spending levels of 1993–94, but wisely missed out the years in between. Under the previous Government, there was a year-on-year decrease in housing investment in London. Indeed, 1993–94 was a good year, by the standards of what followed. Much of the decline and many of the stark contrasts about which we have heard today—although not all, of course, since they would be a problem in the capital whoever was in government—came about on the hon. Gentleman's watch, or at least while his party was in control. There were year-on-year cuts in public housing throughout the country, but particularly in London, in that time. I am pleased to report that spending in the next financial year will be substantially up on even 1993–94, let alone 1997–98. It was then less than half what it will be in the next financial year. I do not think that we shall take any lessons from the previous Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton talked about moderating rent levels. I think it unlikely that we shall intervene in private sector rents, if that is what he was suggesting. We are laying down clear guide rules on rents where transfers occur—about which there is, I realise, concern—to make sure that excessive rent increases do not result.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned the difficulties with housing benefit administration, which apply not only to private companies but to some local authorities. That is a serious problem. We are promoting best value, and inspections of the delivery of services will be carried out in the hope that local government services can be improved across the board, but especially in relation to the administration of housing benefit. My hon. Friend asked about a level playing field for estate transfers. I acknowledge the importance of that and understand that it will be discussed by Housing Ministers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for acknowledging the efforts that have already been made. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham would do well to study them. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Green Paper—that is coming shortly, as we say in government. He also mentioned the problem of asylum seekers. London's problems, severe though they are, have been exacerbated by the large numbers of asylum seekers. One of the things that the Government have done to reduce the problem is to initiate a programme of dispersal around the country. Indeed, in Sunderland, where previously there were none, we are now accommodating asylum seekers in some of our surplus properties because we recognise that it is a national problem and should not be confined to the areas where those people happen to come ashore.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) asked about the rent subsidy limitation for Tower Hamlets. If she will forgive me, I shall write to her on that matter. I was asked many questions and I am unable to answer them all in the short time available to me. However, I want to make one general point. There is a huge imbalance in this country, as there is in other countries, between the capital city and other areas. Inevitably, there is a population drift in the direction of the capital city, and a policy of predicting and providing will not work in relation to housing any more than it works with roads. We can pour in extra resources, and we will do that. I acknowledge the bald point that has been made by many hon. Members, especially about creating affordable housing in London. However, we should not imagine that simply pouring in resources, without asking sufficient questions about how those resources are spent, would solve the problem. Having lived in inner London for a long time, I know that many of the resources that were made available to deal with the problem were badly misspent, but that has considerably improved in recent years.

Will the Minister give way?

Forgive me, but I have only three minutes left.

The Government must implement a regional policy to moderate the reasons why people tend to drift towards London. Of course, one of the main reasons is for work, so we must create jobs and sustainable life in all parts of the country because that is one of the ways in which we can reduce the enormous pressure on London.

I want to say a few words about the increase in housing investment that we have made in the three years since we came to power. We have reversed the decline in housing investment presided over by the previous Administration and initiated a massive investment programme to improve both the quantity and quality of social housing in London. Allocations for housing investment by local authorities and registered social landlords in London between 1997–98 and 2001–02 will total about £3.8 billion, of which about £1.3 billion will come from additional resources made available by the Government. London boroughs have received £400 million of those additional resources so far. That represents almost 30 per cent. of the national total of extra resources and reflects the high level of deprivation to which my hon. Friends have referred. I believe that Edmonton received a 36 per cent. increase this year.

We have increased the resources made available to London through the housing investment programme. The 2000–01 settlement comprises a £613 million package, which represents a 54 per cent. increase on the resources provided in the previous financial year. The package also brings together several previously separate capital programmes into a single housing "pot", giving London boroughs greater flexibility in deciding their spending priorities. I am confident that authorities will take full advantage of that new freedom to strike the right local balance between investing in repair and renovation of their own housing stock, and encouraging the provision of new units of affordable accommodation.

Order. Time is up.

I am delighted to draw attention to the report that was published recently by Barnsley council's social affairs and health scrutiny commission, entitled "Care for Carers". That commission is chaired by my good friend, Councillor Len Picken, who is a carer himself. The report identifies many of the problems associated with carers that the Government must tackle. Last year, the Government produced a comprehensive and worthy report, entitled "Caring about Carers", a copy of which I have in front of me. It identified some of the problems, many of which the Government are addressing.

To set the scrutiny commission's report in context, it is important to remind hon. Members of some of the characteristics of my Barnsley constituency, which is in South Yorkshire. It is one of the most socially and economically deprived constituencies in the United Kingdom. One in three households has at least one disabled person—a legacy of the former mining industry. It is not surprising that South Yorkshire was recently granted objective 1 status by the European Union, given that, according to a recent estimate, the gross domestic product per capita is approximately 62 per cent. of the European average.

The former pit villages that make up the vast majority of my constituency are renowned for their close-knit community spirit. That is exemplified by the number of carers who provide help and support that might not otherwise be available. However, there are several reasons why it is not always possible to be precise about the number of carers. Many of those who carry out caring tasks do not see themselves as carers, and would not wish to be referred to as such. They see their role as one that any family member would fulfil for a sick or disabled relative.

Despite such difficulties, it is to some extent possible to quantify the number of carers. There are some 5.7 million carers in the United Kingdom who look after people who are frail, ill, disabled or unable to cope. In other words, almost one in eight people is a carer. Of those, some 1.7 million devote at least 20 hours a week to caring. Currently, three fifths of all carers receive no regular visitor support services. In Barnsley, there may be as many as 26,591 people acting as carers, 7,091 of whom devote more than 20 hours per week to the task. That estimate contrasts sharply with the carers' register, which is compiled by the carers' advice line. Despite a major effort to contact carers, only 2,500 are registered in Barnsley. More than 110,000 registration forms were sent out recently, but only 1,000 were returned.

The Government are keen to improve the information that they hold on carers, and intend to trial a new question for use in the 2001 census. It will focus on the provision of personal care and inquire about the number of hours of care provided per week. I fully support this initiative to identify the carer situation more accurately.

The difficulty of being sure about the number of adult carers pales into insignificance when compared with the difficulty of obtaining accurate information about the number of young carers. It has been estimated that in the United Kingdom there are some 51,000 young carers. Best estimates suggest that in Barnsley, 90 year 7 pupils care for a younger child every day or most days, 58 year 7 pupils care for an older relative every day or most days, 104 year 10 pupils care for a younger child every day or most days and 32 year 10 pupils care for an older relative every day or most days.

The impact of being a young carer can be severe. A recent national survey showed that many young carers suffer from depression, social problems and physical difficulties. It also showed that 70 per cent. of former young carers suffer long-term psychological effects, 28 per cent. have suffered health problems such as bad backs as a direct consequence of lifting the person for whom they are caring and 70 per cent. felt that their education had been affected, leading to poor exam results.

As many as 71 per cent. of young carers have been bullied because other children think that they are odd, 51 per cent. have been physically hit or grabbed, 79 per cent. have been called names and 20 per cent. have missed school as a result of being bullied. Most worrying is the fact that 33 per cent. of young carers have not seen their teachers about tackling the bullying.

When the commission took evidence relating to young carers it found that it was extremely difficult to establish the number. Hon. Members welcomed the new project being undertaken in partnership with education services to identify young carers and find ways to build up relationships to support them. As a result of that evidence, the director of education in Barnsley has been asked to liaise with all schools to raise the profile of young carers and highlight the social, psychological and educational consequences of being carers. He has also been asked to encourage all schools to incorporate specific references to young carers in their anti-bullying policies.

A common theme that emerged from the evidence-gathering session with carers' representatives was the difficulty of gaining access to the right information and support at the right time and in the right manner. A number of witnesses highlighted the need for a single point of entry to services and information. Any review of information requirements should include a feasibility study into the establishment of a carers' centre in Barnsley.

I am sure that the Government are fully committed to the principle of establishing carers' centres, particularly with the assistance of the voluntary sector and where carers are involved in the management. Carers' centres not only provide information, advice and support mechanisms but can also act as one-stop shops and help to give carers a break from their caring responsibilities.

The commission also heard evidence from witnesses who felt that existing support to carers was too focused on office hours. Many informal carers provide care 24 hours a day every day of the year. They may need support and information outside normal office hours. If they cannot get such help, they may feel let down or even scared. The focus of services in Barnsley should therefore be reviewed to assess support and information options outside normal office hours.

I know that the Government intend carers to access support and information on a 24-hour basis via the new NHS Direct telephone service, which has been available in South Yorkshire since last December. The new NHS Direct service has been well received by my constituents, and is much appreciated. However, the Government need to monitor closely the future take-up of the service by carers, especially in out-of-office hours. I hope that NHS Direct will introduce mechanisms to achieve such close monitoring and scrutiny. If NHS Direct does not have the desired effect, serious consideration should be given to establising a 24-hour national carers' helpline, perhaps in collaboration with the voluntary sector. The Government already fund a helpline run by the Carers National Association, which operates during normal office hours.

It was clear from evidence given to the commission that carers are beginning to feel involved and that their concerns are being heard. In written evidence submitted by the Alzheimer's Society, concerns were expressed about the limited number of carers attending meetings of carers' forums. Those forums appear mainly to be attracting carers' representatives. Although I do not want to detract from that important work, such concerns raise questions about how representative the forums are, and whether the council is receiving the full range of carers' opinions. There was a feeling that social services should review, in partnership with carers and carers' organisations, the way in which carers are involved and consulted. The commission made a number of positive suggestions on the issue, including giving consideration to agreeing and establishing carers compacts, which would clearly set out the relationships between carers, carers' organisations, council officers and elected members. Like tenant compacts, they should be seen as a way of increasing local democracy and strengthening and sustaining local communities.

The scrutiny commission strongly believes that communication is one of the main underlying issues. A training programe for front-line staff, which is drawn up in conjunction with and attended by carers and carers groups, would go a long way towwards resolving such issues. Witnesses who gave evidence to the commission felt that the conditions of many carers and those for whom they care could be improved by providing a greater amount of training for the carer. Although it is recognised that formal carers, whether paid or voluntary, require training in many areas such as lifting, handling and moving, as well as the use of specialist equipment, often the same level of training is not often provided to the informal carer. The consequences of a lack of adequate training can be health problems for the carer, and may eventually lead to the need for more expensive support services. The commission feels that it is important and sensible to review the level of training given, especially to informal carers.

The Government's strategy for carers comprises three key approaches, which tie in closely with many of the recommendations made by the scrutiny commission. First, carers should receive improved information so that they can become real partners in the provision of care, and access wider and better sources of information about the help and services available. Secondly, support should be given to carers by the communities in which they live, in terms of the planning and provision of services used by carers, and those used by the people for whom they care. Policies should be developed in the workplace to assist in combining employment with caring. The Government are already taking action on family friendly employment by offering employees unpaid leave for family emergencies, which is a step in the right direction. Thirdly, carers should be able to make real choices about the way in which they run their lives, so that they can maintain their own health and exercise independence and so that their role can be more fully recognised by policy makers and the statutory services. I commend Barnsley council's scrutiny commission report on caring for carers to the Minister for his consideration.

I congratulate Barnsley metropolitan borough council on being one of the first councils in the country, about a year ago, to modernise its structure to the new Cabinet-style model of local government, which the Government are trying to promote nationally. The scrutiny commission's report on carers highlights one of the many benefits to be gained by local councils in modernising for the benefit of the local council tax payer.

In conclusion, I believe that the Government recognise and support the major role that carers play in our society. In future, all organisations that are involved with caring must focus on not only the person being cared for, but the carer.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on choosing this subject for debate, and on his constructive and thoughtful comments. I am delighted that Barnsley council has responded so positively to the issues raised by the social services inspectorate's report "A Matter of Chance for Carers". I also welcome the fact that Barnsley's scrutiny commission has sought directly to involve carers in discussing current service provision and the best ways to develop services in future. Those are positive developments.

Such a framework is exactly what a best value authority should be developing in planning carer services. It is also exactly the kind of process that is encouraged by the national carers strategy, which stressed that such consultation with carers should form an integral part of each local authority's strategy for spending their carers special grant. The good news for carers in Barnsley is that the carers special grant for 2000-01 will be £234,000, which is more than double the amount of last year's grant. That new money for Barnsley will be spent on providing respite breaks for carers, which is a crucial service that carers value highly.

Another piece of good news for Barnsley is that it has been successful in bidding for Invest to Save money. Invest to Save is a Treasury-led scheme to promote new projects that bring together two or more public service bodies to deliver services in an innovative and more efficient manner. At £550,000, Barnsley's was the fourth largest single allocation of money to a local authority this year, and, at £918,000 over two years, was the second largest single allocation to a local authority. The Barnsley scheme focuses on developing a single information system for health and social care, allowing for integrated services in mental health, learning disability, children's services, physical disability and elderly care. The result will be services that are more convenient for service users and their carers, and more effectively provided by integrated teams of national health service and local authority staff. That is excellent and positive news.

On a national level, the Government have taken several steps to address the "lottery of location" that was described in "A Matter of Chance for Carers". I do not have time this morning to explain what has been achieved in relation to all 78 commitments that the Government made in the national carers strategy. I will therefore confine myself to the issues that my hon. Friend raised and talk more widely about how we see matters developing in future.

Most importantly, I congratulate Barnsley council on its attempts to reach out to carers. Nationally, some 29 per cent. of heavily involved carers are receiving some form of social services help. Many carers do not approach services at all until they are in crisis. That underlines the importance of a good awareness-raising strategy based on better information for carers and a prevention strategy that helps carers to think ahead.

Some 40 per cent. of heavily involved carers change each year because of death, the change of the carer or admission to a residential care facility. In Barnsley, that would mean that about 2,800 carers each year may need a local authority assessment. Improving the quality of information about what carers want is therefore the key to making services responsive in the right way at the right time. That underpins the approach that has been taken in Barnsley.

It is for that reason that the Government have developed the referrals, assessments and packages of care project, known as RAP, to provide for the first time a coherent set of national statistics on adult community care. The first indications are that the number of assessments of carers—in terms of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995—between 1 January and 31 March 1999 was approximately 60,000 for England. The second dress rehearsal of RAP is running from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000. We are confident that it will yield a greatly improved level of response and that the impact of the national carers strategy will be to increase the number of carers' assessments undertaken by local authorities.

The new Carers and Disabled Children Bill will give carers new rights to assessments, even when a service user refuses one. This, and the new power for local authorities to provide carers with certain services in their own right, will give further prominence to carers' assessments. Alongside the additional resources for breaks, to which I have referred, and the greater awareness of carers through the national strategy, the Bill is also likely to increase the number of carers who come forward for assessment. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough will agree that those are positive developments.

The carers special grant to local authorities across England will provide £140 million over three years to help more carers to benefit from flexible breaks. Barnsley's carers plan for spending the special grant shows the effectiveness of this policy. Carers have been consulted at all stages of the development of the plan. They want the traditional services to continue; they also want greater flexibility and simpler access to breaks, hence Barnsley's new voucher scheme to maximise carers' choices. That is an excellent innovation. Those are just the kind of flexible schemes that local authorities should be developing. The new Carers and Disabled Children Bill—sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry)—will give local authorities additional powers to develop schemes that allow carers and service users to have a choice between providers, as well as flexibility in relation to the timing and type of breaks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough spoke eloquently about the problems faced by young carers in Barnsley. The Government also want to ensure that young carers, like all children, have an education and enjoy good health and leisure time. Barnsley is right to focus on schools as the places in which to address the problems of young carers. The social inclusion pupil support guidance on pupil attendance published by the Department for Education and Employment in July 1999 included, for the first time, guidance on supporting young carers. It also suggests ways of linking to social services and local voluntary organisations.

In addition, learning mentors are being piloted through the excellence in cities initiative in six areas, to provide one-to-one support for children with problems at school, including young carers, and to help them to access external support. The Department of Health is also fully involved with proposals in the new youth support service, which will aim to provide a single point of contact for young people to get advice on social services, benefits, housing, careers and so on, and to put them in contact with relevant profesionals such as health and social workers.

Under the national healthy school standard, which is part of the healthy schools programme—a joint initiative by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health—there are criteria against which school achievements will be assessed. One of those will be that pupils' views should be reflected in school activities, including pupils with special educational needs and health conditions, as well as disaffected pupils, young carers and teenage parents.

The Government are also committed to ensuring that local authorities recognise the need to sustain and enhance the number of young carers' projects. From the second year of the carers special grant, local authorities will be able to spend allocations on both adult and children's services. That will enable them to help carers of all ages and to fund projects focused on young carers' needs. I hope that young carers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough will be able to benefit from that.

The Government intend to strengthen children's services planning by making it a corporate responsibility of local authorities and the Department of Health. Plans will be required to demonstrate coherence across all relevant local plans and to address national and local objectives. The quality protects programme relates to young carers and to the support of families caring for disabled children. Its contribution will be crucial.

Officials from the Department of Health will meet carers' and children's organisations later this month to discuss further support for young carers' projects nationally. Child and mental health services funding will also be provided with £90 million between 1999 and 2002, some of which will have an impact on young carers' access to counselling services. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that, last year, £105,000 was made available to support service enhancements in Barnsley and a further £105,000 will be provided in the coming financial year.

My hon. Friend referred to the need for carers to receive information about local services. The Carers' helplines offer crucial advice and support. Carers National Association's helpline, which is funded through grants from the Department, deals with 10,000 calls a year. Local helplines, through carers' centres, also provide a range of emotional support and information. Furthermore, 24-hour access to help and advice is currently available from several different sources, including the Samaritans, which provides emotional support for carers. For information on the national health service and related services, there is NHS Direct, to which my hon. Friend referred. It receives 100,000 calls per month.

There is also NHS Direct on-line and the new carers' website, which is available 24 hours a day for those carers with access to such technology. NHS Direct could refer on to local provision by social services emergency teams and ambulance services, as appropriate; otherwise, most information needs can be met during office hours. In fact, the experience of 24-hour carers' helplines throughout England has revealed that little use has been made of them at night and they have, therefore, reverted to office hours or extended office hours. We shall review the whole issue most carefully in future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that NHS Direct might seek to record contacts from carers to ensure that they are using the service. I understand that there may be some room for manoeuvre in the future as NHS Direct develops. At present, however, although NHS Direct offers an excellent service to carers, the questioning of callers to ascertain their exact caring status may not always be possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must continue to explore innovative ways in which to involve carers in planning and developing their services. Carers' centres have an important role to play, but we must make use of new technology. Carers' satisfaction surveys will provide useful information in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of those services.

I could say much more about what the Government are doing to promote services for carers as I could about what is happening in Barnsley, but what is enormously encouraging is that there is a clear willingness in my hon. Friend's constituency to engage with carers' organisations and carers themselves to review the current range of services that are provided and to use in imaginative ways the new and additional resources that the Government are making available to support local authorities. That is a positive step forward and I congratulate the council, as I do my hon. Friend on the support that he provides to it.

My hon. Friend began his speech by drawing attention to the high levels of deprivation in his constituency and the implications that that has for those who care for people with disabilities. In areas such as Barnsley and in my constituency, too, which has a similar profile, it is incumbent on us in government, local authorities and the national health service to continue to explore ways in which to develop services, to put carers at the forefront of our concerns and ensure that our services are responsive to their needs. With the continuing support of the Government and that of my hon. Friend, I am sure that, over the next few years, we shall make significant progress, put carers firmly on the map at the top of our list of priorities and improve services and the range of support.

There is much that I could say about yesterday's domination of the media by the national health service. The position on appointments is an absolute sham and I am delighted to have the opportunity to share with the Minister my thoughts on how my constituents in Southend, West have been badly let down. What I am about to do, Mr. McWilliam, is something that I have never done in my 17 years in Parliament. It goes completely against the grain to have to name individuals and talk about such matters publicly. I am completely frustrated, so I have followed all the proper procedures, written letters and talked to individuals. All the relevant documents have been copied to Ministers.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow all the proper procedures, he had better start calling me Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I apologise. I checked with two individuals who gave me different advice before the debate started. I am sorry that I chose the wrong one.

I regret that I have to air the matter publicly, as we would not be in such a serious mess if representations had been listened to properly. I shall speak about a travesty in the health service. I have found complete abuse in relation to South Essex health authority, the appointments to the primary care trust and the merger of the Thameside and Southend trusts. What has been brought to my attention is appalling.

As the Member of Parliament for Southend, West, I was asked to give my views about two individuals who could have been appointed to the post of chairman of South Essex health authority. Other local Members of Parliament had the same choice. I knew one of the individuals, and I was passive in my response to the chairmanship. South Essex health authority has huge powers and responsibility, so the way in which it is managed is important.

My attention was drawn—not by Mrs. Rosie Varley, the regional chairman—to a report to the health authority and the eastern region of the national health service executive. It was prepared by Peter Brokenshire, the chairman of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, and I was flabbergasted to read it. The report was well distributed internally, but the chairman of the region and Ministers thought, for some reason, that local Members of Parliament had no need to see it. It clearly details an appalling set of circumstances. Relationships had completely broken down, to such an extent that the chief executive, the chairman of the health authority and a Labour councillor were not speaking to one another.

The Minister looks surprised, but the report contains evidence of a complete breakdown in relationships. People might say that I will quote selectively from the report, but I would be happy to quote it all if there were time. Mr. Brokenshire says that the achievements of the health authority are generally

good, the control, governance and accountability processes that are in place seem sound, so I have had to ask myself, why the current tensions and adverse climate between some Executive and some Non Executive Directors exist.

The report suggests that there were tensions from day one between the board and some executive and non-executive directors, and that

These tensions have escalated into a lack of trust and respect, because of the circumstances surrounding the deterioration of relationships between the Chairman … and the Chief Executive.

so much so that the chairman said that she had lost confidence in him and wanted him removed.

When new structures are set up and a new chairman is appointed to work with an existing chief executive, a learning curve will be involved. That learning curve had a disastrous effect on staff morale. Ministers and the chairman of the regional authority knew about the problem but did not have the common courtesy to alert Members of Parliament, who continually expressed anxiety in Parliament about their local health service. It is a disgrace.

The lengthy report states:

The Chief Executive considers that the Chairman does not understand the NHS and big organisation realities, raises expectations that cannot be met, gets involved in management issues and does not focus on the big picture.

It continues in that vein. The instigator of the report felt that the chairman's main charge against the chief executive was not as important as the chairman felt that it was.

The primary care group will become a primary care trust. I shall not bore the Chamber with my feelings about primary care groups and primary care trusts. I realise that the Under-Secretary was not in post when we considered the Health Bill in Committee last year, but I spoke at great length about how I feel about primary care groups and primary care trusts.

General practitioners in Southend were balloted, and the majority voted against becoming a primary care trust. In a letter from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to the chief executive of South Essex health authority, it is clear that the Minister is extremely worried that doctors have not been sufficiently involved in the process. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have the letter. According to the letter, the Minister expects the primary care trust to demonstrate before 1 April 2000—a month's time—that all the problems have been corrected. That is utterly ridiculous.

The Government often consult us about such matters when no one is here, and we sometimes have only two weeks or 10 days, or are not consulted. I have categorical evidence that the Government have been central in controlling the end result. They make wonderful speeches and create wonderful photo opportunities while at the grassroots my constituents suffer.

Most doctors do not want a primary care trust. Interviews will be held tomorrow for the new chief executive of the primary care trust. I have read the recommendations for the interview procedure, which state that it would be preferable if a nurse were present, although it is not essential, but that at least one doctor should be present. However, it does not seem as though doctors will be involved in that appointment.

After 1 May 1997, Labour said, "We are in a new era now that we have got rid of the shocking Conservatives after 18 years. We know all about their political appointments, and we are not going to have any of it. Politics doesn't come into it." However, day in and day out, politics dominates all appointments in my constituency. I was presented with a choice of two people, both of whom are active members of the Labour party. I wrote to Mrs. Rosie Varley to explain why I did not consider either of them to be suitable. Knowing about Mr. Brokenshire's report, I said that it was extraordinary that one of the candidates had recently been the subject of a critical report.

It must have been difficult for Ministers in conversations with Mrs. Rosie Varley about how to deal with the chairman of South Essex health authority. Ministers think that Members of Parliament are so lazy and uninterested that they cannot understand what is going on. I made all that known. Before Christmas, I had a most unsatisfactory telephone conversation with the chairman of the region; she listened to all that I had said, but I have categoric evidence to show that it has all been ignored.

On primary care groups and primary care trusts, there has been no improvement in general practitioner support since the vote. Services are substantially worse since the primary care group was established. There are major waits for appointments, surgery and accident and emergency services. There have been severe cuts in community services—for example, one doctor who had 0.6 of a health service visitor now has none at all. There has been a loss of occupational therapists, hearing therapists, dieticians, and of practice-based community staff, who have lost motiviation due to their new cramped and unwelcoming premises. Waiting lists for physiotherapy and for magnetic resonance imaging scans have increased to 26 weeks. We all know that the Government are fudging the issue of waiting lists. It is a disgrace.

Because the wretched Government are obsessed with targets and with trying to kid the people—for the general election next year—that all that they promised has been delivered, everything is being rushed. Either they do not understand the issues—which I think is the case—or they are concerned only with their own political interests. How else can one justify the problems that I have detailed? Morale is very low. The cardiologist at Southend, for example, has funding for only four NHS coronary angiographies a week. The number required is 10 times that, so several people on the list are dying. This scandal goes on and on.

I also wish to draw the Minister's attention to the merger of Thameside and Southend community NHS trust. Members of Parliament were, of course, consulted on that, but if they were Conservative Members, the consultation was a sham. Last year we were invited to talk about the trust and views were expressed that, although there was well-judged support for the merger, it should not be done in such a way as to constitute a takeover of Southend. That was said all along—yet an absolute takeover has occurred. Again, that is an absolute disgrace.

What angers me so much is the disgraceful handling of the appointments. We had a superb chairman of Thameside, Mr. John Vesey, but because the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancreas (Mr. Dobson)—who now wants to be mayor of London—instigated whistleblowing, when allegations concerning the chief executive of the trust were reported to Mr. Vesey, an investigation followed. A constituent of mine was one of the informants. What happened? The two people who had done what the Secretary of State wanted and became whistleblowers—my constituent and the chairman—were removed. I have reports and papers on it. The person about whom the complaints were made, the chief executive, not only stayed in post but has now been appointed the chief executive of the new combined trust. That is another disgrace.

I have before me the lengthy audit report concerning allegations about a property, 87c Grand parade, being used as an office at considerable public expense, a trip to Paris and taxi expenses. I also have all the evidence on sloppy structures. The Government know all about that, but because it does not fit their agenda, they have reappointed the chief executive.

The appointment procedure was a fiasco. The job was advertised at short notice while people were away; someone who would have been an excellent candidate was told that it was not worth applying because it was a more-or-less foregone conclusion that the existing chief executive would get the job. That hypocrisy will affect my constituents.

When it came to appointing the chairman of the new combined trust, no one was consulted. It was the usual two-week period of consultation. The choice was between two people, one from Thurrock and the other from Southend. I said that, because Thurrock would be heavily represented, I wanted a Southend chairman. Was it a surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when yet again my input was wasted and the person from Thurrock was chosen—a person who had only a few months' experience of the national health service?

We have a primary care trust in Southend that the doctors do not want, with a chairman who has been the subject of a critical report. Thurrock and Southend have been merged, and we have a chief executive who was the subject of another critical report and a chairman from Thurrock. As it stands, only one person on the new merged trust will come from Southend.

I pay tribute to the British Medical Association, the NHS Confederation and the others who have briefed me. The information that I have shared with hon. Members this afternoon has come from the many doctors and local practitioners who have approached me on the matter.

I feel uncomfortable at what I have had to say today. Three weeks ago, I was here on another matter; I thought that I had dealt with it fairly, but I got absolutely nowhere. However, as a result of that debate, I received a letter the very next day from the Prime Minister, and the matters that I had brought to the attention of the House are now being dealt with.

I am sick to death of dealing with a Government who say that they are democratic, who say that they want to embrace the whole community and who say that they want to listen, but who listen only to their supporters. I have clear evidence that if the Government were being even-handed, and if they did not take account of the fact that they were dealing with a Conservative Member of Parliament, they would act in the best interests of my constituents in matters of health care. They clearly have not done that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate on the health authority appointments and structures in Essex. As the Minister with responsibility for non-executive appointments, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels aggrieved that his views on recent appointments in south Essex were not taken into account. However, he is mistaken to believe that.

It may help if I say how the national health service non-executive appointments are made. The preliminary sifting and interviewing of candidates are overseen by an independent person whose role is to ensure that the procedures comply with guidelines issued by the commissioner for public appointments. As well as the independent member, interview panels normally include two NHS representatives from outside the area of the organisation involved, typically the chairmen of health authorities or health trusts. That panel decides which candidates should be included on a regional register of those judged suitable for appointment. When trust and health authority vacancies arise, the regional chair recommends to Ministers preferred and alternative candidates who are either on the regional register or serving as non-executives and eligible for reappointment. For chair appointments, the interview panel usually includes the regional chair and an independent member. The panel decides which candidates have the qualifications and abilities to carry out the role of the chair. The regional chair has ultimate responsibility for the shortlist of names that goes to Ministers for consideration.

The Secretary of State is responsible for deciding the criteria for candidates. Ministers, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, are responsible for the final decision on who should be appointed. Ministers can become directly involved in the initial sifting and interview process only if the correct procedure has not been followed or when there is evidence of unfair discrimination. That is properly and strictly in accordance with the guidance issued by the commissioner for public appointments, which we are required by law to follow. There is no scope for Ministers to substitute names of their choosing. They can ask the regional chair for alternative names, but only when they have good reason for believing that none of the recommended candidates should be appointed. Ministers are obliged to inform the commissioner if a complete slate of recommended candidates is rejected, and they must specify their reasons for that decision.

Members of Parliament are consulted by the regional chairs on the names that they are planning to recommend to Ministers for chair appointments. Their comments are passed on to Ministers and they, not the regional chair, take them into account before reaching a decision. I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's choice of words when he referred to being given the "choice" between candidates. Along with other hon. Members, he was asked for his opinion, but Members of Parliament do not have the right to choose. Their views are part of a range of views that are sought in the selection process. As with Ministers, Members of Parliament are not able to substitute names of their choosing for those recommended by the regional chair, nor can they provide additional names. That would run counter to the clear guidance produced by the commissioner for public appointments.

All candidates for the appointments must be able to demonstrate a strong personal commitment to the NHS and the needs of the local community. Candidates are considered solely on their merits and the contribution that they can make, not their politics. The hon. Gentleman referred to allegations of political bias that have been made by Opposition spokesmen in the past few years. In response to those allegations, the commissioner for public appointments announced last July that she would scrutinise the NHS appointment process. She rightly stated:

it is clearly in the interests of all concerned that the appointments process in the NHS is above suspicion.

The Government entirely agree with that sentiment.

We welcome the scrutiny and have given the commissioner every assistance in the work involved. The results are expected shortly and we shall make a statement on the report. However, it is worth noting that, after previous annual audits of NHS appointments, the commissioner has been substantially content with the integrity of the system. In the 1998 annual report, the then commissioner wrote that his audit of NHS appointments had found

no evidence of Ministers intervening to ensure the advancement of their nominees.

He went on to say:

patronage on behalf of individuals is clearly not an issue.

Now that I have established the principles of the appointment process, I shall refer to specific constituency issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. He must be only too aware of the additional demands placed on the NHS in Southend by the area's large elderly population and the fact that it has the largest area of social deprivation in south Essex. Southend has specific health needs, and the Government investment programme demonstrates our commitment to meeting them. The aim of everyone interested in health care in the area must be to work together to tackle those needs and inequalities and thereby raise the health status of the residents.

One of the steps taken to achieve those goals is the development of the Southend primary care group to primary care status, which will take effect on 1 April. It provides an unparalleled opportunity for local stakeholders, including family doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors, social services and the wider community that they serve to shape services so as to provide better health care and to work to meet the needs that I have identified. I know that the hon. Member for Southend, West has reservations about the move to trust status and that the local medical committee GP ballot did not show an overall majority of support for the move to trust status. However, it appears that the reasons for that result are varied and are not unrelated to the timing of the ballot, which did not allow the PCG to visit all the general practitioners' practices, to explain the objectives and overall vision of the primary care trust or to address the concerns of individuals before they were asked to vote.

I turn to the Brokenshire report and to Katherine Kirk, the chair of the health authority, who is now appointed to take over the PCT. The report makes clear the strained relations between the chair and chief executive of South Essex health authority. However, as it points out, those problems must be considered in the context of the exceptional circumstances in which the new South Essex health authority board was launched. The board faced a huge agenda of change which was made all the more difficult because all but one of the serving non-executive directors left, which resulted in a continuity problem. The report suggests that more could perhaps have been done properly to induct the new board members.

Importantly, the report states that many of the difficulties mentioned have been addressed. South Essex health authority, of which Katherine Kirk is currently chair, performed well throughout the year. It is on target to achieve financial balance and its in-patient waiting list target. In addition, it coped well with significant winter pressures, working closely with NHS trusts and other agencies to deliver its winter plans. The report refers also to a lack of focus in responsibility and roles, which is probably the crux of the matter. I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, West will be reassured to know that the regional office is keen to ensure that new PCT chairmen are given appropriate induction, training and development opportunities. In addition, they will have specific development opportunities and added learning facilities to help them fit into their roles.

I am extremely disappointed to learn that the merger of the community trusts, which was supported by all parties, is being promoted as a takeover by Thameside community trust, with the implication that it is at the expense of Southend community trust. I find the view of the hon. Member for Southend, West all the more baffling considering that the appointment process has not yet been completed. To date, the chairman and two non-executive directors—one from each existing trust—have been appointed, and at least another three remain to be appointed. They have been and will be chosen from the whole pool of locally approved candidates. Those already on NHS boards will be considered alongside those on the regional register.

It was made clear that the chairman would be expected to provide evidence to the regional office to show that the support of local GPs for the PCG move to trust status had increased when approving PCT status. The chairman will also be responsible for ensuring achievement of the PCT objectives, in particular that of improving the resident population's health and health services in the key areas specifically outlined in the consultation process.

The hon. Gentleman's objections on the abolition of fundholding related to community involvement and to working together. It is, however, exactly those things that the new PCT will provide. The local community now has a tremendous opportunity to move forward and open a new chapter in health care in south Essex.

I urge all involved to put the differences of the past behind them. Everyone needs to grasp this opportunity to develop and improve health services. Local residents will be the losers if we fail.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate a subject on which for some years I have tried to explore and influence Government policy.

Usually people who have been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom will originally have applied for asylum and been given exceptional leave instead. However, there are other people who fall into that category. The current policy is expressed by the Home Office as a concession, allowing family reunion once someone has had exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom for four years.

A couple of examples illustrate how that policy can operate. In a case that I came across a year or so ago, a man from Sri Lanka who had arrived in 1991 as an asylum seeker was given exceptional leave in 1993—so he had waited two years for that decision. Four years later, in 1997, his family in Sri Lanka—his wife and three daughers—applied for family reunion. The wife and two of the daughters were given entry clearance visas, but the third daughter was refused, on the ground that she was no longer dependent because she was 19. I remind hon. Members that the man had been in this country six years when this happend. In every other respect he fitted the immigration rules.

That is not an isolated case. I recently saw a man who was worried about his family. He has been given exceptional leave and knows that he may now have to wait four years before his family can join him. He is suffering serious mental health problems caused by stress.

The consequence of our present policy on people with exceptional leave is, in some cases, permanent separation. When the wife of the Tamil man was told that one of her daughters could not come to the United Kingdom, she said that in that case she would not come. She would not leave her 19-year-old daughter on her own in Colombo.

The policy certainly makes it far more difficult for people to settle down and adapt to life in a new country. Also, it leads to pointless appeals against refusal of asylum. When a person whose asylum claim has been rejected, but who has been given exceptional leave, discovers that the latter status does not allow family reunion, he or she appeals on the asylum claim. The result is the clogging-up of tribunals with appeals that are pointless because the person has permission to remain here in any case.

I recognise that there is an argument that exceptional leave to remain is not the same status as asylum and that the very strict terms of the 1951 convention are different from the other grounds that permit someone to stay in this country. Once we have granted exceptional leave to remain, for a year in the first place and then, usually, for three further years, the numbers of people who do not qualify for permanent permission to stay are absolutely minute. The last time that I asked for figures on the number of people who were refused an extension of their exceptional leave at the end of one year, then after four years, the numbers for any one year could be counted on one's fingers. The reality is that those who are given exceptional leave will, in time, be given permanent permission and qualify for family reunion. All that the present policy does is delay the process and cause problems.

I want to concentrate on the broader context of the issue and consider how our policy on family reunion fits in with other changes. In October this year, the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force and the European convention on human rights will become part of UK law. The convention includes an article on the right to family life. The Government are also emphasising the importance of family life in other contexts. Last year, the Home Office published a welcome consultation paper on the settlement and integration of refugees—the first such paper—which referred to the importance of people being able to settle, put down roots and develop a normal life. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees believes that a reunited family is in a better position both to settle and to consider its options. Some UNHCR papers refer to the possibility that a family might consider voluntary repatriation to its country of origin if conditions there have changed, and is more likely to do so if it can discuss the issue as a family living together rather than as one that is scattered.

The policy must also be regarded in the light of the draft EU directive. In October last year, in Tampere, the European Council reiterated the point that the European Union must try to offer fair treatment to third-country nationals who reside legally in the EU. As one of the steps towards that objective, the Commission now says that third-country nationals legally resident in EU member states should have rights of family reunification, subject to several conditions. The Commission makes the point—a fair one—that family reunion in its broadest sense is the main form of legal immigration to most of the EU, as it has been for some years and as is the case in north America. Reunification of families produces stability and enables people to lead more normal lives and put down roots.

We now have a draft EU directive and we have seen the first response from the Home Office in the explanatory memorandum. I suspect that this is, if not the first, one of the first of several such proposals that we shall have to consider during the next few years in the field of asylum and immigration law, which flow from the Amsterdam treaty. The key issue for the UK is to decide what our position is in relation to that treaty and whether to opt in to the proposals. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine the directive and the initial response of the Home Office. I have some concerns about the Home Office initial response, although I agree with parts of it. I am not clear why the Government believe that action at Community level, rather than at member state level, will not produce benefits. If we do not opt into the directive, we might operate family reunification policies that do not reach the level of such policies across the rest of the EU. I am not sure to whose benefit that would be.

The directive would give a right to family reunion to EU citizens who are not exercising their right to free movement, and to third-country nationals who are legally resident. Safeguards are built in, although I have doubts about the wording of some of them. One that especially caught my eye would allow member states to reject an application if it could be shown that the marriage was contracted for the sole purpose of enabling the person concerned to enter or reside in a member state. That reeks of the return of the primary purpose rule, in a form little changed from the one that we rightly abolished a couple of years ago.

The directive requires applications to be decided in six months. The Home Office's response is that it needs flexibility to allow for geographical and seasonal variations in application numbers. It might have other reasons for not wanting such a time limit. However, saying that decisions cannot generally be made within six months is not a strong argument.

A key issue, relating to my earlier point about people with exceptional leave, is the provision that the qualifying residence period for family reunification must not exceed one year. I was puzzled by the Home Office response, which suggested that, at present, families could join the sponsor only when they had been given indefinite leave to remain—when they had permission to remain permanently in the UK—and that the time scale for that would vary depending on the nature of the case. It would vary, but it would do so because of where it happened to be in the Home Office computer system, rather than the nature of the case.

We do not restrict family reunion to people given permanent permission to stay. I have heard it argued that the status of exceptional leave cases is temporary—different from refugee status, which is permanent—and that we should therefore not give family reunification. However, we allow people with temporary status to bring families to the UK, such as students and people with work permits. The argument about temporary status does not hold water, even for our present policies. If we have a policy that allows students, who are certainly not regarded as permanent residents, to bring their family with them, it seems odd that we would not allow families to join people given exceptional leave—technically a temporary status, but one that would almost certainly become permanent.

A couple of the articles talk about settlement given to family members who have been in the UK for more than one year, and whose family situation is changed by separation, divorce or death. I am again puzzled by the Home Office response, which talks about the current policy on victims of domestic violence and people who become bereaved, because it applies to such people during their first probationary year. They would get indefinite leave to remain once they had got through that year in any case—they would have a right to permanent permission.

Our current policies are somewhat harsh and cause problems for families. In time we may find that some of those policies fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 and end up being less generous than the EU proposals. The key issue is how we approach those proposals, given that they may be the first of many on immigration and asylum.

It would be a mistake if the immediate signal that we gave was that we were likely to pull out because we were not interested in being in there. We should agree that the gap between the rights of EU nationals and third-country nationals is too wide and we should recognise the value of family reunion. We must approach the directive from the point of view of the desirability of agreeing and achieving good common standards across the EU and influencing the parts of the directive about which we have doubts. I hope that we will be fully engaged in that process and thereby improve our own legislation. By becoming involved in influencing the directive, we shall contribute to a fairer system across the EU.

First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing a debate on this important issue. He and I may approach it differently, but we agree that it is important. I congratulate him most warmly on bringing it to the attention of this Chamber, because these proceedings are followed closely by people outside. My hon. Friend comes to the debate not only with constituency expertise, but as the distinguished chairman of the all-party group on refugees.

The Government have made it clear that they are determined to operate asylum policies that are fair, firm and fast. That is why, when we took office, we commissioned the work that led to the White Paper and put in place measures to ensure that the legislation operates as we wish it to, in what is perhaps the most comprehensive overview of recent immigration and asylum matters. Our family reunion policies not only form part of that legislation, but right the wrongs in the system that we inherited.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, although the families of those recognised as refugees in the United Kingdom are eligible to join them in this country immediately, the families of those who have been refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain must normally wait until they have completed four years in that category before their families are eligible to join them. My hon. Friend has covered the reasons for that, but it is worth my mentioning them briefly.

As I am sure hon. Members appreciate, exceptional leave to remain may be granted for a variety of reasons. As my hon. Friend conceded, a person who is granted exceptional leave does not have to meet the strict criteria required of someone recognised as a refugee under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. Therefore, there is a considerable distinction between the two groups.

People who have been granted exceptional leave to remain have considerable entitlements in the United Kingdom, but I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to offer them the full range of benefits currently available to refugees. Under the 1951 convention and the way in which it is applied by countries that are signatories to it, that is a special status and carries with it special entitlements. It is right to maintain those special entitlements.

I must make it clear—my hon. Friend will know this from his constituency experience, as do I—that our family reunion policy includes a concession with some flexibility, which allows discretion for humanitarian reasons. There is some discretion within the family reunion concession and, in such cases, consideration is given to whether the families of people with exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom should be allowed to join them in this country before the four-year period has elapsed. My hon. Friend will have brought such cases to the attention of the immigration and nationality directorate.

When considering whether it is appropriate to exercise discretion in that way, we have regard to the United Kingdom's international obligations. The circumstances of the sponsor in the United Kingdom, or the applicant abroad, may merit compassionate treatment. It is not possible, and would not be right, to detail all the factors that might be taken into account when deciding whether to exercise discretion, but they include the degree of dependency, the hardships faced by the applicant, the health of the sponsor or the applicant, and the age of those concerned. I emphasise for the record that that is not an exhaustive list, because exceptional circumstances are, by their nature, exceptional and it is not possible to list them in one place.

It is important to point out that we are prepared to extend the family reunion policy in response to international circumstances, particularly when the need to provide immediate protection warrants that, as was the case during the Kosovo crisis when we operated a humanitarian evacuation programme. Under those arrangements, procedures were put in place for applications to be processed quickly and allowed members of asylum seekers' extended families to join them in the United Kingdom if that was justified.

My hon. Friend referred to the European Union draft directive on family reunion and I am grateful to him for doing so, because it provides me with the opportunity to outline the background. I fully appreciate that the Commission's proposal is intended to identify guiding principles for a common European policy on family reunion. However, if the United Kingdom opted in, many of the directive's provisions would entail changes to our family reunion policy which we would find it difficult to accept. Some of those difficulties are that the sponsor in the United Kingdom should make the application for the family reunion, no fee should be payable, there should be a minimum standard for maintenance and accommodation—my hon. Friend may not be happy with some of those provisions—and family members should have an autonomous right to settlement. The Government also have difficulty with the aim to make the position of European Union citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement comparable to that of citizens who have exercised it by bringing them within the ambit of Community law. That would significantly weaken the United Kingdom's marriage rules and efforts being made to tighten them up in the face of marriage abuse for immigration purposes.

Furthermore, we would also have the difficulty with existing Community law in relation to dependent relatives, who are currently required to meet strict qualifying criteria. I hope that that is helpful background information, in addition to that provided in the explanatory memorandum. We will consider our position in relation to the proposal, and will advise Parliament accordingly. I assure this Chamber that we will participate in discussison of the text, and that policy issues will be drawn to the attention of the Commission and other member states.

I want to deal with others issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am delighted that he mentioned the paper on refugee integration, which I regard as an important contribution to the debate. I am sad that it has not received the publicity and focus that it deserves. It is vital to those who are interested in the issue. Those to whom refugee status is given should be aware of all the possibilities available to them to make a new life. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of that aspect of our work.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the delays in the process. However exercised he is on the matter, he is not as exercised as I am, as it is my job to speed up the process as much as possible. I am sure that he will have seen the figures that we published on Friday, which show record numbers of decisions being made. We want to make progress on that. I am not complacent; I appreciate that much remains for us to do, and that people's individual circumstances and futures are at stake. Delays in the asylum process are unacceptable. They disadvantage those involved in the process, which is why, as he will know, we took steps to improve the system inherited from the previous Administration. Resources are being introduced to ensure that all initial asylum decisions are taken within two months, and appeals resolved within four months. That is the target towards which we are working.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the four-year period for entry clearance. I assure my hon. Friend and this Chamber that we are trying to apply the principles of joined-up government to the processes. A joint unit to combine the work of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be established, which we hope will drive the speeding up of the process.

I end as I began by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate and presenting it in the manner in which he did. Fundamental issues are at stake, and we are at one in wanting to speed up the process, and on the need for it to be firm, fair and fast.