In November 1999, Ofsted inspected Leeds local education authority, and in February, it published a report in which it claimed that the authority was so bad that it suggested total outsourcing of the authority's services to schools, and consultants were installed to advise on the way forward. The suggestion is now for a joint venture board and company, which would almost certainly involve a private sector partner. The local authority would have two places on the board and the private sector two, with the Secretary of State choosing a chairman from a list provided by the council.

Before I comment on the proposal, two points need to be forcefully made. In the discussions that have been taking place since February, when Ministers have been criticised, they, understandably, take a high moral stance. I am not sure that we shall hear them do so today, but they cry, "Our only concern is for the education of the children."

On behalf of hon. Members who represent Leeds constituencies, I want to make it clear that we in Leeds and all hon. Members present share that position. Indeed, we go further. Although Ministers can only use words in relation to Leeds, we do not only use high moral language. We, as local Members, either have had or have children at Leeds schools, along with our friends' children, our neighbours' children and our constituents' children, and we care deeply about that responsibility. We understand the importance of good education to children's life chances, and I defy Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment to imply that we care less than they do. The implication that we would put political or educational structures before the future of Leeds children is, rightly, regarded as insulting. We want the best for our children, and we have fought and will continue to fight for that objective.

The second point that needs to be placed on record is that not one hon. Member who represents a Leeds constituency regards the LEA as perfect. I challenge the Minister to say that the DFEE is perfect. Like most big cities, Leeds struggles against problems and difficulties of which the Government are aware. It is not easy to run an authority that covers a large inner-city population, with all the attendant problems. In addition, problems have been encountered in finding a director. People accept the fact of and want to end bad provision in some of the services offered to schools. I am not trying to minimise the problems involved, but nor should the Minister try to exaggerate them. It is understood that the authority is working hard under its new management team to tackle a range of problems.

Where do those two key points—first, that the objective is to provide the highest-quality standard of education for children and, secondly, that the authority needs improvement—lead us? We could debate the Ofsted report and the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that followed it, but would that be sensible or productive? What it would amount to, after the dust has settled, is that I, like many others in Leeds, feel that Leeds is an average authority in most ways but is acceptable, given that its primary school results are above the LEA league table average and are improving at above the average rate of improvement. Although its secondary element needs improvement, its primary element is doing well.

Why did both Ofsted and the DFEE single out the authority? It is one of the biggest Labour authorities, and there is a feeling that everyone would take notice if Leeds were made an example of. It is that type of syndrome. If the Minister reads the press, she will discover that the mood in Leeds has become worse as the saga has developed. The authority may not be perfect, but the grotesque picture painted by Ofsted does no service to anyone, unless the political agenda is to destroy local education authorities. We now know that the increasingly eccentric chief inspector finds that proposition attractive; it touches a nerve with him, which should come as no surprise. We do not yet know the DFEE's intentions, but we know the Conservative party's. The Minister should spell out the Government's approach to LEAs, in relation to that of the Conservatives and the chief inspector.

I have enlarged on my original point and returned to where I started. Would it be sensible or productive for the Minister to fill Hansard with an attack on the Leeds LEA, as reported by Ofsted and PricewaterhouseCoopers? The only result would be to increase the bitterness and anger felt in Leeds over the issue.

Given that we share common objectives, we should decide whether the proposed joint venture company is the most appropriate way forward. In discussions in Leeds, officials from the DFEE and PricewaterhouseCoopers have conceded that the venture is new and unique. Does the Minister accept that, and does she think it appropriate that children's education should be gambled with in such a way? Officials have even used the word "experimental" to describe that joint venture company. Does the Minister think that Leeds children, whom she and the DFEE care deeply about, should be experimented with by handing over their education to an untried body?

Can the Minister tell us of the educational track record of the various firms listed by the DFEE as suggested partners? That list includes W. S. Atkins, Serco Ltd., Prospect, Include and Ensign consortium. None of those names falls readily from the lips of educationalists when the subject of running an education authority is raised. Will the Minister tell us whether it is a fact that none of those firms has a track record of running an education authority? Will she tell disbelieving Labour Members that she is prepared to employ Group 4 to run Leeds primary schools? In the previous Session of Parliament, Group 4 was seen as a joke for losing prisoners. The firm has gone from running prisoners to primary schools in one Government—that is quite a leap in quality, is it not? I suppose that the fact that Group 4 has teamed up with Tribal group makes it an appropriate partner in the running of Leeds schools. However, will the Minister tell us the track record of those companies?

Is the joint venture body not simply a body set up to allow the DFEE to run Leeds schools from 200 miles away? It will be good if the Minister disagrees with that theory, but can she explain why her officials continue to insist on the Secretary of State choosing both the chairman and the council nominees? Despite the fact that the Secretary of State once led a local authority, there is the suggestion that councillors would not be acceptable as board members. Does that suggestion have the Minister's approval and backing? If so, could she tell the Leeds council members and the Chamber why it is so?

Will the Minister clear up the confusion between the parties about who sets policy and strategy? Will the joint venture board deal with operational matters only, and is it absolutely accepted that the council will deal with policy and strategy? If that is the case, will she confirm that the outsourcing of services, which is clearly a policy matter, is a decision for the council?

Will the Minister tell us what length of time is needed for the experiment? What levels of performance are required and, when they have been reached, will the service revert to being run by the democratically elected council? If not, why not?

Finally—I know that many hon. Members wish to speak on this important subject—I ask the Minister to consider the following points. It is unacceptable that Leeds children will be experimented on by a company that has no track record in delivering education and it is disturbing that a Labour Government cannot work with a Labour council to agree a common strategy. Leeds does not claim perfection, but it wishes the best for the children and will work with anyone who shares that objective. Foisting an experimental system with untested private sector partners on a large city seems an irresponsible and insensitive approach by a Labour Government. I ask the Minister, although I imagine in vain, to reconsider the matter.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). The questions of whose interests we seek to represent, and whether those interests are best served by the people in Leeds elected to do that job or by an outside body appointed from central Government, have been posed to us many times over the past few months.

I want to start by giving a brief outline of my education and that of my family. I was born and educated in Leeds. I have four children, who all went through the Leeds educational system; three of them obtained university degrees and the fourth won a college place in Leeds and obtained a vocational qualification. I have four grandchildren in Leeds. Anyone who questions the interests of the Leeds MPs should understand that we are the organic, elected representation of the people of Leeds. We represent both roles.

If there were weaknesses in the management of the LEA in Leeds, it would not have come as any surprise to any Leeds MP, given the status that I have just claimed for us. We were aware of the difficulties and we continually pointed them out—that is part of the natural, continuing process of elected representative democracy. There has never been a period in local government in which all was perfect and management ran like a Swiss watch. Anyone involved in managerial functions understands that anyone—especially I, for example, with my less than expert qualifications to examine the management of any structure—could find fault with any aspect of it if they chose to do so.

Leeds looked long and hard for those managerial skills. For several years, it looked for a director of education who could take on the perceived weaknesses—and managed in the intervening period. Ofsted's identification of several weaknesses in the LEA in Leeds therefore came as no great surprise. At least the problems were being identified by elected representatives—slowly and persistently, one might say, but solutions were being sought. Every time I think of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, the Beatles song, "Paperback Writer" comes to mind:

I can make it longer if you like the style

I can change it round.

The report has no street credibility in Leeds whatsoever.

The big issue for me is that of democracy. The vital questions are whose education it is and who will manage, control and own it. Democracy is not simply a matter of a snapshot of one frozen moment of history or public opinion. It is about ownership, control and management of the structures of our society and it is extremely important in ensuring people's confidence in those who manage and control, and in the measure of control that they in turn have over those managers. Democracy is at the centre of all things, and as we speak in this place we are acutely aware of our role.

We are concerned with a public agenda, but we have been recently worried about what other agenda is at work. The recent lessons of the Rover car company flooded to mind when it became self-evident that the questions of ownership and control were extremely important to the people in a certain locality.

Make no mistake: the people of Leeds want their children's education back in the control of their elected representatives. The suggestion that it would take five to seven years for the required management skills to be instituted, and therefore before the return of control and management of the educational system to the city's elected representatives, was beyond my ken and that of everyone else in Leeds. The system has served the people of Leeds well for generations.

It is an undisputed fact that large sums of public money are involved. It seems possible that such sums will be handed over to people who need them, for five years or seven years, and the reasons for that are beyond the understanding of the people of Leeds. The Members of Parliament for Leeds suggested that if the expertise in educational management existed outside all local authorities of educational significance, we could buy it in, as we do in many other situations, until we had managed to raise any weaknesses to the required level of expertise. We cannot understand why such a simple solution—a self-evident way forward—was not adopted.

Many hon. Members want to speak, and I thank you for being kind enough to call me to speak second, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The observations made by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East would be supported not only by me, but by the generations of my family who have benefited from the LEA in Leeds. For my grandchildren's future, I think that they would like control to be back in the hands of the people of Leeds as rapidly as possible.

It is clearly evident from the two contributions so far that there is genuine passion about education in the city on the part of all those who are present to represent it in the Chamber, but there is also concern about how the people of the city will be able to influence education in future.

I share others' view about there clearly being aspects of the educational system in Leeds that need to be improved. I say that not least because head teachers have told me so when I have visited schools. From talking to those same head teachers, however, I also know that there are great strengths in the system. In passing, I should say that on Thursday I had the pleasure of attending a dinner in Leeds for 200 people from schools to celebrate the fact that nearly a quarter of schools in Leeds have achieved Investors in People status. I doubt whether there is an LEA elsewhere with such a high proportion.

Many people have also expressed the view to me that, whatever problems are identified in the Ofsted report, Leeds should have the opportunity to solve them itself. However, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) that the city council has acknowledged the need for outside support to address the scale of the problems that it wants considered.

One of our big problems is the fact that there remain many questions about how the new arrangements will work. One can be forgiven for thinking, from reading some of the newspaper coverage of the proposals, that Leeds LEA will cease to exist and that elected members will have no say in, influence over or contribution to make to the future of education in the city. That is not the case, as I understand it, and it would help if my right hon. Friend the Minister would confirm the reasons for that.

The LEA remains in existence as the body that decides the level of education expenditure in schools. It remains responsible for key decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East made an important point about where the balance of responsibility will lie. Crucially, the LEA will be responsible for drawing up the specification to which the new partnership board will work. I hope that, as a result of that process, the LEA will take the opportunity to lay down clearly what it wishes to be provided in terms of educational services. It should focus on further raising standards to build on the success to which my hon. Friend referred. On the other hand, head teachers should have the opportunity to lay down clearly what support they want to help them in their principal job, which is to support children in learning and progressing in their school lives.

On the issue of accountability, I have no doubt that the council, having drawn up the specification—and, as I understand it, having legal responsibility for ensuring that services are delivered according to the contract that it has determined—will use the scrutiny mechanisms, which it recently established, to ensure that that is the case. It is not just a question of drawing up a contract and leaving the contractor to get on with it for seven years, five years or whatever period is determined. It will be an on-going dialogue.

There is another reason why I think that some of the fears may be misplaced. As a newcomer to Leeds during the past year, I am conscious that the council has used its influence, which is a result of its democratic legitimacy, over many years to make many things happen. As an outsider, my observation is that much of the success of Leeds as a city is owed to the influence and leadership of the council in partnership with other bodies. The council has little formal control over those bodies, but the legitimacy that comes from being elected puts it in a strong position. My hon. Friend was rightly concerned about major questions of policy. I do not believe for one second that when the elected representatives of the city of Leeds speak clearly and with one voice on such matters, on behalf of the people whom they represent, the partnership board—two of whose members are appointed by Leeds, while the third is appointed by the Secretary of State from a list of persons agreeable to the city—will say, "We don't care what you think; we're going to do something different." Accountability and democracy is not just about how the relationship is established. It must be about an on-going dialogue. As democratically elected representatives, we need not be too pessimistic about our ability to influence others.

Some crucial details—such as contract length, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred—are yet to be determined. It would help if, in responding to the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister would deal with the important question of how the decision will be taken in relation to what happens when the contract ends. Assuming that the issues identified by the city council and the Ofsted report have been successfully addressed—and given that the city council makes the contract with the partnership board—will she confirm that the city council will determine, subject to satisfactory progress, how it wishes the delivery of education services to continue in the future? It is difficult to understand how a view on the outcome can be expressed now, because it is difficult to prejudge the situation in five years' time. It would encourage greater confidence and clarify many questions if my right hon. Friend were able to deal with that point.

I ask all these questions because I am a strong believer in the principle of democratic accountability and in the need for a local authority, in the proper sense of those words. An organisation that is elected by the people and democratically accountable is necessary to hold the ring, ensure fairness, deal with problems that arise and hold to account all those who are responsible for providing education. With great respect to the Conservative spokesperson, I cannot say that I look forward to his contribution. However, I shall listen to it with interest, because the Conservative party's proposal to do away with LEAs constitutes the real threat to the democratic oversight and scrutiny of education.

The final point is that the new arrangements, whatever they are, must be made to work. I feel strongly that Leeds, the subject of the debate, has suffered enough from the Ofsted process. It has gone on long enough. Parents, teachers and pupils, elected members and the city itself now need confidence and certainty about what is to happen next. Leaving to one side this debate, which is about the means, the common view held in the Chamber today about the end is clear: we should continue to work hard to raise the levels of achievement of the children in Leeds schools.

I know from my one year's experience in the city that anyone there will say that, in order to address the problems of a two-speed Leeds—the fact that some parts of the city and some people who live there do not share in the city's prosperity—it is most important of all for the city to make education a priority. That is why all those Members who represent Leeds constituencies feel so strongly about the issue.

I should like to add my voice to those of my hon. Friends because, like them, I wish to see educational standards raised in Leeds, and I am anxious that whatever is done is successful.

I speak frequently with the local authority about the needs of the children and parents in my constituency and, like other hon. Members, I am frequently disappointed with the response; and the parents on whose behalf I have spoken are often frustrated by the actions taken by the authority. Some of those experiences have been identified by Ofsted as areas of weakness, particularly in special needs provision. Although the city council recognises that assistance is required, change is needed in the attitudes of those who deal with the issue at some levels in the city council's administration. I remain to be convinced that the departmental approach will bring about the necessary changes, particularly in the attitudes of the administration. Like other hon. Members, I hope that it will be effective in raising standards in Leeds, and in putting right those weaknesses that have been identified.

I hope that the structure of the joint company, which received general assent from hon. Members, comes about, and I hope that the company's chairman will be acceptable to the Leeds authority. I hope that it will be possible to have a public-public partnership rather than a public-private partnership, because authorities not a great distance from Leeds have expertise in matters that have been found to be weak in Leeds. One such authority worked closely with West Yorkshire council when I was leader. The area has some strengths where Leeds was found to be weak. A public-public partnership would be more acceptable to many people in Leeds.

I hope, too, that the city council will have the pivotal vote in deciding which services to outsource to the joint company. It has identified and accepted weaknesses, including the one that I mentioned. I trust that discussions between the Department and the city of Leeds will identify those weaknesses more clearly. Leeds must have the strongest voice in determining what is outsourced and the length of time during which that takes place.

I also want the matter to be concluded as quickly as possible in a manner that is consistent with the necessary raising of standards. The contract should run no longer than the time needed to bring about the necessary changes. I am anxious for the exercise to succeed, which it will if it proceeds in a positive and constructive way. The elected Members of Parliament who have a responsibility for Leeds want to reach the end point in the minimum time and ensure that the services return to democratic control.

It is a pleasure to follow my colleagues from Leeds. Like many who have participated in the debate, I come to this Chamber not only as a Member of Parliament but as a parent, former governor and former councillor.

The individual weaknesses identified by Ofsted were predictable, as my hon. Friends explained. Wearing my various hats, I have, at one time or another, raised most of those. I have no vested interest in excusing the inexcusable. My loyalty to my children and my constituents' children is greater than any that I have to Leeds city council or the Labour Government. But where I and many others part company from Ofsted is on the way in which the weaknesses have been assembled into an unrecognisable picture of a desperately failing authority. Many respected head teachers in my constituency, although critical of aspects of the LEA and sharing the criticisms of Ofsted, reject outright the doomsday scenario painted by Ofsted and subsequently by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister—I hope that we will remain friends—will refer to the questionnaires that were completed by head teachers during the Ofsted process. I suspect that the outpouring of criticism was a cathartic experience for heads. It resulted not only from frustrations with the LEA—of which there were many—but from the intensifying pressures of Government initiatives.

My hon. Friends have questioned the role of the chief inspector of schools. He appeared on the scene like a grave robber, anxious to have life pronounced extinct or even to assist in the demise of the hapless victim. That he has his own agenda is beyond doubt. His recent forays into the political arena must make that clear to anyone who may have doubted it. We ask ourselves in Leeds whether the chief inspector of schools is servant or master. It is clear that he possesses delusions of being the latter.

I would not want anyone to run away with the idea that we are simply debating a disagreement between Leeds Labour MPs and the Labour Government. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is also a disagreement with the philosophy of the Conservatives. It will be interesting to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has turned up to be the spectre at this Leeds feast.

Of course, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have sought to make political capital out of the Ofsted report. They echoed the claims of political interference made by Ofsted, yet they all colluded in one of the major examples of so-called political interference. The chief inspector singled out payments from miscellaneous improvements in the community and environment, or MICE, as it is called in short. The scheme allocated £3, 500 to all councils for investment in local projects based on their knowledge of their areas. That is why it has been popular with all and sundry and enjoys all-party support. Many councillors of all parties have chosen to allocate some of the money to schools, but the scheme has been defined as a great crime of political interference.

Historically, Leeds has spent more on education than its standard spending assessment. Expenditure rose to £18 million more at one stage under the Conservative Government. Before we become too focused on specific issues, I should remind hon. Members that much greater damage would have been done to our children's education by retaining the spending levels of the Conservative Government than by anything of which the LEA has been accused. All parties have been involved in campaigns to keep schools open. Is that political interference? Some would say that it was, as it has meant that schools have not closed and surplus places have not been removed. Indeed, that has been the subject of another Ofsted criticism. The Conservatives have cried crocodile tears about Government interference in Leeds, while announcing at the same time their plans to abolish LEAs.

The post-Ofsted debate has resolved the question whether the Leeds LEA has the capacity to achieve improvements in all the weak areas identified by PWC and Ofsted. I shall quote one relevant section from PWC's report. It states:

We conclude that the scale and scope of the agenda for change is such that we do not believe that the current LEA delivery mechanism has the capacity to bring about the fundamental and rapid changes required in a time frame that is acceptable.

As far as I know, however, there has been no definition or clear description of an acceptable time frame. A year will elapse before the so-called joint venture company is set up. It is suggested that the period of the contract should be five years. What sort of time frame for improvement is that? What are the Minister's views on it? It appears to question the speed with which even the new experimental arrangements can deliver. It also fails to acknowledge that the project is an experiment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) said. Experiments can go wrong and five years is a long time to give such an experiment the opportunity to do damage.

I add another question that concerns me greatly, but which I shall not explore in too much detail. What consideration has been made of the staff caught up in this maelstrom of change? I think that the answer is precious little. Cost is another issue that has not been broached as emphatically as it might have been. Will the Minister ensure that, given the money that is going into making this experiment—I make no apologies for using that word—work is not diverted from my children and those of my constituents?

My understanding is that the original aim of the exercise was to assist the LEA in tackling the weaknesses identified by Ofsted. I do not think that there was any convincing argument to suggest that external support was not required. Why is there now a refusal to say, all things being equal, that the service can return entirely to the LEA, subject to the meeting of targets? Fixed-term support to address weaknesses is one thing, but are we really going to persist indefinitely with this rag-bag of arrangements? It exists not only in Leeds, but in other local authorities, whose number will probably increase in future.

The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been unequivocal in stating his party's education policies. LEAs are to be abolished under the Conservatives. The policies promulgated by the right hon. Gentleman are crass. They probably represent straws that will break the backs of overburdened schools with more administration. They will herald back-door selection. They contain the most spurious financial calculations and will be utterly destructive to our children's education. However, they have one merit: they are clear. In conclusion, I ask the Minister this: why can she and her colleagues not be equally clear in giving their commitment to the future of local education authorities?

I, like many of my colleagues, have a deep vested interest in the future of Leeds LEA. I have three children at school in Leeds. I want them to succeed as I want all my constituents' children to succeed. I want the schools to be of the highest possible excellence that we can achieve.

I chaired Leeds education committee for only one year; I take my small share of the blame for what has gone wrong, although by no means did all of it happen in that one year. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said when he talked about the conclusions drawn by the chief inspector of schools regarding the real deficiencies of the LEA, which were clearly marked out in the Ofsted report. Those conclusions clearly equalled far more than the sum of the parts. Many of us could go along with the criticisms in the report because we knew the LEA and that the criticisms were valid. We knew also that they could be put right. However, the conclusions drawn by the chief inspector were a gross exaggeration of those parts.

I received a phone call this morning from councillor Peter Gruen, who is the lead member in Leeds city council responsible for schools. He rang to tell me that the early indications, which the LEA had gathered in the past couple of days, showed that the standard assessment test targets for 11-year-olds set by the Government would be more than reached this year. Indeed, we are heading for the more rigorous targets of 2002. Those are the early indications; they have not yet been verified. However, such SATs results are not the sign of a failing LEA.

In 1992-93, the LEA established the Leeds schools commission. That was when the then Conservative Administration wanted to see schools opting out of local authority control and taking control of their destiny—a policy similar to that promulgated by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The purpose of the commission was to ask all Leeds schools what they wanted from the LEA, what money they wanted devolved to them and what services they wanted the LEA to continue to provide. The study was detailed and all the schools in the city took part through representatives—head teachers, governors and stakeholders in the wider community. The exercise was unique; very few LEAs held similar consultation exercises. It went on for about six months.

The conclusion was that certain functions would be devolved and others would remain, at the request of the schools. I was going to say that, in the end, of the major local education authorities in the metropolitan districts, Leeds was the only one to have zero opt-outs. In fact, two schools opted out. One was a Church of England primary due for closure because it was too small to continue and because the Secretary of State refused to allow it to be closed. The second was a Church of England secondary school that did not have the cash to rebuild a building that had been burnt down and needed to opt out to get the bribe money to rebuild. It came back into the LEA as soon as it could. The remaining 300-odd schools remained in the LEA. If the LEA was failing the schools at that time, why were they so anxious to remain part of it?

There is no evidence that a private sector scheme, opting out, the contracting out of many LEA functions, or even a joint venture company would succeed in rapidly improving LEA services. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister have any evidence that such rapid improvement is possible through the involvement of private sector organisations or a joint venture company? The Government and the chief inspector rightly said that there should be a rapid improvement in LEA services. Why, then, must we wait nine months for the establishment of the joint venture company, and probably a few more months for it to be up and running properly and efficiently?

We could start making improvements right away. We do not need to wait for a joint venture company to be set up. If we brought in private sector partners and consultants right away we should fulfil the Government's requirement for private sector involvement in rapid improvement, but immediately—or certainly within a few weeks. Why can we not, for example. bring in private sector recruitment consultants to ensure the replacement of staff who leave, and the appointment of the management team needed to ensure the rapid improvement, which can be dealt with much more quickly than by waiting for the joint venture company to be set up?

Like my hon. Friends, I wonder how long the company will be in operation. Is what is being done an exercise in improving LEA services so that the democratically accountable local education authority can continue to provide services, but of a much higher standard than at present, or is it an exercise in permanently removing the relevant functions from an organisation that is regarded as incompetent?

PricewaterhouseCoopers' report, which was published this month, contains the results of the preliminary evaluation of options in a table on page 61, setting out the criteria used and the different options—retaining in-house services, public-public partnership, joint venture company, outsourcing and strategic partnership. The table gives scores—a bit like credit scores, really, but less scientific—relating to the different criteria, under headings such as legal and regulatory, operational acceptability, cost acceptability, ease of implementation, rapid improvement and incentives to sustain the service. The total of the scores is given, from which we conclude that the joint venture company gets 45 points and total outsourcing gets 48.

On what, however, are those scores based? Surely they must be subjective. For example, retaining the in-house operation scores nine out of nine for operational acceptability, while outsourcing and the joint venture company score six out of nine. Why six? I believe that it should be two, one or zero, which would alter the final total. With respect to the heading of incentives to sustain the service, we know that there is a financial incentive for the joint venture company and for outsourcing, which therefore score nine out of nine. However, why is not the wish to serve the public effectively and efficiently—and out of a belief that the service in question should be provided in the public sector—also treated as an incentive? Why is the score for incentive three—not, say, six—for the in-house option? That change would radically alter the scores. The table on which the selection of options is based is highly subjective. I do not accept that the figures have been obtained by objective and measurable criteria.

One of the problems in Leeds is the general public's perception of Ofsted's report and the post-Ofsted action plan. When the report was published, the headline across every page of the Yorkshire Evening Post was not "LEA in Crisis" or "Ofsted Report" but "Leeds Schools Crisis". That is why, when I went to Roundhay St. John's primary school in my constituency shortly after the report was published, staff told me, "We have just had an Ofsted report. Ofsted says that we are one of the best primary schools in the city. Why are we being told by the Government that we are rubbish?" It was not understood that the Ofsted report on the LEA did not mean that Roundhay St. John's was failing to provide its pupils with an excellent education. That is a serious problem.

I reject utterly the Conservative party's policy of complete abolition. Schools have enough to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that the head teachers in his constituency—as in every constituency in the city and throughout the country—have more than enough to do. They do not want to have the functions of an LEA thrust upon them as a result of the abolition of such authorities. That is not an option.

We are concerned about the democratic accountability of the local education authority and the provision of an efficient and effective service that will drive up standards in schools. Most of our schools in Leeds have a good record of achievement, in terms of the league tables. The results are very good—I have mentioned the early indications on the targets for SATs for 11-year-olds—and we shall continue to have such results in Leeds. We do not have failing schools, although we are told that the authority is failing.

I hope that the Minister will answer the crucial questions about the length of time for which the joint venture company will operate, and assure us that the purpose is not the abolition or privatisation of our LEA. We must return the existing LEA, as the most excellent authority that we can have, to democratic control and allow it to continue its work of ensuring that our schools and the education of our children are improved.

When I entered the Chamber this morning, I noticed that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) was looking surprised. He said that it was strange to see a Sheffielder at a debate on Leeds. The friendly rivalry between our cities might make us think that the best thing to come out of our respective areas is the bus back to Leeds or Sheffield, depending on where we come from, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall speak as a member of the Liberal Democrat education and employment team and as a Yorkshireman. I am also spokesman for the parliamentary Opposition in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. I have held that lonely position since 1997, when the Conservatives were, quite properly, wiped out in our two great metropolitan counties.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, East and the other Members of Parliament for Leeds on the solidarity that they have shown by coming here today. Debates in the Chamber can be used to advance the cause of a particular area, and it is important that Ministers hear the views of hon. Members representing the entire area. We try to do the same for Sheffield, despite the fact that we have a political divide. Leeds is certainly at the cutting edge of the LEA debate, and we in Sheffield cede that position gladly. It seems that the Government are experimenting with their agenda for LEAs in Leeds. Several hon. Members have said that; it is an experiment. I would be concerned if it were to take place in my area, as would most other hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Leeds, East said at the beginning that he wondered whether the LEA reports had been mixed up, as there was a report on Sheffield at about the same time. The reports were not mixed up, but there was some awful spinning going on—perhaps people in West Yorkshire know more about the spinning industry—at the time of the inspections. Education correspondents were saying, "Leeds will say this" and "Sheffield will say that." There was a strong political agenda involved, and such spinning was not taking place by accident.

My party has a general concern about the Government's adoption of the whole Ofsted agenda, and that of the chief inspector in particular. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) mentioned the chief inspector's strong political views, which have been repeated frequently. The hon. Gentleman and I are, I hope, equally concerned about those political views, and the decision to adopt the chief inspector's agenda is part of the problem with the way in which LEAs are portrayed.

The LEA inspections are being used as a big stick to make local authorities go cap in hand to the DFEE, saying, "Please don't hit us. We will do A, B or C if you let us off." Some local authorities have managed to get off, but others have faced the full punishment of being told what they should do, with no options and no let-out. All the LEAs that have been through the inspection process feel that their independence has been challenged and that they must now go cap in hand to the Department, in order to come up with some kind of package to allow them to continue, rather than be forced down a route that they would not choose.

We are concerned that we are moving into an era in which the integrity of the LEA is being challenged. I am pleased that hon. Members have raised that issue, as part of the wider picture. We are specifically discussing Leeds, but the question of where local authorities are going in general is also relevant. There is room for evolution, but the key element is who controls the service and whether the local authority co-operates in the process. It is not at all about the dogma of public versus private, but about who controls local education services.

There have been successful examples of LEAs choosing to use the private sector. Islington, for example, has chosen to work with a private sector company, against a poor background. Other local authorities are doing that—some in ways that I would not support. Some of the experiments by Conservative-run LEAs, for example, have involved engagement with the private sector in ways that make me nervous—but they have a right, as an LEA, to do that. That is different from contracting out the whole LEA operation, as is happening in Leeds. If there are other examples of that, I stand corrected.

As I understand it, the whole of the service in Islington has been outsourced, whereas in Leeds a partnership between the local authority and other providers is proposed.

My understanding is that the LEA concerned will take a more positive view of the route that it has chosen than that put forward today by hon. Members representing Leeds. It is not just an issue of a single muddle—which is none the less important—but a question of who controls that muddle. I shall come to the issue of control, which is important in the context of LEAs.

We believe that LEAs need evolution rather than revolution—Darwinism rather than Trotskyism. LEAs can evolve. They have already evolved strongly, for example in terms of the local management of schools and the delegation of budgets, which have taken place co-operatively and sensibly. Listening to some of the Conservative spokespeople, one would not believe that LMS has occurred. There seems to be a perception that LEAs are the same as they were in the 1970s. That is not the case. LEAs have demonstrated a tremendous ability to evolve and to respond to schools' concerns.

The history of the LEAs is interesting. They have controlled education for about 100 years. The Local Government Association has pointed out that their name is confusing: why do we talk about a local education authority when we do not talk about a local social services authority or a local housing authority? LEAs are part of local government and, in the ideal model, part of a joined-up package of services. By naming them separately we have given the impression that they are distinct from that package. The LGA has pointed to a different route of evolution to that proposed in Leeds. It is pointing to the model of Cornwall, for example, where the council social services department, the education department and the Cornwall Healthcare NHS trust have jointly established a child and family service. It is talking about joined-up government and about bringing education together with other local government services such as social services and outside services such as health care services.

One of my concerns about the Leeds experiment is that it will reinforce "departmentalitis" and place education in a bunker. It will now be in the hands of a partnership that is involved purely with the delivery of the education service and will ignore some of the other possible evolutionary routes, such as those proposed by the LGA. We need a much fuller debate on joined-up local government that brings the LEA further into the ambit of general local services. There are huge educational advantages in doing so. Anyone who represents a city area will know that issues such as health and nutrition are crucial, especially to the performance of primary school pupils. Many issues concerning primary school pupils involve the wider social context, not just what is delivered educationally. My concern is that the company will focus purely on educational aspects and will find it harder to work with outside issues.

We are concerned about centralisation. We are told that we will have an independent chair, who will none the less be chosen by the Secretary of State. Many people in local education are now chosen by the Secretary of State and there are concerns about how that will operate in practice. We are concerned about the DFEE list of possible partners, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, East referred. We are concerned about how those partners will be selected and what input local government will have, as opposed to central Government, in deciding the kind of partners that it wants.

In the short term, we are concerned about morale. Contracting-out processes, such as the one that happened recently in Sheffield with the housing benefit service, which went to a company called CSL, can cause incredible staff morale problems. I am concerned that there may be chaos in the Leeds education system for two years, given the big window that has been given for the process until April 2001. Naturally, there may be a fall in morale as a result of the major changes that are occurring. That is not an insult to staff members because, at a time of transition, it is natural for staff not to be able to focus 100 per cent. on their jobs because their thoughts are taken up with transition issues.

Finally, I should be interested to know what will happen if the new arrangements fail. We have had problems with the outsourcing of all sorts of services. The service that we are discussing is crucial—all hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned its importance—and we must have an option available for if, or when, a service change fails. What will happen if there is major disruption to the service? Will the big sticks be in the hands of the Leeds LEA, as they have been for other contracts, so that the authority is able to sort things out?

It is not simply a question of having a paper contract that states that, in certain circumstances, the authority can impose fines and do this or that. The authority must have a way of reasserting control if it is lost through the proposed mechanism. That is the bottom line, which must be established. However, the Government, to satisfy members of any LEA who are concerned about the future of their authority, must first answer the questions that they have been asked about the political driving forces behind the agenda.

This has been an important debate, but much of it has had a surreal quality, as several hon. Members from Leeds, though not all, coyly declined to debate the detailed particulars of the Ofsted report. That report offered a devastating critique of the performance of Leeds city council. It criticised the authority on such things as its educational development plan and its pursuit of special educational needs, on which it was said to have lost its way. It also criticised the authority for its provision of nursery, primary and secondary school places and of viable sixth forms, the monitoring of schools and the treatment of schools causing concern or judged likely to do so, the evolution of a strategy for the interests of ethnic minorities and the provision of educational welfare. All those policies were roundly attacked by the report.

The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), for whom I have a healthy affection and respect, criticised the chief inspector but did not respond to his arguments. The hon. Gentleman said that the chief inspector was eccentric, but that is a matter of opinion and not a robust political or educational case.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way once and only once.

The other opinion that matters is clearly that of the head teachers within the authority. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when Leeds Members have asked head teachers for their views, they have told us that, although there are things that need to be addressed, they do not recognise in its entirety the picture painted by Ofsted? Whose judgment should we trust?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his insertion of the words "in its entirety", by which he gave the game away. I would not accuse him of telling an untruth and I do not doubt that there are head teachers who share the view that he has just described and are unhappy with the report in its entirety. However, the response rate to the study of Leeds was very high—something like 76 per cent. A great many teachers and head teachers are concerned about the quality of the education provided.

The report was described as shocking by the chief inspector. As he said, in a proud city of 750, 000 people there are 117, 000 children whose hopes and legitimate expectations have been betrayed by the failures described in the report. He emphasised that, although some schools provide a good education, others need support that the local education authority fails to give them. That is a damning indictment. I am bound to say to the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) that they are no mere innocent bystanders in these proceedings. They both have long track records of service on Leeds city council, and both must accept some responsibility.

My principal target today is the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. He may have been chairman of education in the city for only one year, but he was severely castigated for his record. I think it a matter of no little significance that Leeds city council's solicitor described his attempt to foist Mr. Gus John on the city as evidence of crass political judgment and said that the appearance of blatant canvassing was contrary to any notion of fairness. I do not dispute the good intentions of all hon. Members in the Chamber, or that some have experience of the issues at local level. However, they have responsibility and, one can fairly conclude, culpability for a good deal of what has happened.

The chief inspector concludes that the authority's

weaknesses, particularly with regard to secondary schools, far outweigh its strengths, both in number and significance.

We have had no response to that pivotal change from hon. Members today. Pages 22 and 23 of the report refer to

inappropriate interventions…in parts of the city

being a

potentially destabilising influence on schools.

Curiously, we were told that local councillors were able to influence the allocation of extra funds to schools in their wards. That system is not found anywhere else, according to the chief inspector, and he hopes never to come across it again. It reeks of the worst kind of pork-barrel politics, and hon. Members have no reply to that.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept a point that I tried to make, which was that all political parties and councillors colluded in the exercise that he now denounces? Will he turn his accusation of pork-barrel politics on members of the Conservative group on Leeds city council?

I certainly do not accept culpability on the part of the Conservative party. At the material times at which the Labour party was in control of the council, it had responsibility for the policy and determined the direction. It must be held responsible for the consequences. We need to know from the Minister what targets are to be set under the new arrangements; how, in what form and when the findings are to be published; and whether hon. Members on both sides of the House will have the opportunity to debate them. I accept that the matter is of critical significance to hon. Members who represent Leeds, as they must do their constituency duty, but I hope that they accept that it concerns the wider community and the country. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to debate it.

I shall move on to a subject that may be more welcome to some Labour Members, although that is not why I shall do so. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) tabled a parliamentary question in, I think, February. The Minister's reply suggested that in several significant respects the performance of Leeds at key stages 1, 2 and 3, GCSE and A-level was significantly better than the performances of Hackney, Hull, Islington, Liverpool and—wait for it, as it will trip off my tongue—

Sheffield.

The hon. Gentleman, with his unswerving knack, rightly detects that I was going to say Sheffield. It is a matter of great importance, for we know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), has blood on his hands as far as that authority is concerned. It is a legitimate grievance of Leeds Members that they appear to have been singled out, comprehensively briefed against and rubbished in the media. They have been used as scapegoats.

The hon. Member for Leeds, East is a distinguished former Minister. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has less defence, as he is a new Member of Parliament. Although the record of Leeds seems poor, it is not obvious that it is uniquely poor. We are entitled to ask why less attention has been given to Sheffield city council, that other rotten apple in the educational orchard of the United Kingdom. It is an authority on which—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a moment. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself and show what restraint he can, in the circumstances, muster.

The Secretary of State served on that authority for no fewer than 18 years, including, if memory serves me correctly, no fewer than seven years as its leader. In an Ofsted report, it is said of that authority:

Overall standards are lower than national averages at every Key Stage and vary greatly between schools. The rate of improvement is slow. The number of schools causing significant concern is high, school attendance is lower than national averages, and the percentage of pupils who stay on in education after the age of 16 is disturbingly low.

That authority performs poorly in terms of its educational development plan, support for improving attendance and provision for looked-after children. Its behaviour support plan is lacking, support for ethnic minority children is regarded as unsatisfactory and provision for special educational needs is deemed to be weak. In a press release issued on 2 February, the Department for Education and Employment told us that, despite progress, the overall performance of the secondary sector in that authority

remains disappointingly low. This is not acceptable.

For all his municipal misdeeds, educational vandalism and destruction of the life chances of a generation of children in Sheffield, have we heard so much as a word of apology from the lips of the Secretary of State? No. Rather, we have heard a robust. consistent and calculated denunciation of Leeds city council. That denunciation seems justified, but if we are to be balanced, fair and genuinely academic and dispassionate, we should hear why Leeds is considered to be so palpably inferior to Sheffield.

Just for the sake of the completeness of the record, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that the report referred to some good signs of improvement recently evident in Sheffield, and that Sheffield may be a good case to advance the argument about why LEAs can perform well when they are subject to political competition. Sheffield became increasingly competitive as the Liberal Democrat and Labour groups became increasingly close, until the Liberal Democrats took control in 1999, and the local authority definitely improved, as the report reflects.

Some improvement has taken place. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although I am bound to say that the improvement starts from a low base. In case he is considering climbing on to the roof of the building and trumpeting from it the achievements of the Liberal Democrat party, I would be inclined to advise him to hold his horses, as that would be premature. Much progress remains to be achieved.

The onus of responsibility is on the Government to explain why Leeds is so much worse than every other authority. I give way once more, and then I must bring my remarks to a close.

Despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his sights, a more important issue in questioning Ofsted's subjectivity is the authority that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: Hull. Our primary school figures are good, as is accepted. We fail in secondary provision. Nevertheless, even in failing, our GCSE results are double those of Hull. Hull's GCSE results are about 25 per cent.; ours are in the 40s. Is that not a clear example of the subjectivity of an eccentric body that demoralises teachers and has now moved on to demoralising education authorities?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to pillory Ofsted. He is right to offer Hull as another example of a poorly performing authority with which he does not believe that his own compares badly, but he is wrong to attack Ofsted, which does a professional job of scrutiny and investigation. It does a proud and admirable job that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches believe that it should continue to do. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right to wonder continually why his authority has been targeted, and the Minister for School Standards must explain why.

The Secretary of State has not apologised for a risible record of educational mismanagement in the city of Sheffield over a long period. I have been spoilt for choice—not least because of the hon. Gentleman's helpful intervention—in terms of the number of poorly performing Labour authorities that I could cite. There is a fundamental mismatch at national level between Labour's rhetoric and the reality of its record in office at local level. Its members' words are contradicted by their deeds. They preach excellence but practise failure. The Government's position is fundamentally implausible, and I invite the Minister to reflect that that might be why people are starting to see through them, regard them with cynicism and not believe a word that Ministers utter.

First, I strongly endorse what hon. Members representing Leeds have said: I never question their commitment to Leeds children or schools. We are united in our objective to attain higher standards. I am happy to place that on the record here, as I have elsewhere.

I have had three meetings with Leeds MPs and four visits to the city over the past few months. It was a great pleasure, on my most recent visit, to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) to celebrate its schools' achievements in working with local industry. In this difficult and challenging time—more difficult than I would want—good work is going on in Leeds schools. We should find time and space to celebrate that success, as I was happy to do a few weeks ago.

The comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) were, frankly, disgraceful. I shall respond to a couple of his points but will not bother with them further. It was an outrageous slur on the chief inspector of schools to imply that he had somehow been got at and had written a better report about Sheffield LEA merely because that covers the constituency of the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman has looked at the Ofsted report on Sheffield, he will have seen that it said that the LEA had the capacity to improve itself and did not recommend intervention. In the report on Leeds, the chief inspector recommended that intervention be considered because he did not think that the LEA had the capacity to improve itself. We are guided by the Ofsted evidence, as backed up by a careful reading of the reports on Leeds and on Sheffield, and it is an affront to the independence of Ofsted to imply that Sheffield has been treated in any way differently because it includes the constituency of the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We can agree to differ on the issue and she can try to spin my words against me, but I did not impugn the integrity of the chief inspector of schools, of whom I have been a supporter since I came out of short trousers. I criticise the Government for the way in which they slant the evidence against one authority and seek to protect Sheffield city council. The chief inspector is an outstanding one and he deserves a better Government under which to work.

The chief inspector wrote in his report on Sheffield that it was not as bad as Leeds and that it had the capacity to improve itself. We must always act on the evidence in the Ofsted report and if the hon. Gentleman goes back to the Ofsted reports, he will see that that is what we have done.

It is important to put the situation in context. Many local authorities have now been inspected and many have emerged with glowing reports: York, Warwickshire, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Kensington and Chelsea, Birmingham and Camden. All those local authorities, most of which are Labour controlled, are doing a good job in supporting their schools. Hon. Members will know that we are intervening not only in Leeds, but in the 15 LEAs that have a poor standard of service, from Liverpool, where the Liberal Democrats are in control, to Islington, Hackney, Rochdale and Southwark—in a range of authorities of different political complexions. We have demonstrated that we believe that where local authorities are good, they should be praised and left to get on with it, but where they are bad, something needs to be done.

If the Government were against local authorities, the easiest thing to do would be what the previous Government did—nothing. The hon. Member for Buckingham speaks about the failure of Sheffield, but what did the previous Government do about it? Absolutely naught. If it was that bad, one wonders why they did not fulfil their responsibility over 18 years. They failed to step in when local authorities were failing and letting down schools. We have not done that. We are happy to praise some LEAs, but some LEAs are poor, and we will support them.

We have never had a debate on LEA intervention before, and I suspect that we are having one now because reaction in Leeds to the report has been different from that in the other 15 local authorities in which we have implemented intervention strategies. I will not argue about that. I say only that we must accept Ofsted's evidence. It would be wrong not to do so or to follow our subjective judgment, whether politically driven or otherwise.

We have already quoted much from the Ofsted report. I will quote only one sentence, which says:

In a survey undertaken for this inspection schools' judgments on the LEA's work rated it significantly lower than the average for all LEAs being inspected this term in 73 out of 96 indicators.

I take the views of head teachers seriously. Hon. Members who represent Leeds were generous in saying that the situation was not perfect and has not been perfect for a long time. They want to see change, as do head teachers. Nobody defends the past or says that the present is good enough. Everybody hopes for better in the future. That unites us, and we must remember that.

I offer one criticism, only to defend what I accept is radical action. Hon. Members, teachers and councillors have long known that things were going wrong. Some hon. Members present tried to take action to remedy that, but did not succeed. In the long series of difficulties with appointing a permanent chief education officer who could do the job and had the confidence of the authority and the schools, improvement did not take place. I am not interested in apportioning blame, but there has been a long record of concern and no evidence that the authority can improve the situation by itself.

I pick up on a word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). He talked about Leeds, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central did, in an interesting way, and he meant some praise by saying that its schools were average. That is not good enough for Leeds. It is capable of better than average. It is a fine city with a proud tradition. It should be proud of its efforts to overcome the difficulties of the decline in manufacturing. It is a beacon in the north and throughout the country of excellence in the creative and expressive arts. The way in which it has grabbed that new agenda should make Leeds hope for a better than average education system. That is the kernel of the argument. Leeds can do better, and the evidence shows that all the efforts of right-minded people in the past few years have not made a difference.

We need a new set of relationships and we need to increase standards significantly within the time frame. How will we measure that increase? Being okay is no longer good enough for schools, because of the demands on them and the need to improve standards more than ever. I accept that those demands are new. New initiatives always involve risk. I was born in Manchester, and I represent part of Birmingham; places such as those and Leeds, Sheffield and Buckingham have survived only because they were prepared to try something new. I repeat my earlier comments, which were printed in the Leeds press last week. All that we can do when trying something new is stack up the odds in favour of success. I cannot promise that I have done more than that, but I promise that I have put effort into doing that properly.

I shall now discuss the example given about companies. A number of options are available. We could have outsourced, as in Islington. I am happy that Islington councillors were described as willingly agreeing to that. That relationship is good and I am happy for them to take the credit. I do not want the credit for that, although I know that the relationship would not have started without intervention. We have used both the method of outsourcing and of letting the LEA get on with the work by itself. I can give two examples from Liberal Democrat-controlled areas. Complete outsourcing was used in Islington. Liverpool LEA was left to get on with it once we made sure that the levers were in place. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) was ungenerous about Liverpool. People in Liverpool are quite fond of us at the moment because they know that our levers brought about those improvements. There is something in the middle, too. The argument in Leeds is not about the public versus the private sector, but about forging a new relationship between the best of Leeds LEA with something new that it currently lacks.

Some of these companies do not themselves have a track record in education. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was a touch selective so I shall go through some of the others, starting with Birmingham LEA, Arthur Andersen and APS Keele. My local authority in Birmingham will not go to Leeds with the intent of abolishing LEAs. Its chief education officer has spent his working life defending the right of democratically accounted people. The Centre for British Teachers is a not-for-profit provider of education services. Camden LEA is included, too. Serco has a track record not in education but in local government outsourcing. Given the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East in social exclusion, he might remember it better as "Cities in Schools", a small organisation with a valuable and proud track record of dealing with children who have been excluded from school.

The list includes people in the private sector who have expertise in management—much of what has gone wrong in Leeds is due to lack of management—but it brings together people who also have an educational expertise. We are busy building new alliances for a new challenge that is facing Leeds schools. Whether we get it right will depend on the relationship within those new partnerships and the attitude of Leeds and its schools.

In the remaining four minutes, I should like to consider democratic accountability. First, none of the money that goes to schools, which is 85 per cent. of the total schools budget on average, will go near this new company. It will go from us to the LEA and the LEA will decide the funding formula by which it goes to schools. Nothing changes that. We are talking about how the remaining 15 per cent. is spent to run the central services of Leeds LEA. The company will manage and run those services. The contract, the standards and the targets that the company should achieve will be set out by Leeds LEA, not by us, the private company or Ofsted. The democratically elected councillors will agree what the company should provide. They will hold it to account through scrutiny. They will build into that contract penalties if the company does not reach the targets and rewards if it does.

That is a clear role for Leeds local councillors. The council might not deliver those services itself, but it will ensure that they are delivered. When it next goes to the electorate it can explain what money it has given directly to schools, what it has asked the provider to do and how it made sure that the services were delivered. Its opponents will be able to argue the contrary. The accountability is there. The council will make sure that the service is delivered. The greatest advantage of that is that it puts the dividing line between strategic decisions, which are matters for locally elected LEA, and aspects of management implementation, which are not.

For the first time in the history of LEAs, the councillors will know what they are doing; the company will know what it is doing and the schools will know what both are doing. That will be the secret of success. There is clear accountability. Everyone knows what to expect for the money. We have devised something new in Leeds. It is a partnership and a board that is not just part of a private company, but is shared 50:50 with Leeds LEA. Although the chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State, he will come from a list compiled by Leeds LEA. The city's history has been one of meeting challenges. Leeds must put Ofsted's arguments behind it and seize this opportunity for the good of the city and its children, schools and teachers. They deserve it. Leeds has represented them well so far. Let us go forward and ensure that the new system works, so that Leeds becomes a flagship for excellent education, as it is in so many areas.

Order. We now move to the first of three half-hour Adjournment debates.

I have been fortunate enough to secure this debate on Belarus. To some people, it is the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's "faraway country" and a people of whom we know little. To others, Belarus has in recent months produced a hero in Vladimir Voltchkov at Wimbledon. It is good to be reminded of that country. Its sorry position and difficult circumstances deserve to be better known in this country.

Recently, I travelled to Minsk as a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The Minister and other hon. Members will know that it is both cross-party and party-orientated. That means that we can work to promote democracy together or party by party and with sister parties in countries throughout the world. I went to Minsk a few weeks ago with a group of centre and centre-right European sister parties and European Democrat Union colleagues from Sweden, Poland and Lithuania.

The British Conservative party has long-established links with the United Civic party, led by Mr. Anatol Lebedko. We are also developing closer links with the Belarusian People's Front (Renewal) party and its leader, Mr. Vintsuk Viacorka, who recently visited Westminster. We are keen to continue developing our ties with those parties. On our trip, we met the senior figures from both parties and I was impressed by the way in which they are working together.

Belarus is still a long way behind the countries that surround it; visiting Minsk is like going back 10 or 15 years. The atmosphere is one of oppression and fear, and President Lukashenko is very much an old-style communist leader. I have also visited Moscow recently and it is remarkable how much more liberal that city is than Minsk.

Surely this country and this Parliament have an interest in helping the democrats in Belarus, who deserve our sympathy. We should agree that the right place to put pressure is on Lukashenko, who is directly responsible for the misery and fear, the inflation in the economy and the uncertainty and instability in people's lives.

I shall explain a little of the background. Belarus declared independence in 1991. Lukashenko came to power in 1994 and, two years later, called a referendum that extended his powers considerably. He disbanded the Parliament, which was controlled by the opposition, and replaced the legislature with a body of his supporters, who are scheduled to come up for reelection shortly. I understand that the president has set the election for 15 October.

In 1996, close observers said that the referendum was fixed and western Governments have never recognised its results. As things stand, re-election of the chamber set up by President Lukashenko seems likely to face the same fate: people will not recognise its legitimacy.

Amnesty International published a report on Belarus last month. Again, it sounds curiously historical—like one that might have been written 15 or 20 years ago about the Soviet Union. It begins:

This report gives an overview of the worsening human rights situation in Belarus in the period 1999 to 2000. The unwillingness of the Belarusian authorities to tolerate dissent and independent thought and their tolerance of impunity is evident throughout the report. The propensity of the Belarusian authorities to use the state apparatus to repress dissent and criticism, often in the face of condemnation from abroad, through large-scale arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of peaceful demonstrators, imprisonment of prominent opposition figures, the possible abduction of opposition leaders, and the harassment of human rights defenders, academics and independent journalists has been common throughout this period.

Until recently, most observers thought that little could be done and that the course of misery was predetermined. Relations with Russia seemed more important and it was felt that poor Belarus could look after itself. Now, however, some close observers of the political scene believe that, after years in which the cause of democracy appeared to be moving in only one direction—backwards—recent developments in Russia have given rise to a moment of opportunity for Belarus.

President Lukashenko's personal ambitions have to some extent been thwarted by the emergence of a strong man, President Putin, in Moscow. It is difficult to read exactly how Putin will develop and react to international developments, but he may prefer a different leader in Minsk—he may prefer Minsk to show a more open and democratic face to the world at large. The problem is to interpret what opportunities the present moment provides. The immediate and difficult question for Belarusian democrats is whether to engage in the forthcoming elections. Presidential elections are scheduled for next year and I shall return to them in a few moments.

International advice differs. The United States takes a harder line than European countries about the participation of opposition parties in the elections. The week before last, the BBC reported that the United States had formally suspended Belarus from its list of countries with duty-free access to the American market. In a letter to Congress, President Clinton said that that action had been taken because of concern over workers' rights. American officials have criticised Belarus in the past for suppressing trade unions and harassing trade union leaders. The difference of opinion or emphasis between the United States and the Europeans about how best to move forward is regrettable, but it is important to understand it.

Various international bodies—we have already mentioned Amnesty International—take a close interest in developments in Belarus. The Organisation for Security and co-operation in Europe, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the parliamentary bodies associated with them are also interested, particularly in the forthcoming elections. Internally, there is a congress or forum of democratic forces, which co-ordinates political opposition to Lukashenko's regime. It met formally on 2 July and decided to boycott the elections unless Lukashenko agrees to its conditions.

The conditions are intended to ensure a fair contest. There are four, all of which would be recognised in this House. What are the demands of the parties that make up the united opposition? The first is a full-powered and properly functioning Parliament with a proper division of powers—that does not exist in Belarus today because President Lukashenko rules by decree. The second is reformed electoral legislation—in particular, reform of a practice known as early voting, which is an open door for rigging election results. Thirdly, they want guaranteed, real and regular access to the state-run electronic media. The persecution of the independent press must stop and the means of distribution of journals and newspapers must be freed up. At present, a paper may be published, but it is often extremely difficult to circulate it. Fourthly, and most importantly, they want an effective and visible change in the political atmosphere—in other words, an end to political repression. Amnesty International has detailed the detentions, disappearances and forcible breaking up of demonstrations in Belarus.

On our fact-finding visit, it was clear that the opposition parties—those opposed to Lukashenko—were not just the centre and centre-right parties, but the trade unions, the non-governmental organisations and other bodies—[Interruption.]

Order. This Chairman always wishes to hear the Member who is speaking. Interruptions from the side are distracting.

The opposition forces—the political parties, the unions, NGOs and other bodies—are severely beleaguered but unbowed. They act together impressively and come together in a forum. The question of whether to engage in or boycott the parliamentary elections has entered the end—game stage. My strong feeling was that the opposition parties would not take part unless substantial concessions were obtained and could be verified. At present, that seems unlikely.

The opposition parties would prefer, as far as possible, to frustrate Lukashenko's desire to legitimise the elections in international eyes; their eyes are set on next year's presidential elections. There is a good possibility that they will vigorously contest the presidential elections as long as the ground is not cut from beneath their feet in the next few months. They will agree a joint candidate through a primary system, although, for good reasons, they are unwilling to embark on it. That is a good example of the position in contemporary Minsk. If the opposition forces agreed on a chief opposition representative, who would be a figurehead for the presidential elections, that person would be under severe personal threat. It is therefore understandable that the parties would want to wait for a while before deciding who that person should be. That is the atmosphere in which democrats in Belarus have to work, and it is reminiscent of the worst moments of the Soviet Union.

Although I understand the pragmatic view that there might be gradual progress if the opposition parties engaged in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, it is difficult for foreigners who enjoy the luxury of liberty to criticise the present conduct of the Belarusian opposition. To return to Chamberlain, it is a faraway country about which we know little. He was speaking about Czechoslovakia, which is now well within the family of nations that enjoy democracy.

We were accompanied to Minsk by Poles. Ten years ago, people from the Conservative and Labour parties went to countries such as Poland to help them to establish democracy and to develop democratic structures. Now, we believe that the recent experience of Poles is most helpful; the virtuous cycle of the operation is beginning to show itself. One day, Belarus will be a country about which we know much more and we will have much friendlier relations with its people. We should never accept that we have reached the limit, but should keep pushing the border forward.

I ask the Minister to join me in urging President Lukashenko to move substantially on the four demands. It is unreasonable for the opposition to take part in the elections unless substantial progress is made. There is no place for President Lukashenko's behaviour in the modern world and we should do all in our power to ensure that he does not have his way. The people of Belarus also have the right to join the family of free nations.

rose—

Order. Is the hon. Member for Windsor, who is responsible for the debate, willing for the hon. Member for Thurrock to speak?

indicated assent.

I will not take more than a few moments.

I reinforce what the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) said and associate myself with his analysis. As a member of the left in Parliament, I am concerned about the denial of human rights in Belarus. President Lukashenko's mandate, and therefore his legitimacy, has long ceased to exist. I was disappointed that the European Union and other western countries did not protest more strongly about it.

I have tabled questions to the Minister about parliamentarians and journalists who have disappeared in Belarus and I hope that the good officers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can throw some light on what has happened to them and tell us what representations Her Majesty's Government and the European Union have made on their behalf. We must be constantly vigilant in our monitoring of what happens to opponents of the regime.

I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to make a statement on whether the Government and the EU think that the parliamentary elections in October should be monitored. When I was in Bucharest last week with the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and co-operation in Europe, there was grave concern that observers from the OSCE and western Governments might validate that which is illegitimate. I do not want to rush a judgment, but we need to make up our mind. A large number of observers will be needed almost immediately. It is not enough to send them 48 hours or three days before polling day.

What is the EU doing for communities bordering Poland and Belarus? Those communities, which depend on cross-border trade, will have a problem when Poland accedes to the EU. Our mission in Minsk is extremely small. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the obvious reasons to upgrade significantly our resources there.

Let me reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor. Belarus is thought of as a faraway country. I was in Krakow, Poland, on 25 December 1998 when the treaty was signed by the President of Belarus and the President of the Russian Federation. Although there was great alarm in that region and throughout Europe about the dangerous implications for security and co-operation in Europe, there was not a peep about it in the western press. I returned to the House of Commons and searched for a press report on that major treaty but, despite the enormous ramifications for everyone in the EU and the west, there was no mention of it save a thumbnail in the Washington Post. That underlines how we are fiddling while Rome burns. Belarus is important and, while the totalitarian regime is allowed to endure, dangerous.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) is a knowledgeable commentator on the situation in Belarus. I congratulate him on his work with that country as part of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to debate Belarus as it enters a crucial pre-election phase. This is the first time that the House has debated Belarus, so it is an important occasion.

I wish to set out the Government's assessment of the underlying situation in Belarus, explain our policy and comment on the forthcoming elections. I regret to say that the flawed Belarusian referendum of November 1996 set the country on an anti-democratic path from which it has not deviated. The referendum significantly increased President Lukashenko's powers, extended his term of office until 2001 and undermined the democratically elected Parliament, the 13th Supreme Soviet. Lukashenko disbanded the Soviet and replaced it with a rubber-stamping legislature largely comprising his own deputies.

To this day, political oppression and the anti-democratic style of Government in Belarus remain a major concern for democratic countries throughout the world. We are particularly concerned about cases of excessive pre-trial detention, politically motivated legal proceedings, the unresolved disappearances of several high profile political figures, the absence of judicial independence, state pressure on the independent media and strong political bias in the state mass media. Current European Union policy is based on the General Affairs Council's conclusions of September 1997, which place restrictions on EU-Belarus relations pending the restoration of democratic rule in Belarus. Those restrictions include withholding technical and financial assistance, except that which is in direct support of humanitarian or regional projects or initiatives that promote democracy; a ban on bilateral ministerial contact; stopping work on the European Union's partnership and co-operation agreement with Belarus, which had reached the stage of ratification by European Union member states; and refusal to support its ambitions for membership of the Council of Europe. The United States has adopted a similarly restrictive policy towards Belarus.

Last year, the European Union attempted to kick-start a rapprochement with Belarus by explaining to the Minsk authorities that the restrictions imposed by the 1997 General Affairs Council conclusions could be lifted step by step if Belarus made progress on specific constitutional and human rights issues. Regrettably, the authorities' respect for human rights has not increased in the past year, so relaxation of the restrictions has been impossible.

In addition to applying pressure on Belarus to improve the overall quality of its democracy and show proper respect for human rights, the European Union has been quick to take up specific human rights cases with the authorities in Minsk. Those include the cases of Mikhail Chigir, Nikolai Statkevich, and Valeriy Shchukin. Following Chigir's arrest in April 1999, the EU pressed repeatedly for his release from pre-trial detention and his right to a free and fair trial. The EU has criticised the suspended sentence handed to Chigir in May, which seems designed to prevent him from standing as a candidate in the forthcoming elections, and we have made it clear that we view his appeal to the supreme court as an opportunity to revise the judgment against him.

The European Union has also made it clear to the Belarusian authorities that we regard the legal proceedings against Statkevich and Shchukin as having been politically motivated. We deplore the fact that their sentences seem designed to prevent them from participating in the parliamentary and presidential elections.

Hon. Members would also expect me to say something of our policy towards Belarus. We have strictly enforced the EU restrictions while continuing to work with civil society, the independent media, human rights organisations and non-governmental organisations. Our embassy in Minsk is in close contact with opposition political parties and the independent trade union movement. Leading opposition figures and union leaders have visited the United Kingdom as guests of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member for Windsor will recall meeting the chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front, Mr. Viacorka, during his visit to the United Kingdom in May. Mention also needs to be made of the excellent work of the OSCE in Belarus.

The OSCE Istanbul summit declaration last November emphasised that only a real political dialogue in Belarus can pave the way for free and democratic elections through which the foundations for real democracy can develop. Through its advisory and monitoring group in Minsk, the OSCE has continued to strive for a breakthrough by maintaining objective and critical dialogue with the opposition and Government. The OSCE parliamentary assembly is another valuable tool for bringing international pressure on Belarus. I am well aware of the important role that Members of Parliament play in that assembly, and of their influence on the strong resolution on Belarus that it adopted in Bucharest earlier this month.

The hon. Member for Windsor mentioned the parliamentary elections. We consider the October elections to be an important opportunity for Belarus to take a step towards real democracy. Delegations representing the OSCE and its parliamentary assemblies, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have all visited Belarus in recent months and have pressed the authorities to create conditions in which the opposition can contest the elections on fair terms. The improvements that are being called for are: first, better opposition access to the state media; secondly, a pre-election environment free from political persecution; thirdly, the strengthening of the electoral code; and fourthly, more powers to be given to the Parliament that is to be elected.

European Union ambassadors in Minsk have frequently put the same message to the Government of Belarus. Subject to Belarus's ability to create appropriate conditions for a free and fair election, the international community will consider whether to take up the Belarusian authorities' invitation to monitor the elections. Time is now pressing, but it remains possible for the Belarusian authorities to take the necessary steps, as set out by the OSCE and others, to provide a proper environment for a fair election.

As Belarus's closest ally and leading trading partner, Russia has more potential than any other country to exert influence on Belarus. During a recent meeting of EU senior officials with Russia, the EU side called on Russia to use its influence to convince Belarus of the advantages of free and fair elections. We will continue to take that approach in our discussions with the Russians.

Although it is looking increasingly unlikely that many of the Belarusian opposition parties will contest the forthcoming elections, we encourage them not to close the door on the opportunity that the elections might represent. I heard what the hon. Member for Windsor said about whether they should contest the elections. Their participation in an election that proved flawed would not be regarded by the international community as validation of that election, as some of the opposition parties seem to fear. On the contrary, as the recent example of Zimbabwe has made clear, participation in elections can make an important statement even when the conditions in which they are contested are not free and fair. Of course, the presidential election in 2001 marks another important opportunity to move towards democracy in Belarus. I hope that the opposition parties there will contest that election and offer a genuine choice to the people of the country, bearing in mind all the caveats that I have mentioned.

The Government share the concerns of the hon. Members for Windsor and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the situation in Belarus. We agree with the hon. Member for Windsor that closer relations with Belarus are desirable but can be envisaged only when Belarus brings itself back into the fold of democratically governed European states. I hope that the Government of Belarus will take the necessary steps quickly to ensure that that happens. I am convinced that improved relations with Belarus are in everyone's interests, not least those of the people of Belarus itself. However, it is up to the Government of Belarus to prove that they have changed and that they wish to make a genuine success of democracy.

Order. As the sponsoring Member and the Minister are both present, we may move to the second of this morning's three half-hour Adjournment debates.

I wish to raise an issue of major importance to my constituency, which is in the London borough of Wandsworth—the local council's application for £5 million under the single regeneration budget for the development of facilities in the Tooting area. The application is supported by the Tooting town centre partnership board. I pay the warmest tribute to local councillors representing wards in the area, who fully realise the importance and need for the approval of the application and also the importance of me, as the local Member of Parliament, doing all that I can to support and highlight the application.

Tooting is one of the key centres—if not the key centre—of the borough of Wandsworth. Many aspects of Tooting have changed in the years since I first became the Member. When I first came to the House, there was only a small ethnic community. Over the years, it has greatly increased. People have come into the area from many countries. Many of them arrived with little, but by hard work and commitment they now run well-organised businesses that provide important local services not only to the people of Wandsworth but to the many people who come into the area to shop and work.

Those who work in the community provide the day-to-day services that it needs, in hospitals, other health services, social services and schools. The people of the community have built up excellent day centres through hard work and commitment. Churches are run by people from many different countries; with temples and mosques, they play a major role in our community. Many of the youngsters in our schools were born in this country, but their parents are from many overseas countries. It is always a joy to visit those schools; there one sees developments taking place that will build the sort of multiracial society that we want. We in Tooting are proud of what our local community has done and what it is committed to continue doing.

The bid to which I refer had to be submitted by June 2000 and I understand that a decision will be taken later this year. We obtained a wide range of local views, especially from young people. A large number of people are unemployed and youngsters feel that they are socially excluded; sadly, nothing is worse for the area. The views of local residents' groups were sought, because they are often concerned about the behaviour of young people. The citizens advice bureau mentioned the development of projects for young people and also for smaller groups.

The views of local church groups were sought—we all respect them for their role in the day-to-day life of our community. They made a number of important proposals, including more support for families under pressure, helping one-parent families, tackling drug abuse, offering help and information about possible careers to young people, advising on health and trying to ensure that youngsters do not fall through the net—all problems that are common in many parts of the country. I could cite the many other groups that have supported the application, which has widespread agreement.

I mentioned the changes that have taken place in the Tooting constituency. Our Asian community now comprises more than 15 per cent. of the local population, and our Afro-Caribbean community is more than 14 per cent. Other issues highlight our case. For instance, about 25 per cent. of the young unemployed people in the borough live in the area covered by the proposals contained in the single regeneration budget bid, and 36 per cent. of households with children now living in the area are on benefit—that involves about 2, 500 children.

We have a high teenage pregnancy rate and we have suffered a large increase in youth crime—something else that the budget would allow us to tackle if the bid were approved. Young people have repeatedly highlighted the need for more local recreation and leisure facilities. The exclusion rate from local schools is higher than the national average in what would be the single regeneration budget area. The drop-out rate among our Afro-Caribbean young people in business start-ups in what would be the single regeneration budget area is also very high.

I have been frank about what the local community wants and hopes to see. I have given a clear outline of the problems that we face and of how we hope to develop the central Tooting area, if we obtain the funding. The key development in the project would be a major town centre facility for young people. That is a priority and young people tell me that repeatedly. The facility would be developed in line with the views and wishes of young people. It would be attractive and comfortable and would offer access to the arts and music. It would provide advice on health, employment and training and information on the opportunities that exist in the area. There would be the full range of services that youngsters have told us that they want. We are committed to ensuring that local young people have a voice and are encouraged to make their views known. We must be in the forefront, listening to what young people want from the regeneration of Tooting. We have a large ethnic population and we want to build a community that will develop the richness of that cultural diversity.

All of us can have great ideas and hopes, but we need money. We attach great importance to local views and proposals, particularly those of young people. Young people have much to offer but they can, sadly, be turned off if they see no developments. That is why the bid is so important. We want to keep alive the interest and the culture of young people and provide a modern centre for them. We must encourage young people to start up new businesses, creating work for other young people in the area. That would create a sense of pride in their role in building up the local economy.

In Tooting and throughout the borough of Wandsworth, local councillors and local people want the project to succeed, which is why I, the local Member of Parliament, sought this debate. We look to the Government to support the project and we are in no doubt that we have presented an outstanding case. I hope that the Minister will confirm today the Government's support for our application for £5 million from the single regeneration budget. Then, we can tackle issues such as unemployment and how to get people off benefit, reducing the rates of teenage pregnancy, combating crime and getting more young people into business start-ups.

Getting people back into work has been one of the Government's outstanding successes. The money saved by doing so is important, but it is even more important that people should have pride in their jobs and in their local area. We must bring hope and opportunity to the area and its people. That is what we hope to achieve by applying for funding from the single regeneration budget. I look to the Government, in conjunction with the Government office for London, to support the project. My constituents, whom I am proud to represent, need the project.

I ask the Minister to give urgent attention to the following two matters. First, Gatton Road school, in the heart of Tooting, is now closed and to be sold, but was once used for other purposes within the community. I walked around that school at the weekend; it is on a site of 1.2 acres and amounts to 36, 000 sq ft, and could be the ideal centre for the sort of project that my constituents, the local councillors and I want to be developed. I ask the Minister to contact Wandsworth council about that possible sale—not next week or next month, but in the next day or two. There is an enormous "for sale" board outside the school and I hope that she and her officials will find out why it is being put on the market when, in the view of many local people, it could be used for the sort of project that I am supporting today.

I will give the Minister a copy of the letter sent to me by Councillor Pam Taplow, one of the local councillors for the area. She says that, at the July meeting of Wandsworth council, cuts were announced of more than £180, 000 from the youth service budget. I hope that she and her officials will take the matter up with Wandsworth council and find out why such a thing is happening when we are seeking money from the single regeneration budget. I have here some of the attractive publicity material that the borough of Wandsworth has put together so well. The headings are "Youth is the key" and "Green light for £5m Tooting bid".

I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in her response and tell me that the Government intend to support the bid. However, I also ask her to take up the two matters that I have just raised—the selling of the school and the cut of £180, 000 from the youth service budget—with the officials of the borough of Wandsworth.

Finally, my comments show that I fully support the bid. I want it to succeed, as do local councillors in that area and the people whom I am proud to represent. I hope that, after her response, my constituents and I will feel that we are on the way to winning the money because we have the full support of the Government. We need it for the benefit of the area and community and, especially, for the benefit of young local people.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing this debate on such an important issue for his constituency. He has spoken of the contribution made by all the people of Tooting to the well-being and richness of that community and I applaud the way in which he celebrated its diversity. He also clearly outlined some of the needs that people in Tooting continue to face. He conveyed his message with genuine commitment and feeling for the people whom he represents.

The Government view the single regeneration budget programme as an important instrument in our drive to tackle social exclusion and create equality of opportunity. By reducing the gap between deprived and other areas and between different groups, we want to improve the quality of life of local people, especially in areas in need. That includes the important issue of tackling the disadvantage undoubtedly still experienced by people in this country's minority ethnic communities.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable benefits that have accrued to London boroughs through the SRB programme. The first five rounds of SRB in London have resulted in 197 successful schemes, which have attracted £1.2 billion of Government funding in their lifetime. Those schemes are expected to lever in a further £2.2 billion of private investment, creating or safeguarding around 186, 000 jobs and establishing many thousands of new businesses. The SRB programme is clearly designed to try to achieve what my hon. Friend seeks in Tooting.

Four schemes have been under way in the London borough of Wandsworth, with Government funding of £22.5 million. The largest of them is the transformation of Wandsworth's town centre, which has focused on the Arndale centre—a large new shopping centre below an estate of high-rise council dwellings. The scheme is successfully improving the area's commercial, housing and social problems. Wandsworth is also involved with adjacent boroughs in four other schemes and in some pan-London schemes. The SRB has clearly made a significant contribution to London as a whole and especially to Wandsworth.

I shall explain to my hon. Friend this year's decision-making process on round 6 of SRB, as it is important to his point. SRB round 6 was launched at the end of last year and is expected to provide an additional £300 million for London in the next seven years. Its main objectives are to support and promote growth in local economies and businesses, to enhance the employment prospects, education and skills of local people, to tackle social exclusion and enhance opportunities for disadvantaged people, to promote sustainable regeneration, and to tackle crime and drug abuse and improve community safety. We injected extra funding into the SRB scheme nationally. We modified the framework to give greater clarity to bidders and to secure the greater community involvement that my hon. Friend says is such a strong feature of Tooting's bid.

Partnerships were invited to submit expressions of interest to the Government office for London in March. As my hon. Friend said, one of them was the scheme proposed by Wandsworth borough council, which aimed to support and involve young people in Tooting. Officials concluded that the proposals supported the objectives identified by the social exclusion unit in its "Bringing Britain Together" report. Tooting is also one of London's 68 priority community regeneration areas—identified as being the capital's focal points of need and deprivation. The Government office for London therefore encouraged Wandsworth to submit a bid on the basis of the expression of interest.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the delegation to the mayor of London came into effect recently, on 3 July. With that transfer, responsibility for the approval of London SRB round 6 bids has passed to the mayor. It is his responsibility to decide how the money in SRB round 6 will be allocated across the submitted bids. The London development agency now exercises the day-to-day management of the SRB programme on his behalf. The Secretary of State's functions of giving guidance or directions to the agency are also now exercised by the mayor. In relation to London, Ministers have no further role in directing or giving guidance to the LDA. The mayor will be making the decisions.

My fellow Ministers and I have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the delegated functions are exercised by the mayor in accordance with the conditions of those delegations. If, at any time, the mayor or the LDA did not comply with the terms of delegations, Ministers would have the power to intervene, but only by revoking the whole of the delegated function. I have provided a fairly detailed explanation so that my hon. Friend will understand that decision making about allocation of resources under SRB 6 rests wholly with the mayor of London.

My officials made inquiries in the light of the Adjournment debate and I now understand that the Tooting bid was submitted and is being assessed along with the other London bids by the LDA, which will advise the mayor. I am told that the mayor will make his final decisions on the successful schemes at the end of this month. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that although I cannot comment on the eligibility of the bid, which is a decision for the mayor, I shall try to respond to his points.

The bid for funding, which my hon. Friend outlined in relation to the Tooting submission, involves a number of key projects: training in information and communication technology through a learning matrix, which is very important; additional support for young learners to provide progression routes to further and higher education, which, as he outlined, is an important mechanism in trying to ensure that young people raise their capacity to obtain employment; involving businesses in providing work opportunities; involving families in education by providing family and community learning support; encouraging youth participation in community projects and volunteering; working with young people at risk of offending, to reduce youth crime and try to prevent their route into criminal activity, which would clearly be to their great disadvantage; providing facilities for young people in sport and cultural activities; encouraging young people to start up businesses; providing support for young people with mental health problems; and preventing drug abuse.

A strong feature of the bid—which the Government are supporting in SRB bids in the rest of the country, where we are making decisions—is the extent to which young people and those from ethnic minority groups have been involved from the outset in building up the bids, setting the priorities and trying to define some of the solutions, in terms of the projects specified for tackling some of the difficulties and problems that those young people face.

In other parts of the country, we have made it clear that we want more bids to focus on ethnic minority communities and their groups—they should be lead partners rather than merely the recipients of projects administered and managed by other people. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I am discussing with other regional development agencies their submissions and I am making the point strongly that the Government feel that minority ethnic communities have not been sufficiently represented so far. The SRB bids that we will approve will require more focus on their needs. I have no reason to suppose that that will not also be an important focus and criterion for the mayor of London when he decides on bids from London authorities. In areas such as Tooting, where ethnic minority populations are concentrated, it is important that those people engage in the regeneration process and are involved in developing and delivering the bids and ensuring that the outcomes meet their needs. I was pleased that a combination of methods was used to get young ethnic minority people in Tooting involved in the regeneration process that has led to the bid. I am sure that that is a great strength.

My hon. Friend raised two specific issues: the school that has been closed and Wandsworth's budget. I shall ask my officials to look into the question of the school, which is a matter of local democratic decision making. If, after consultation, Wandsworth council decides to go ahead with the sale, and does so in an appropriate and legal manner, Ministers have no power to intervene in the process. However, I understand my hon. Friend's point about the school being an asset that, if the SRB bid is successful, could be used as a centre to support the project. We cannot deter Wandsworth, but I shall certainly instruct my officials to speak to the council on the matter and check that they have taken cognisance of my hon. Friend's point, which is sound and valid.

The council's budget is also set democratically and I cannot intervene to tell Wandsworth to revise it. I accept my hon. Friend's point that it would not look good if Wandsworth were the lead partner in a bid for additional Government money to develop services for young people while at the same time—according to his information—taking money out of its own budget. When the mayor considers the bid, he may want Wandsworth to explain that matter, in terms of deciding on the allocation of money. I hope that Wandsworth council will take that on board.

I regret that I cannot assist my hon. Friend directly, as the power to make such decisions now rests not with Ministers but with the mayor. However, my hon. Friend has fulfilled an important function on behalf of his constituency by raising the issue and hearing my remarks on the strength of the bid. I hope that he will make representations to the mayor before the end of the month.

Order. As the Member sponsoring the debate and the Minister are both present, we can move on to the third and final half-hour debate.

It seems appropriate to have a debate about cancelled operations and waiting times on a day when the Chancellor will no doubt announce—or re-announce—the investment of vast billions of pounds in the health service during the coming years. I make no apologies for raising the topic, as it is one that will not go away. In my constituency surgery and mailbag, day after day and week after week, the pressures on the local health service are among the biggest issues. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring them directly to the Minister's attention and I hope that he will offer some encouragement for the future.

I have nothing but praise for doctors, nurses and the other NHS staff—who are often not mentioned on such occasions—and for the work that they do in our local hospitals. I am not criticising them, as they need and deserve our support. They are trying, under great pressure, to deliver a first-rate service. By bringing such concerns to the Minister's attention, I hope that the Government will be encouraged to do more to support them. I shall comment on three issues: cancelled operations, waiting times, and plans in the local area to try to address those problems.

I shall set the context in relation to cancelled operations. The latest figures show that in England about 1.1 per cent. of operations and elective surgery are cancelled. In the Avon area, the figure is 1.9 per cent., which is a little less than double the rate of cancellation. I was alarmed to receive statistics from the House of Commons Library that showed a much more rapid deterioration in Avon than elsewhere in the country. The Library has given me quarterly figures to 1999–2000 from 1995–96. In that period, the number of cancelled operations throughout the country rose by about 11 per cent., while the number in Avon rose three times as fast. The problem of cancelled operations is clearly national, but it seems to be especially acute and rapidly becoming worse in Avon. I realise that Avon is not the worst authority by any stretch of the imagination according to these dodgy, or, rather, unwelcome, league tables, but clearly the problem is quickly becoming much worse.

The Library's statistics show not only how many operations were cancelled but how many breaches of the patients charter followed. It is a requirement that, once an operation is cancelled, treatment should take place within a month. Of the growing number of cancellations, the proportion of operations not performed within a month of cancellation doubled. Three times as many operations were cancelled and double the proportion of that larger number were not treated within a month.

The charter was breached in every quarter from the start of 1995–96. It was never breached more than 100 times in a quarter until the final quarter of this year, when it was breached 221 times. To humanise that figure, 221 people who looked forward to the date of their operations may have arrived at the hospital, or were telephoned first thing in the morning, to be told that their operations would be cancelled and they did not receive treatment even within a month of the time expected. That is a serious problem. A cancelled operation is one of the cruellest experiences possible and it seems to be happening much more and far too often in Avon.

The trusts that serve south Gloucestershire—the subject of the debate—and North Bristol NHS trust have kindly provided me with some briefing material, as has the health authority. When I requested the debate, I was not aware of the statistics. All that I had seen were the faces coming to my surgery, from which I observed that a problem existed.

The figures bear out that first-hand, anecdotal experience. I have been given monthly figures for cancelled operations from last October. In a typical month, if such exists, North Bristol NHS trust cancels 80 operations, which is, obviously, 80 too many. In January, it cancelled 253 operations—more than three times as many. At the time, we heard a lot about winter pressures, which I had the opportunity to discuss in a separate Adjournment debate in the House. Cancellations on that scale cause misery for far too many people. Clearly, winter pressures were part of the story, but even in summer the trust has to cancel 80 operations a month. The trust's briefing suggests that long-term trends are involved, which are not going away. Long-term upward trends are evident in emergency admissions, the number of over-85s admitted and length of stay in hospital.

The word that has arisen in researching the topic and speaking to hospital staff is "pressure". I am told that in summer it used to ease off, but now all year round there is pressure and a lack of capacity. The lack of capacity in the local NHS was evident from the national beds inquiry, which showed that Avon is an outlier. It has one third fewer hospital beds per head of population than the national average and about one fifth fewer than the regional average.

The strategy proposed is to use community care and nursing homes to help people to stay in their own homes, and to rely less on keeping people in hospital. We would all sympathise with that objective. However, the downside of that strategy is that when the pressure comes, no slack and, therefore, no capacity is available. According to the health authority briefing, the bed figures

may explain why, at times of peak demand, the option to increase emergency capacity by the cancellation of surgical procedures is utilised.

In other words, no slack is available: hospitals must cancel operations. That is a source of great anxiety.

I could list many cases of people whose operations have been cancelled and who have come to see me. The Minister is well aware of the nature of the problem. It is the cruellest experience to have an operation cancelled on the day or in hospital, and that cruelty is compounded by the fact that some of my constituents have had operations cancelled two or three times. They phone me up and tell me of the cancellations and I feel completely helpless. I write to the trust, which tells me that there is a perfectly good reason, such as a sudden influx of emergencies or what are called medical outliers—that is the term for people being treated for whom there are no beds, who therefore take those that would have been used by the people due to have operations. There is always a good reason, but when will the situation end?

Cancelled operations are part of the story—one symptom of the pressure on the local NHS. Long waiting times are the other side of the coin. The Minister responded to a previous debate of mine about a year ago on orthopaedic out-patient waiting times. It is unfortunate that I have to raise again the fact that, despite an awful lot of imagination and effort on the subject of orthopaedic out-patient waiting times in the Avon area, the waits are still unacceptable.

The problem is not only in orthopaedics. One of my constituents—I shall refer to him only as Mr. K—needed a heart bypass. He was told in March 1999 that he was on a waiting list and is still on it 15 months later. I wrote to the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust, which said that it was sorry and that he would be seen within the absolute upper limit of 18 months. The chief executive said that the trust had

encountered numerous problems in the past year in admitting routine patients for cardiac surgery.

Of course, my constituent does not think that his is a routine case. He feels that his heart problem is getting worse with every passing month. He is unhappy to be told that his is a routine case and that 15 months is therefore acceptable. The trust does not want the situation to have dragged on so long, but it is only at 18 months that he will go to the top of the queue. One reason is the number of urgent admissions, which obviously take priority. The blackly humorous word doing the rounds in the Avon area is that the only way to receive heart treatment is to have a heart attack. That is the way to jump to the head of the queue, or the wait is 18 months. That situation is deplorable.

The chairman of the trust says that there is a shortage of theatre staff for cardiac and thoracic surgery and that that has tended to lead to a large number of cancellations. He also says that there will be seven new beds, which is welcome. He does not say where the staff will come from, which is worrying if there are not enough staff for existing operations.

All sorts of surgery are affected. Another constituent, Mr. H, needed the condition of his heart investigated through an angiogram. He was told that it would be a year before he could have that done—a year before staff could assess what treatment was needed. The trust reassures me that it monitors people and if it thinks that a situation is urgent it will carry out treatment straight away. Mr. H was told that he could wait a year, so he paid privately for an angiogram, which concluded that he needed quadruple bypass surgery. If he had not had the angiogram and the need for the surgery had not been detected, would he still have been alive to have had the surgery? How many people come off waiting lists because they die?

The key promise that I want from the Minister today is to investigate the reasons why people come off waiting lists. I want him to consider not only death, but people forced to go privately even though they have no private health insurance cover. I do not mean members of BUPA or any such organisation, but ordinary members of the public who are put on waiting lists but see their health deteriorating as month after month goes by. Many are in discomfort for months, losing earnings—not all the people involved are elderly by any means—and cannot face the wait. They are driven to raid their life savings of thousands of pounds to have private treatment.

I shall give the example of a mother of two from Thornbury in my constituency, who was told by her doctor that she should see a consultant about an ear condition. She waited for the appointment, but time went by, so she paid privately for a consultation and was told that she needed an operation for a degenerative ear condition. It must be the worst possible scenario to be on a waiting list with a degenerative condition, because people in that situation know that each week and month that goes by makes them worse. Her NHS treatment was cancelled and she got to the stage where she was so desperate that she paid thousands of pounds, which she could ill afford, for a private operation. After being treated, she was told that if her condition had deteriorated for as long as the NHS was prepared to let it, and she had waited until the date she had been given for NHS treatment, there was a high probability that she would have suffered a stroke. She was also told that the delay between diagnosis and treatment had meant that her condition had degenerated so much that she would not recover the hearing in her ear. Had there not been such a delay, there would have been enough bone left to insert a hearing aid into the ear and her hearing might have been saved.

I wonder how many similar stories there are; we do not know because there is no evidence. I have tabled written parliamentary questions asking the Government to collect data on the people who come off NHS waiting lists by paying privately and have been told that such data are not collected. As a matter of priority, they should be. I hope that, if he says nothing else, the Minister will assure me that that data will be collected so that we can monitor how many people are being forced into that situation, over what time period, in what parts of the country, in what specialisms and how serious the situation is. If ever there was an indicator of pressure in the NHS, it is people desperately trying to buy their way out of long waiting lists.

A final constituency case is Mrs. E, from Chipping Sodbury, who was told in May 1999 that she faced an 18-month wait to see a consultant. She could not afford the £6,000 for private treatment and she badgered the hospital by ringing every week—at one stage, I gather, every day—and after 13 months she was seen and told that she was now on the in-patient waiting list for treatment. So she had waited 13 months to be told that she could be on the waiting list. She has had to give up full-time work and work part-time because of the discomfort. Her consultant was recently quoted as saying that the situation is extremely frustrating but medical staff have little control over it, that he did not know how they could get round it and that he felt very sorry for the patients. I therefore criticise not the people who work in the NHS but the system that puts them in the impossible situation of telling patients that they cannot be treated and of cancelling their operations.

Things are happening in the Avon health authority area. Money is going in and plans are afoot. We are told that there will be improvements in cardiology and orthopaedics. A hospital-at-home scheme, costing a quarter of a million pounds, will reduce the pressure on beds in hospitals—which should in turn mean fewer cancellations. Frenchay hospital is gaining 28 acute medical beds and there is work in the community to prevent people from coming into hospital in the first place. That is all part of the picture.

However, I am concerned about the conclusions of the briefing that I received from the local NHS trust. It says that it is making headway on cancelled operations and believes that it will break the back of the problem, maintaining good performance on in-patient waiting times. However, my heart sank when I read that it is falling behind in out-patient targets. Something tells me that, unless things change dramatically, the Minister and I—the electorate permitting—may be here again another year, and another year. I may have more tales of woe and more tales of cancelled operations and unacceptable waiting times. I asked the Minister last time if he would take responsibility for the situation, because everyone always blames everyone else. Things are being done and money is being put in, yet the problems are still with us and I see no imminent prospect of a dramatic improvement.

We need hard evidence about the consequences of long waiting times and cancelled operations and of people being driven to fork out private savings for care that they should be able to get on the NHS. I hope that the Minister will promise such research and hard evidence on the scale of the problem and will reassure me that we do not need to be back here in 12 months.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. He described several problems, but I am not convinced that his proposal to divert resources from patient care into the bureaucracy of running surveys will cut waiting lists or improve the quality of care from the national health service. We need to deal with the problems of long waits and cancelled operations not only in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country but all over. That is the right way to reduce the number of cases, which I accept, from my constituency experience and his, is leading people to choose private treatment. We can reduce that number by improving service quality.

I shall describe our strategy and some of the changes occurring in Avon as a direct result of measures introduced by the Government. The hon. Gentleman will understand that he might have to wait until we publish the new national plan for the NHS next week to learn all the details. I recognise that the recent high number of cancelled operations at North Bristol NHS trust has increased the length of time that patients must wait for operations. The hon. Gentleman described clearly the effect on individuals, the disruption to their lives and families and the delay in providing their treatment, which I accept have occurred. We are investing heavily in the NHS and I shall shortly set out some of the measures that that investment has facilitated.

In common with some other trusts, since before Christmas, North Bristol NHS trust has been forced to cancel many elective in-patient operations, primarily because of the high level of emergency medical admissions, as the hon. Gentleman said. That phenomenon has continued well past the usual winter pressures period. The current level of admissions is far higher than that in previous years and has lasted longer. The significant decline in admissions that usually takes place at the end of the winter has not occurred—that is in addition to a steady underlying increase in the number of admissions to the trust hospitals in the past few years. The number of patients requiring emergency admission has made it necessary occasionally to admit those patients to surgical beds. That has forced the cancellation of operations for the patients who would otherwise have used those beds.

It is a significant achievement that the trust has continued to meet its in-patient waiting list targets during this difficult period. Those figures represent patients successfully treated. Out-patient figures remain unacceptable, although since we last spoke, the figures have fluctuated. The numbers considerably improved but, regrettably, they slipped back again, particularly in orthopaedics. However, I understand that the trust plans to appoint an additional orthopaedic consultant from September. I hope that that will put back on track the progress that the trust had begun to make.

In response to our national initiatives, the trust has prepared a detailed management plan to reduce the number of over-13-week waiters in out-patients and to manage GP referral rates more effectively. The trust has introduced a partial-booking system for out-patients. Such systems were piloted in Basildon and Chesterfield and were shown to reduce out-patient waits significantly. We will publish a report about that project, which will roll out nationally, in the next few days. I understand that the trust's plans contain proposals for considerable work in the four specialities in which the out-patient waits are longest.

The trust and the health authority are working together to resolve the problems facing the trust. We should discuss briefly the Government's wider assistance for the NHS. A key part of our help is in providing the necessary funding to support front-line staff and services in meeting the increasing pressures on them. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the staff in the trust for their hard work. They work under great pressure.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding in the Budget. In the next four years, expenditure on the NHS will increase by an annual average of more than 6 per cent. in real terms. That is twice the historic rate of growth in funding. This year, the NHS will receive a total increase of £4.17 billion. Of the new money for England, £600 million has already been allocated to health authorities to meet local pressures and a further £60 million from the performance fund will be made available when they meet specified levels of performance. Additional sums of money have also been released, including investment in critical care beds, which will help to tackle some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman outlined.

The total allocation in Avon this year was nearly £642 million. That is an increase of £37.5 million or 6.3 per cent. That money will enable Avon health authority, working together with local NHS trusts, to reduce waiting lists and times for both in-patients and out-patients and to expand services. The hon. Gentleman made an important point: the provision of money on its own will not treat patients unless we have trained staff to provide the clinical services. We have seen big increases in the number of doctors and nurses employed in the NHS in the past three years. By September last year, the number of doctors employed in the trusts in the Avon health authority had increased by 14.5 per cent. Since April last year, the North Bristol NHS trust has appointed 12 new consultants and five registrar posts have been approved. In the past year, it has also employed more than 50 new qualified nursing staff.

Significant though those rises are, we still need more staff. That is why we have expanded nurse training, why we recently announced the expansion of medical school provision and why we are increasing the number of nurses and doctors that we want to employ. For the past two years we have run a national recruitment campaign aimed particularly at nurses. In the south-west region, about 183 nurses who had left the profession returned to the NHS last year, and since February this year, a further 136 nurses have returned to the NHS.

The number of nurses entering training each year in the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire training consortium area has increased by 26 per cent. since 1996–97. This year, the number of training places will be expanded further so that 41 per cent. more nurses will enter training than did so in the last year of the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman recognises that it takes time for that investment in training and training places to feed through into the supply of nurses available to the NHS.

In Avon itself the health authority received record additional levels of funding this year, with an increase of £37.5 million. The health authority is spending £11 million of that on meeting the priority of reducing waiting times for both in-patients and out-patients. The North Bristol NHS trust has agreed a £5.5 million package of investments to tackle its problems of capacity, reduce the number of cancelled operations and achieve reductions in the number of patients who are waiting too long for both in-patient treatment and out-patient appointments.

The measures in the package will mean that the trust will open an additional 90 beds this year. As the hon. Gentleman said, if one applies the conclusions of the national beds inquiry, he represents an area where there are fewer beds than in general. The opening of those additional 90 beds will be welcome. It is also important to understand how it is intended to use the beds. Those extra beds and wider changes in the way that beds are organised at the trust will allow the surgical beds at the Avon orthopaedic centre to be ring-fenced for surgical work. That means that they will not, hopefully, be occupied by medical emergencies, with the knock-on effect on cancellations that has been described. The orthopaedic centre has been most affected by the need to accommodate medical patients.

The Minister has only a few minutes left. I am interested in the key point about the evidence of people coming off lists into the private sector. He had the nerve to talk about spending money on the bureaucracy of surveys. How many millions of pounds were spent on the survey that he sent to millions of NHS users and staff, and how much would it cost to gather the information that I want, which would expose what is going on in the NHS today?

We all want shorter waiting times for out-patient and in-patient treatments. That should reduce the number of people wanting to go private rather than go on NHS waiting lists. I see little value in spending money on studying that matter when we could use it to cut waiting times.

The involvement of patients in shaping the new national plan was essential. We want a more patient-centred NHS than we have had, and it is doubtful whether we can achieve it without some form of patient consultation. As I recall, the consultation exercise cost about £200,000 to £250,000. The exact answer is likely to be on the official record, perhaps in response to parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Gentleman.

I am still sceptical about the exercise. Can the Minister specify three points that were learned through the consultation exercise about patients' views that were not known before it?

The hon. Gentleman may want to wait for the national plan. However, basic cleanliness and a clear management structure in the wards were given a high priority by the public, which is not always clear from talking to managers and others within the health service. Understanding how the health service appeared to patients was valuable and helped to shape the national plan. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few more days to establish whether we have adequately reflected the consultation in our proposals.

The trust will also use nearly £750,000 on several schemes to deal with the problems of rising medical admissions and the cancellation of operations. The aim is to prevent inappropriate admissions and to facilitate the discharge of patients back into the community. The schemes include the appointment of a specialist registrar and staff positions in cardiology at a cost of £170,000. That will improve the availability of cardiac services, which the hon. Gentleman identified as a priority area, help to manage emergency demand more effectively and reduce admissions.

More than £250, 000 will be invested in expanding the trust's existing hospital-at-home scheme, which helps to prevent unnecessary admissions and allows a speedier discharge of patients. About £170,000 will be invested in the community-based multidisciplinary stroke team and in additional outreach and rapid access occupational therapy and physiotherapy. The idea is to provide an intensive outreach rehabilitation service to enable patients to return to the community more quickly, and to support them in their homes.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern about the length of out-patient waiting times at the North Bristol NHS trust. We have had the opportunity to debate those issues in the past and I can assure him of my continuing desire to see substantial improvements. The Government have helped by making investment available in the previous and the current year, which should have an impact on the problem. I accept that some patients are waiting far too long at present. The trust has targets for improvement in the coming year, and we shall provide it and its staff with all the support that we can to achieve those targets.