I welcome you to the Chair, which I hope that you will enjoy, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In any civilised society, absolutely no one has the right to knock the living daylights out of anyone else, yet the police receive more than 570,000 calls a year reporting violent attacks in the home. The largest category of assaults recorded by the British crime survey involves domestic violence and 80 per cent. of them are against women. Domestic violence—violence within the family—is a huge and hidden problem. A snapshot of one day of violence shows that some victims are raped or stabbed. Women are kicked while pregnant. Some are left with cuts and bleeding. One victim had her throat slashed with a razor blade. Four out of five calls are from women who have been attacked by men. Only one in 10 is from a man who has been attacked by a woman. A person is assaulted in the home every 20 seconds, so a woman somewhere has been assaulted since I started my speech.

At greatest risk are those aged under 25 and in financial difficulty. The risks are highest for women who are separated from their spouses. The public is now on the alert for child abuse, both physical and mental. The media and the Children Act 1989 have done a great deal to bring that evil into the public eye. Rape is a vile crime, which thankfully no longer attracts comments from the police and judiciary suggesting that the victim asked for it. Parliamentary colleagues regularly receive thousands of letters from constituents reporting cruelty to animals, but what about cruelty to human beings in this country? Domestic violence occurs behind closed doors, so it has been convenient to overlook it. However, by tolerating domestic violence, we condone it as an acceptable form of behaviour. By failing to outlaw and punish the perpetrators, we collaborate in undermining the healthy fabric of our society.

The law acknowledges physical violence, but emotional and mental abuse are as widespread and its natural precursor. When the victim is verbally undermined as well as physically threatened, she suffers a loss of confidence and dignity. Women live moment by moment, fearful of what might happen when their partner returns home and experiences an unexpected mood change. Emotional terrorism goes hand in hand with physical abuse but often is not accompanied by physical abuse. Only such emotional and mental abuse enables the abuser to feel sufficiently confident to pursue the power that he seeks—complete control, body and soul, of another human being.

Evidence shows that women tend not to complain immediately. They want things to work out and believe that they can make things better. They think that they can make a difference, as though they were nurturing a naughty child; they cajole, placate, spoil and offer their unconditional support. They give more love, not less. Unfortunately, matters always get worse. Statistics show that it is not until they have been physically abused an average of 30 or 35 times that women take action.

The full extent of domestic violence will probably never be known, but the facts speak for themselves. In 1996, nearly half of the 224 woman homicide victims were killed by their partners. Of 426 male homicide victims, only 8 per cent. were killed by their partners. Domestic violence is the most common single cause of violence against women, and it accounts for a quarter of all recorded crime.

The harrowing account of a constituent of mine illustrates the horror and degradation that a young woman had to endure at the hands of a brutal and cruel man who, on the face of it, was a respected manager of an out-of-town shopping centre where she had worked for six years. Julie's story is so typical that I shall tell it in her own words. She said:

On 9 August 1996 we were married. It was the best day of my life. On 10 August, he attacked me and tried to strangle me in our bedroom. He attacked me again for wearing a bikini in the pool. I was on honeymoon in a strange country being beaten by the very man who only a week before had promised to make all my dreams come true.

The day before I was due to return to work, he set about me on the stairs, just because my mother said he looked like a character from a soap opera she watched. He slapped me about the face and pushed me down the stairs. The next morning I had a huge black eye and bruising about the head. The mirror said it all. I couldn't go to work like that.

By November I was five months pregnant and that is when the trouble began in earnest. He would get me up in the middle of the night and interrogate me about my past boyfriends, saying he was not the father of our child and set about me. He was never in a rage when he did this, he was always calm and collected. I dared not provoke him by defending myself in any way. It never worked. I was afraid what more he might do to me. I guess it wore me down because I couldn't find the guts to ask for help, particularly from my family or friends. I was too ashamed, it had been going on so long. A couple of months after our baby was born, he punched me in the breasts and pinned me to the floor, his foot to my throat, he was wearing his Cat boots.

The final straw came on 9 May 1997. He first attacked me at around 10.00 in the morning, then on and off for the better part of the day, about 6–7 hours in all. He repeatedly got me by the throat to stop me breathing while he reassured me that I could be unconscious for two minutes and still be okay. Then he would take to kicking me in the legs and buttocks. He only stopped to wash his face of sweat, before starting off again. He told me he was ready to do 25 years in prison for me. He then got hold of a fondue fork and threatened to stab me in the eye. I was absolutely terrified and really believed that this time I would not get out alive. But he suddenly left off, put on his coat and went out of the house—"to get some fish and chips", he said.

That is just one of the harrowing and horrifying accounts that I have heard at first hand from the women that I have talked to at the South Devon Women's Aid outreach project. It was an unbelievable experience. The project works like the secret service. It has offered confidential advice and practical help to some of the 897 women who have called on it during the past year. Those women were in dire distress and came from four small districts. I am sure that many colleagues have heard similar stories. Having heard Julie's story, it is not surprising to hear that three women a week are killed by former or current partners.

The scale of the problem and its horrifying nature is mind-numbing. We need to lift the lid on this horror. Perpetrators of domestic violence must pay; just as child abusers and paedophiles are now recognised as pariahs of society, so must they be exposed for the monsters that they truly are. What can we do to rid ourselves of these bullies and tormentors? How are the police, the social services and the courts coping?

At one time, the police distinguished between violence on the streets and violence at home. Thankfully, they have made great strides in recent years, with the help that they provide to victims of domestic violence—many of whom are in a state of utter despair and fear and have nowhere else to turn. Indeed, Julie told me that she was eternally grateful to the policeman who listened to her and believed her. He was sympathetic and understanding, and encouraged her to sign her statement. Julie told me that it was the police's positive response that helped to turn her life around. If she had received a negative response, she might well have gone back to her abusive husband and ended up as another homicide statistic.

Although police attitudes have changed, targeted training is needed to deal with domestic violence on the doorstep and careful attention needs to be given to how the police might become more proactive in seeking it out. We are fortunate in Devon to have two police officers whose sole responsibility is for cases of domestic violence. They cover Torbay, South Hams and Teignbridge, which are part of my constituency, and West Devon, which is not. The total population there is well over 300,000. It is self-evident that more police officers should be aware of what domestic violence entails. The limited number of trained police officers in far-flung rural areas such as mine—where two officers often have to travel 60 or more miles between each call—results in limited cover.

A decade ago, I spent an evening with the police in Kingsbridge, a town in my constituency. In retrospect, I realise that almost all the emergency calls that night involved apparent acts of domestic violence. At the time, I was not aware of it. One call was from a woman whose partner was threatening her with a double-barrelled shotgun. Out we rushed in a panda car. When we arrived, the policeman smiled at the couple and told the farmer with the gun to put that silly thing away. He smiled at the lady and told her that everything would be all right. In retrospect, it was probably a warning sign that should have been taken much more seriously.

What about the judiciary? There are some very real problems there. Although there has been a shift in awareness, the courts employ practices that often militate against bringing abusers to justice. What woman who has been knocked senseless is prepared to confront her partner across a courtroom, without fear for her personal safety when she gets outside? Videotaped evidence should be the norm in these cases, and in instances of domestic violence the burden of proof should be specifically placed on the man to prove that he is a responsible person and should have access to his children.

Contact orders are awarded almost automatically to married men and to most unmarried fathers, even if they are known to be violent within the family. Although there are strong links between domestic violence and child abuse, that danger is often not recognised by family courts. If arrangements cannot be agreed between a separating couple for their children, either parent can apply under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 for a residence order to decide whom the child will live with, or for a contact order to determine how the child will maintain contact with the non-resident parent.

Although under the guiding principles set out in section 1 of the 1989 Act, the welfare of the child is paramount, there is no reference to domestic violence. The same applies to the guidance that accompanies the Act. It does not require the court to consider the safety of the other parent or of other children in the family. The Family Law Act 1996 went some way to recognise those issues, but decisions in the Court of Appeal have established a strong case law presumption that contact will almost always be granted, as in the long term it is considered to be in the best interests of the child.

Children of abusive families live in fear and confusion. Many abused children fail to thrive, remain weak and undernourished, start hitting out at school, fail to make academic progress, play truant and steal, and become part of the crime statistics. In one third of child protection cases domestic violence was identified as part of the problem, although it is widely believed that the real figure is much higher.

Women need protection. South Devon Women's Aid has a number of refuges in which women who have been brutalised may seek a safe sanctuary. There are three in Devon and four in Cornwall, offering between them about 35 to 40 places—and that is all—enabling desperate women to get away. There is always a massive waiting list. The refuges do essential, invaluable and vital work in providing a safe house where victims' self-esteem can be restored. The 897 women who called South Devon Women's Aid last year were primarily counselled by a handful of paid workers and a small battalion of women volunteers. Those women do an amazing undercover job with inadequate resources. They provide practical help, advice and information for women who are desperate to get out of abusive relationships. Let us not forget that the numbers involved are massive—at least half a million women a year in the United Kingdom suffer from abusive and violent relationships.

Is there any way to prevent this problem? Is there a way to make progress? I believe that that depends on analysis of the cause of the problem. Some psychiatrists and psychologists believe that domestic violence is proof positive of widespread mental disorder eating away at the fabric of our society and effecting the breakdown of the nuclear family. They point out the increase in stress and personal pressure in everyday life, which means that many people just cannot cope any longer with the demands made of them and the speed of change. However, that analysis fails to account for the fact that the problem is not a new phenomenon. Unemployment, poverty and poor housing do not help, but we should not forget that domestic violence is encountered in all strata of society. Regardless of its root causes, it cannot be tolerated. In a civilised society, no one has the right to knock the living daylights out of anyone else.

Domestic violence is the most insidious of crimes. It is not a one-off, for the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. Young boys seek to emulate their abusive and violent fathers, whom they see as role models. In turn, they repeat the abusive behaviour by attacking their mothers. It is no wonder that women who contact help agencies are not only those who complain about their partners, but mothers asking to be rescued from their violent sons. It sounds as though our country has become a war zone. It has, I believe, become a domestic war zone.

I applaud the recent focus on bullying in schools. Perhaps it will open our eyes to scraps in the playground involving boys and girls. The teaching profession is reassessing training methods, to help teachers in primary schools deal with bullying. The work of Kidscape shows how crucial it is for violence at an early age to be rooted out. Coram Family, the London child care charity based in King's Cross, is breaking new ground in tackling poor family relationships and family breakdown. The work focuses on improving relationships and expectations between men and women, thus preventing violent and abusive relationships. One of the projects recently set up is Boyz to Men, which works with young black men in the care system, setting out to promote new understanding of their future role as fathers and partners. The young men in question frequently have had bad models in their own fathers and need to find new and less violent ways of relating to their partners in future.

Quite a bit is being done in the voluntary sector to address the problem that I have described, but can the state do anything? An effective and supportive legal system is essential in tackling domestic violence. It needs to provide protection for women and children and to hold abusers to account. If women are afraid to use the legal system, we must attend to it until it is shown to provide protection and safeguards for people who have suffered such terrible violence. The Crown Prosecution Service should play a far more helpful and positive role. It should automatically take the initiative and bring prosecutions. It should not be expected that victims will prosecute. Although there is a general acceptance that the police and judicial system now treat victims of domestic violence with greater sympathy and listen and respond to their experiences, such improvements are piecemeal and not every court is quite so sympathetic.

We can get to work straight away. Comprehensive training in domestic violence issues should be included in the training of all legal practitioners. We need an improved police response, strengthened pro-arrest policies, improved collection of evidence and an end to the routine release of the offender on bail. There should be better co-ordination between the criminal and civil law in relation to domestic violence. The criminal justice system should issue stronger sanctions against abusers. "Seek and find" orders should not be pursued in cases of domestic violence and the court procedures must be altered to ensure that the addresses of abused women and children remain absolutely confidential.

The Child Support Agency grants departure orders allowing men to reduce their contributions to their wives on the pretext of having to make costly journeys to see their children. The benefit should be available only with proper receipts, because the mothers know when the visits do not happen, but fear to let the officials know because of the likely consequences. An effective legal response should be part of a wider, community response including refuge and support networks for women and children throughout the country. Institutional barriers to progress must go.

Women have had the vote for nearly 80 years and are viewed as equals in the eyes of the law. Condoning domestic violence by turning a blind eye and shrugging one's shoulders has gone on long enough. If more than half a million black people a year were physically and mentally assaulted, there would be a national outcry, but because women report the abuse we acquiesce. Also, because it is seen as happening at home. A change in public attitude is urgently needed. Our institutions are slowly recognising the enormity and nature of the problem and seeking better ways of dealing with it. However, the response still seems halfhearted when one realises that the homes of many victims have become war zones with an enemy as cunning as any wartime interrogator effective in the arts of brainwashing and torture.

One in four women are assaulted at some point in their lives. There are 650 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons; how many have experience of domestic violence? There are 2,000 support staff in the Houses of Parliament; how many of them have been involved in an abusive relationship?

We must now see what can be done to help women to escape from abusive relationships and to prevent their children becoming part of the cycle of violence. Child abusers and rapists must face the full consequences of their crimes, and no longer should perpetrators of domestic violence be able to escape. I hope that the debate will bring us closer to that aim.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this important debate and I appreciate the opportunity to take part in it.

I shall speak about one aspect of domestic violence: contact between violent parents and their children. My plea is that the Government enshrine in legislation the guidelines laid down by the Children Act subcommittee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law Matters, on parental contact in cases of domestic violence. That means changing the presumption set out in a ruling by the Master of the Rolls in 1995 that contact is "almost always" in the interests of the child. Instead, there should be a presumption, capable of being rebutted, that if there is a history of violence to the child or the other parent, contact and residence will not be granted until it can be shown to be safe for all parties. The safety and welfare of the child should be paramount, and that should be achieved by amending the Children Act 1989. It would also mean challenging wider social assumptions about parental rights, including parents' rights of access to their children, but it would do much to protect children and their resident parent—usually, but not always, the mother—from further attack.

To emphasise the human cost involved I, like the hon. Gentleman, shall describe the experience of a constituent, whose ex-husband attacked her eldest child with a knife and tried to strangle her when she was five and a half months pregnant with their child. When she came round, she discovered that her husband had gone, having cut the telephone cord so that she could not summon help. She recovered, and had her child, but the police could not find her ex-husband so eventually the charges were dropped. Two years later, a letter arrived on her doormat from her ex-husband's solicitor, asking for contact. She spent two years fighting that request through nine court hearings. She finally came to me in desperation when she faced being imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to agree to the court's contact order. The court had previously ordered indirect contact.

In nine months, the father of the little girl sent two cards, one at Christmas and one a few months later. He took little opportunity to make even indirect contact. None the less, the court ordered direct contact. My constituent faced being imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to agree, and was told to make child care arrangements because she would be sent to prison. The court was a family court, so there was no publicity. I was horrified to realise that a woman could be repeatedly sent to prison and threatened with losing the custody of her child in a case that would not be tried at any stage in a public court.

Only at the final hearing did my constituent's lawyers draw the court's attention to the Children Act subcommittee guidelines. Much to everyone's surprise, it was found that although she was in contempt, she was reasonably in contempt and so was not sent to prison. Her story had a happy ending, but not all children are so fortunate. In August, Daniel and Jordan Philpot were gassed to death in their father's car during a contact visit. A contact order had been granted to the father, despite the fact that he was due to appear in a Crown court on charges of threatening to kill his ex-partner and causing her actual bodily harm.

Women's Aid, which has done excellent work on the subject, has provided other examples of such cases. One was of a woman who fled to a refuge with her youngest child. She was collecting her son from a contact visit to the father in 1996 when she was stabbed to death. Her son was found strangled in her husband's car, and later her three other children were found dead in their beds with their throats cut. Her husband is serving a life sentence for murder. Another case was of a woman worried about her violent husband's mental stability. She was persuaded to agree to contact without a court hearing, and her two children were murdered during a contact visit in 1993.

As the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, it is a problem that neither the 1989 Act nor its supporting guidance explicitly mentions domestic violence in relation to contact. That makes it difficult for judges to deny contact to a violent parent. The county courts, as the hon. Gentleman said, heard 36,144 applications for parental contact in 1997–98. In only 656 cases was contact refused. The welfare of the child is considered only in decisions of residence, not contact. The number of contact orders refused is surprising, given the substantial role that domestic violence plays in marital and relationship breakdown.

There are some signs of change. In four landmark cases of applications for contact in the Court of Appeal in June, the judgment stated that

there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a violent parent was in the child's best interests. If anything the assumption should be in the opposite direction, with the violent parent proving why he or she could offer something of benefit to the child.

Also, there are the important guidelines of the Children Act subcommittee, which follow consultation with the courts and everyone involved in family and child welfare. The publication is excellent, and includes criteria for cases in which a parent is trying to get contact and there have been findings of domestic violence. It lists a series of procedures for establishing cases of domestic violence, stating:

the court should be notconsider…the effect of the domestic violence which has been established on the child and on the parent with whom the child is living…whether or not the motivation of the parent seeking contact is a desire to promote the best interests of the child or as a means of continuing a process of violence against or intimidation or harassment of the other parent.

My constituent had to go through nine hearings with a violent ex-husband who had made no effort to establish a relationship with his child through indirect contact. The hearings were in a family court with no publicity, so he could prolong the procedures without there being protection for the woman. The guidelines say that the court should also consider the

likely behaviour of the parent seeking contact during contact and its effect on the child or the children concerned.

One must bear in mind that there are other children in the family unit whose needs must be considered. The report says that the court should also consider the

capacity of the parent seeking contact to appreciate the effect of past and future violence on the other parent and the children concerned…The attitude of the parent seeking contact to past violent conduct by that parent; and in particular whether that parent has the capacity to change and/or to behave appropriately.

Those points are excellent, as is the rest of the subcommittee's report. However, I disagree with the conclusion that legislation is not needed.

Despite the new guidelines and the case law, it is not clear at all that the courts know about the changes; it did not appear that my constituent's lawyer knew about them, at least until the final hearing. It is essential that there is parity of treatment for children in all courts throughout the country, and we should not have to wait for all courts to reach the standards of the best. We should not leave more women to face continued abuse by a violent spouse or ex-spouse through the courts after they have endured violence at home from that spouse. We must not leave children at risk of further abuse or harm by a violent parent.

The principle at stake is important. It concerns the priority that should be given to the safety of the child, and society's attitudes to parental rights in relation to children. Those issues are a proper subject for discussion in Parliament and for wider debate, and I am sure that that debate would be heated. We all agree that it is wrong to hit people, especially vulnerable people such as children. However, the notion that the parent—in most cases, the father—should not have an automatic right of contact or access to his child would be controversial. It would need to be discussed, so that the principle could be established on a wide basis and properly understood.

My view is that when a parent, spouse or partner has shown a pattern of violence, especially when that violence—as it often is—is exacerbated by drug or alcohol abuse, there must be substantial evidence of change before we can assume that that parent will not cause further harm or injury to the child or to the parent who has care of the child.

We tend to assume that domestic violence is directed at women alone, but that is often not the case. I do not have the results to hand, but some children's charities have done careful research and have found that, when the woman is attacked, the children may be witnesses to the violence or attacked themselves. Therefore, it is untrue that the issue affects only women; it affects children directly, and we should recognise the impact that it has on them and take steps to prevent it.

I welcome the approach taken by the Lord Chancellor's Department; in fact, I thought that a Minister from that Department might reply to the debate. However, I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) will speak with colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The approach that it has taken suggests that the Government are considering issuing a practice direction to the judiciary. However, for the reasons that I have given, I do not consider that a practice direction would be adequate to deal with the problem properly, in such a way as to allow society to understand how the issues should be resolved. I believe that the guidelines recommended by the Children Act subcommittee must be entrenched in law, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to that point.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and making a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. Let me say, without being patronising, that it is excellent that a male Member has brought the issue to our attention this time. The issue has too often been perceived as one that concerns women alone, but it should concern us all.

I wish that we could come up with a term other than "domestic violence": "domestic" sounds so cosy and homely and, as the hon. Gentleman said, violence is violence wherever it occurs. If anything, violence that takes place in the home, where one normally wants and expects to feel safe and secure, must be even more frightening. As the hon. Gentleman said, at one time the stereotypical police response to a violent argument between husband and wife or cohabitees was that it was "just a domestic" and that it was better for outsiders not to get involved. I remember hearing that response. One used to hear many anecdotes about people seeing a warring couple in the street and not wanting to interfere because they were likely to be thumped instead. The police have moved on a great deal since then. My local Avon and Somerset police force has been particularly pioneering by having a domestic violence unit in each district, dedicated domestic violence officers and a pro-arrest policy. Sadly, however, it is still the case that, too often, the attitude of neighbours and witnesses is that it is better not to interfere. Much education needs to be done among ordinary members of the public.

One problem is that giving evidence in cases is not only time-consuming but, in violent cases, often dangerous. I had the misfortune of being the victim of a road-rage case. It was adjourned at least three times and by the end I had given up about four days of my time to it. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that we should streamline such cases, so that they can be heard speedily and witnesses need not wait interminably—for days if not weeks.

I certainly agree. My daughter witnessed a violent incident—not domestic violence—that ended up as a case of murder; she had to wait a year before she knew whether she was required to go to court. I had to persuade her that it was the socially right thing to do. The whole court process can deter people from coming forward as witnesses.

People concerned about domestic violence are not limited to those who have experienced it at first hand or even to such people as refuge workers or the police who are in the front line of dealing with perpetrators and victims. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said, the concern extends to teachers with pupils who are or have been direct or indirect victims, to general practitioners who need to be able to spot the signs of emotional crisis as well as the physical wounds, and to health visitors who need training to ask the right questions. Housing officers, social workers, probation staff, community nurses and the Crown Prosecution Service also have a role to play. A considerable number of people are therefore touched by the issue. From the victim's point of view, many people are involved. The police, refuge staff, social workers and the CPS can all play a part in what is for most victims one of the most difficult, intimate and frightening experiences of their life. It is therefore vital that victims who contact any of the agencies are guaranteed basic rights.

The hon. Member for Totnes said that one in 10 calls to the police are from men who have been assaulted by women. I suspect that there is a great deal of underreporting of the violence perpetrated on men. As there was once a huge amount of under-reporting among women—there is probably still some—because of the shame of admitting that they were being abused in their own home, it is still very difficult for a man to come forward and say that he is being physically abused by his female partner. I suspect that the number of male victims is much higher than the recorded figures although 1 am sure that the majority of victims are still, because of the physical differences between the genders, women. We tend to focus on women victims, but it is important that we do not forget male victims.

All victims need to be guaranteed confidentiality. They need to be guaranteed that they will be dealt with sensitively to ensure that the process of reporting domestic violence does not contribute to the sense of powerlessness that many victims already feel. They need to be reassured that if they come forward for help they will not be judged. In the past, victims too often felt that they had done something wrong. People who have spoken to victims of domestic violence know that they often start by saying things such as, "It was my fault because I did not have his dinner ready on time", or "It was my fault as I made him angry".

We know that domestic violence is rarely a one-off event. Many of the people who speak out have been on the receiving end for a considerable time. As the hon. Member for Totnes told us, the police say that women who report domestic violence have, on average, been assaulted about 35 times. Such women do not need to be told that they should have reported the assaults earlier. They need to be encouraged to be strong now that they have decided to make the break—a decision that is often made in spite of huge social and economic pressures to return to an abusive partner in the belief that it will not happen again.

We need to be able to guarantee that the professionals dealing with the health, social and emotional needs of women and their children have been properly trained to do so. Ideally, specialist services will be available, but we must also ensure that every front-line worker who is dealing with the victims of domestic violence has had basic training. Above all, we must be able to guarantee that the professionals involved have a co-ordinated response. The last thing that a person who has plucked up the courage to come forward needs is to be passed from agency to agency, with the feeling that those agencies are not even talking to one another. There must be a response that does not stigmatise the victim or her family, but encourages her to take positive control of the situation.

A new United Kingdom-wide membership organisation was formed earlier this year. It is called Respect and was formed to promote best practice among statutory and independent-sector projects and workers who work with perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. It is to be formally launched in March 2001 and will be a great help in ensuring a standardised method of response. We know from children that even when people are not being abused directly, they can be living with domestic violence in a constant state of fear, anxiety, confusion and often helplessness—a fact that has been described by mothers also. At the very least, that should influence the nature of the interventions made to protect women and children. A challenge remains for all of us to try to improve a system that affects so many women and children each year.

We know that properly co-ordinated inter-agency work can achieve a great deal. It can enable effective intervention, as well as challenge and change inappropriate attitudes to domestic violence. No single agency, whether the police, social services or any other, knows all that there is to know about the subject or can tackle it alone, but when a range of agencies work closely together, domestic violence can be reduced and prevented. Hon. Members may know about the intervention project in Duluth, Minnesota, whose interagency strategy has reduced significantly the number of men who repeat acts of domestic violence. Indeed, it has also reduced domestic violence murders.

When I first visited Women's Aid projects, I found that people who worked with the organisation would not work with male offenders and focused only on the female victim. That is, after all, what the organisation was established to achieve. It regarded it as part of its task to help the woman to get away from the male offender. Many refuge workers now accept, however, that some men can be helped to recognise and end their violent behaviour if they receive appropriate counselling and support.

An independent voluntary-sector project called the domestic violence intervention project was set up in London in 1991. It provides many services to women and children but also does violence prevention group work with male perpetrators. The DVIP believes that working with perpetrators alongside their partner or ex-partner dramatically improves the safety of women and children. The previous speakers mentioned the difficulty of child contact orders. The DVIP is currently involved in an inter-agency pilot project on child contact and domestic violence, in partnership with the Middlesex family court welfare service and the Coram Family centre, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes.

I should like to list the main aims of the pilot scheme, as such schemes will, alongside legal changes, have a significant contribution to make. The first aim is to include the voices of women and children in the risk assessment process, so that their safety and wishes are taken into account. The second aim is to build into the system of risk assessment the notion that perpetrators can change and should be held accountable for their abuse, and to ensure that perpetrators are actively working to change their behaviour and attitudes before contact is given. It is important to accept that many perpetrators can change, because even if one woman manages to escape from a perpetrator of domestic violence, that perpetrator is very likely to enter another violent relationship. Therefore, if it is possible to change him, that opportunity should be taken.

The third aim is to encourage consistency in judicial rulings regarding contact orders and to help the judiciary in its dilemma of balancing a child's right to see both parents against the possible risk that contact with a violent parent may present to the child and the resident parent. That means promoting safe and appropriate contact by decreasing the number of inappropriate contact orders granted, while increasing the number of perpetrators with whom people can safely work towards establishing contact.

The project will assess both partners. A risk assessment will be made of the perpetrator, and recommendations will be made to the court, which may order the perpetrator to attend a programme before it takes a decision about whether a contact order is appropriate. It has the makings of an excellent pilot project. I know that the Minister has been listening carefully, and I hope that she will note that the scheme is still actively looking for funding to evaluate the project. As we all know, it is not enough merely to conduct a pilot project. It must be evaluated to provide evidence of whether it would be worth rolling out on a wider basis.

By taking an approach that is person-centred rather than process-centred, which does not blame the victim for experiencing violence and clearly places responsibility on the abuser, which imposes sanctions for such behaviour and which ensures that sanctions are imposed as soon as possible after the incident is reported, it is possible to offer effective services that enable victims to empower themselves in circumstances that seem hopeless.

I am convinced that the inter-agency approach is best, but inter-agency working raises difficult questions that must be dealt with. How do different agencies share information while retaining confidentiality? How do they integrate the approaches and aims of each agency without compromising anyone's position? How can power be shared among what is often a collection of unequal organisations, some of which are statutory and some of which are voluntary? Difficulties are involved, but they should not become insurmountable. However, in the long term, adequate funding is vital. I would never argue that funding alone is enough in any circumstances, but funding is obviously important to underpin the work of different agencies.

As the hon. Member for Totnes said, changing society's understanding of violence and its causes and solutions is an on-going and long-term process. In the past 10 years, many changes have taken place in how we view such matters. Services and protection are more accessible than previously. People now accept that the victim should not have to flee to safety, and that the perpetrator should be removed instead. However, effective counselling is still not widely available for everyone involved.

The hon. Member for Totnes is right about the need to reduce general levels of violence in society, to tackle violence when it starts—in the playground—and to tackle some deeply held views. A recent opinion poll asked young men in what circumstances they felt that it was appropriate to thump their partner. I have forgotten the percentages, but a rather high and worrying percentage said that if dinner was late, it was appropriate to do so. Many views need to be challenged. It is a complex issue, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to have a sensible and thought-provoking debate about it today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on having secured the debate and on the graphic illustration of the curse of domestic violence that he offered to hon. Members. According to the figures, the number of reported incidents has declined somewhat in recent years, for which we are grateful, but it still bedevils our society, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to it in such an eloquent fashion this morning. I congratulate the hon. Members for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who illustrated with constituency examples a problem that continues to rage.

Domestic violence can be defined as activity that involves any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse of people in a close relationship. It is important to understand, however, that it can involve more than physical violence. It can include threats, privation, humiliation and behaviour that is designed to belittle the victim. Controlling and, in a sense, degrading conduct towards mainly women, but not infrequently now towards men, is deeply undesirable and needs to be countered.

Several hon. Members have already drawn attention to the scale of the phenomenon. One in four women suffer domestic violence at some stage during their life. When undertaking research for the debate, I was horrified to discover that two women are killed each week as a result of such violence. In 1999, the year that reflected a reduction in the incidence from two years previously, there were 761,000 cases of domestic violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes suggested that about 80 per cent. of such cases involved female victims. It is right to point out however, that just under 15 per cent. of men will suffer such abuse during their lives.

Those who practise domestic violence are more likely than not to inflict that violence on their children. Furthermore, children know rather more about it than was hitherto thought to be the case. Evidence demonstrates that about one third of children are aware of the infliction of domestic violence and that figure rises to one half in instances, regrettably all too common, of repeat offences. We must bear it in mind that in the majority of cases that knowledge is scarcely surprising given that, at the time of the commission of the offences, 90 per cent. of the children are in either the same or an adjacent room. We do not know the scale of the damage that is done to them, not only physically, but in the longterm with irrevocable emotional and psychological scars.

It is therefore right that the significance of the problem for the country has to a considerable extent been reflected in the interest that right hon. and hon. Members have taken in the subject since the general election. In the House of Commons, there have been no fewer than 33 oral questions, 169 written questions, two business questions and 10 early-day motions. There have been three Adjournment debates, initiated respectively by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in March 1998 and for Luton, South (Ms Moran) in June 1998 and again in June this year. Twenty-one questions on the subject have been asked in another place.

If we are effectively to tackle domestic violence, we must be aware that, sadly but almost inevitably, several prerequisites fall upon the victim. The first responsibility for the victim—if "responsibility" is the appropriate word to use—is for her to recognise that the violence is occurring. Secondly, the victim must come to terms with the fact that, without exception, she is not to blame. There can never be an excuse, a mitigating factor or an element of personal responsibility for the fact that someone who supposedly loves her chooses to beat her up. Thirdly, the person concerned needs to be given every possible encouragement, advice and succour to seek official help.

Many organisations provide such help and it is right to draw attention to the good work of the Women's Aid national domestic violence helpline and its local refuge services, of which there are 300 in England and Wales. Many refuge services operate advice centres, drop-in centres or outreach services to isolated areas that are still bedevilled by the problem, but which often are not so visible to the naked eye. They also operate helplines. Victims can also seek help from the refuge 24-hour national crisis line, a men's advice line, a victim support service, Shelterline, the police, the national health service, the Samaritans, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children child protection helpline, Careline and Relate.

As I have said, we need to do everything that we can to encourage the victims of domestic violence to bring it to public attention. Of course, that also requires us, consciously and repeatedly, to confront the prevailing myths on the subject. Those myths are all too frequently heard. One is, "Well, it's just the odd domestic tiff, which all couples experience." Another is, "She's not really suffering domestic violence, it's just a ploy to get herself rehoused." A third—an outrageous statement by someone who is responsible for committing domestic violence—is, "It can't be that bad, because if it were she would leave." That wholly ignores the fact that that person is often a dependant and does not feel confident enough to leave. Again, it is sometimes said, wholly wrongly and stereotypically, that domestic violence only happens in working class families. Alternatively, it is observed that those responsible must come from violent backgrounds. They might do so; equally, they might not. I was struck by what my hon. Friend said about the ostensibly respectable person—outwardly an upright and decent citizen—running a store in his local community. In practice, however, as my hon. Friend learned to his shattering cost, the truth was nothing of the kind.

The current legal position is substantially better than it was. On a wholly unpartisan note, I should like to observe that good work took place under the previous Government. I know that when the Minister was a Back Bencher and a member of the Home Affairs Committee, she constantly urged Ministers in the previous Administration to do more, and was right to do so. This Government have also done a good deal.

The Family Law Act 1996 is one of the principal protections for those who suffer from the curse of domestic violence. That Act has two features, of which increasing advantage is being taken by victims. The first is the opportunity to secure non-molestation orders. The evidence, I think, is that that is starting to happen on a significant scale. There is common ground that under-reporting still exists, and we must do everything that we can to tackle it. In 1998, about 18,000 non-molestation orders were granted. The fact that a power of arrest is attached to the granting of those orders gives them added bite. That power has been used on 22,000 occasions, which must have a deterrent effect. It must send out a clear message about the unacceptability of domestic violence.

The second feature of the Act is the opportunity to secure an occupation order. That is crucial, although sometimes more difficult to obtain, as it regulates who can live in the home in which the domestic violence takes place.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a housing problem attached to domestic violence? A woman can be forced to leave the home with her children, in the middle of the night, during a crisis, or later when things have calmed down. That is extraordinarily difficult for any woman. Help can be provided by local authority assessments of women who have left home suddenly because of domestic violence. Sympathetic consideration should be given to women who need private housing, rather than saying, "You've got a home to go back to." Women have real difficulty if they have to leave their homes, as they often must do, at least in the early stages.

The hon. Lady is right to make that observation. Under part VII of the Housing Act 1996, people who are so afflicted have a right to temporary accommodation. There should be no cavilling about that; it should be granted automatically, without debate. For occupation orders, it is important to understand that a balance of harm test is applied. If, for example, a court were to decide not to grant an order, it would have taken into account fully the likely prospect of further violence being inflicted on the victim or her family. If it were persuaded that there was a serious prospect of such violence, it must be assumed that the balance of harm test would work in favour of the victim. There is still progress to be made.

I like what my hon. Friend is saying, but I would like to hear a little more from him on one matter. There are only 35 or 40 beds available for desperate women in the whole of Devon and Cornwall and in four small districts in south Devon, 897 women have rung in for help. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that local authorities could do an immense amount if they had safe houses and if the refuge service had more homes so that it could provide halfway houses for women. I am worried about the number of places, other than local authority places, where women can go.

I am certainly concerned because my hon. Friend is right. There is, at least, an argument for ring-fencing the allocation of funds to ensure that local authorities' resources are used for that specific purpose. There is always a conflict between the principle of guaranteeing funding and local autonomy, but ring fencing should be considered. That there is still a lamentable inadequacy of supply throughout the country, particularly for those in remote communities, is not in dispute. Members of all parties should recognise the importance of doing what we can to provide further provision.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides the opportunity for restraining orders and that is welcome, because one of the problems that we have experienced is that those who have never been married to or co-habited with the violent partner have had limited protection. I believe that under the 1996 Act they have no recourse, but under the 1997 Act they do have at least some recourse, and that is welcome.

Some issues remain to be addressed. For example, there are substantial variations in the performance of different police forces and, even now, in the apparent lack of seriousness with which they pursue the evil of domestic violence. That was recognised by the Home Office. While recognising the principle of operational autonomy of individual forces, will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to exhort good practice and to show those forces that are not doing as well as they should how they could do better—the carrot and stick approach. Let them see what other forces are doing and recognise their responsibilities.

Domestic violence and child protection indices are often not properly integrated. A clear majority of forces now monitor repeat victimisation, but it is only fair to record that around 40 per cent. of forces do not have systems and mechanisms in place to record repeat victimisation. It is essential that they do so because, unless the scale and frequency of offences is known, we shall not have an accurate picture and it is less likely that the robust measures, including those within the criminal justice system, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly calls, will be forthcoming.

As long ago as 1995, the interdepartmental group on domestic violence called for an inter-agency approach and that call has been repeated. Victims need to be assured that they will not be passed from pillar to post and that claims for confidentiality or anonymity will never be used as an excuse for apathy or inaction.

Some hon. Members said that in the overwhelming majority of cases the presumption was that contact should be granted. I believe that it is granted in around 98 per cent. of cases. However, in a recent significant study of the problem here and in Denmark, it was found that in England only seven of 53 women interviewed felt that they were able to make safe arrangements for contact between their violent ex-partner and their children. The overwhelming majority still felt at risk. Yet in 1997–98 the courts granted contact in 33,000 out of the 36,000 cases that came before them. That indicates that something is wrong.

One sometimes wonders whether judges are properly aware, as they should be, that supervised contact typically ceases to be supervised after six months, when it becomes unsupervised contact. Subsequently, unless the right decision was made in the first place, the children are at terrible risk.

When I was preparing for the debate, I was horrified to discover that not only are addresses sometimes given out in a palpably inappropriate way, but that addresses of women's refuges are given out. If a woman is in a refuge, fleeing violence and still trying to rebuild her confidence, it is unjust that a violent ex-partner should have the opportunity to find out where she is.

In his 1998 Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out that relatively few hospital accident and emergency wards collect statistics on the injuries that are caused by the commission of domestic violence. Surely that information should be collected. While we do not want to impose an undue bureaucratic burden on hard-pressed hospital staff, we need to build an accurate picture that enables us effectively to publicise the nature and scale of the evil that is taking place and to build robust public support for measures to counteract it.

Section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996 confers a power on a third party to apply for an injunction in circumstances in which the victim did not have the confidence to do so herself. Unless I am mistaken, that section of the 1996 Act has still not yet come into force. We have all talked about the importance of encouraging victims to come to terms with what has happened, recognise that they are not to blame and seek help. However, some will not reach that stage, and we cannot abandon them to be the continuing and tragic victims of evil. Will the Minister clarify how soon the section will take effect?

With regard to immigrants, many women have been fearful of reporting cases of domestic violence lest they are chucked out of the country in the process. The Government said some time ago that they would consider the operation of a concession on that matter. Last night, I had the benefit of a productive exchange with the Minister, and she assured me that that concession is now operating. I hope that all hon. Members would say that that is absolutely right and proper.

The problem is now treated more seriously than ever before. Much good work is being done, but there is still a great deal to do. Domestic violence must not be tolerated. It must be clear that, without fail and wherever we can ensure it, the perpetrators will be apprehended, convicted and punished.

I conclude on a point of language. The hon. Member for Taunton said at the outset of her contribution that it would be a good thing if we could devise a better expression than "domestic violence". I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members in the Chamber would be astonished to hear me call for the nationalisation of anything. However, in a sense, domestic violence needs to be nationalised. For far too long, it has been privatised—that is, regarded as something to be kept in the closet, which is scarcely worthy of significant public discussion. That is unacceptable.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, if large scale, continuing and appalling violence were taking place against black people—thankfully, such violence is greatly decreasing—it would be considered a national outrage and there would be a national outcry. We need to develop a similar moral imperative with regard to the discussion of domestic violence and the introduction of effective remedies against it.

My hon. Friend has performed a signal service to the Chamber by introducing this debate. I greatly enjoyed the contributions made by the hon. Members for Taunton and for Northampton, North, and I now look forward with eager anticipation, bated breath, and beads of sweat upon my brow, to hearing the Minister's response.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not only on securing this important debate, but on the way in which he opened the proceedings, the content of his speech, the passion with which he outlined his views and the way in which he set the tone of the debate. Such speeches show how important the Westminster Hall procedure is, allowing us to hold a debate of this kind. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on their valuable contributions, both of which brought a wealth of interest and expertise on the matter to the debate.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Although he and I have debated on the radio since his appointment to the Home Office Front Bench—

Shadow.

The shadow Front Bench, as my hon. Friend says—this is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome him to the shadow Front Bench, and I look forward to having a continuing exchange with him. His speech today, in his first outing—if I may put it that way—as shadow Front Bench spokesman on home affairs, was an outstanding contribution. I warmly congratulate him on that.

In some ways, it is right to say that even a few years ago we would not have been having a debate of this kind. Attitudes have changed remarkably over the past few years. When practising as a barrister, I remember being sent to court, as all new barristers are, to obtain civil injunctions. I remember the attitude among the police, the judiciary and also, perhaps, fellow members of the Bar—although this did not apply to everyone—that a case of this kind was a "domestic" and was not serious. Sometimes such cases would be greeted with ridicule, and dealt with in such a way as to suggest that they were really not important. As far as the criminal justice system was concerned, they were not an important aspect of the work. Attitudes have changed remarkably since then.

Attitudes have also changed remarkably in the House of Commons. When one looks back even further to past debates, and to some of the remarks that were exchanged, the attitudes of Members of Parliament—not surprisingly—reflected the attitudes of the society that they represented. There has been a sea-change since.

The hon. Member for Buckingham was kind enough to refer to my past involvement with the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member when I first entered the House in 1992, and to the report that it produced on domestic violence. The report was unanimous, and I pay tribute to my colleagues from all parties who served on that Committee. It was interesting that, even while we were conducting the debate at that time and taking evidence from witnesses, there was still a feeling in some quarters that it was not a serious issue. That situation has changed, but I do not want to be complacent. There is still a long way to go, and I was struck by what the hon. Member for Taunton said about the attitudes of some young people on the subject.

I shall not rehearse the figures—which have already been graphically presented by hon. Members today—illustrating the extent of the problem and its effect on the victims or survivors, most of whom are women. We know that half of all women survivors are living with young children, that the children are regularly aware of what is going on, and that they are damaged by it. Often, as the hon. Member for Buckingham graphically illustrated, the abuser of the child's mother is also the abuser of the child. No one should tolerate that, and the Government are doing everything that they can to combat it.

I understand what was said about the term "domestic violence". One often has to point out that domestic violence is a crime; it should not, as the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, have a cosy connotation. In many cases, we are talking about violent crime. Domestic violence is not a private matter in which agencies should not intervene—it is completely unacceptable. As hon. Members have rightly said, everyone should feel safe and secure in their own home, and victims of domestic violence should be able to expect that security.

I want to deal with some of the important issues that have been raised. Little has been said about judges, but their role is very important. When I was a young barrister on one of my first outings in court, the judge made some outrageous remarks, which I shall not repeat, about a client of mine. That judge showed a woeful ignorance of the experiences of many women, but things are changing. The Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary in England and Wales, is already making available comprehensive training on all aspects of domestic violence. Depending on their area of jurisdiction, all judges also attend continuous courses in criminal, civil and family law on a three-year cycle. Before district and circuit judges can obtain a family law "ticket", they must undertake "gateway" courses, of which the study of domestic violence forms an important part.

We must consider not only the judges but the court. As the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, courts can be difficult places in which to give evidence, and a great deal of thought has recently been given to how support and protection for those who testify can be improved. That is why, as part of our published integrated strategy, we have increased funding for Victim Support. All hon. Members will have had experience of that organisation in their constituencies, and I pay tribute to it. Victim Support does tremendous work. It is a volunteer organisation in the very best sense of the phrase, and the volunteers give tremendously of their time and effort. That is why we included provisions to help all vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

I accept the point that the hon. Member for Totnes made about delays, and we have introduced measures to reduce them. He is right to say that delay in the system increases pressure on the victim. It makes it less likely that she will want to proceed, and leaves her vulnerable to further intimidation and violence from the perpetrator, and perhaps even from neighbours, who may be unsure of the circumstances.

I want to deal now with child contact cases. I recognise the very important points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who has discussed the problem with my ministerial colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As she said, last year the Children Act subcommittee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law Matters issued a consultation paper about domestic violence and its relevance to contact disputes under the Children Act 1989. My hon. Friend was right that the paper suggested that although changes in legislation did not seem necessary at present, good practice guidelines might be issued to courts that deal with cases in which domestic violence is raised as a reason for refusing or limiting contact. The subcommittee reported earlier this year to the Lord Chancellor, saying what the good practice guidelines might be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North noted, the draft guidelines were subsequently considered by the Court of Appeal in four cases, which were heard together, and on which judgment has been handed down.

The Lord Chancellor, with the President of the Family Division, are now considering what further action may be necessary. I undertake to bring to the attention of my ministerial colleagues the comments of the hon. Member for Taunton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and to pass on all the important points that have been made today. We want to avoid tragic cases such as that of Gina McCarthy, who was killed by her ex-husband following court proceedings over contact with their young child. I know that these are serious matters, and that my colleagues will want to give proper weight to them.

The role of the Crown Prosecution Service was mentioned. For some years, the CPS has had a code of practice on the handling of cases of domestic violence. It is being revised, but it is not yet ready because we want to get it right. Among other things, it must take account of the review of the Crown prosecutors' code. It must also take account of the relationship of such cases with related civil proceedings, and special consideration must be given in those cases that involve children. I assure the House that that revision is taking account of consultation with other bodies such as the police and voluntary agencies such as Women's Aid. I know that some hon. Members who have close contact with the CPS in their own areas may want to make representations.

Often, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, difficult issues are involved. For example, a victim may not wish proceedings to be taken against her partner if they are likely to result in some penalty. Such wishes must be taken into account, and there are no easy solutions. As hon. Members have said, it can be difficult to balance such needs with the likelihood that violence might become worse and more frequent without active intervention. Of course, children are often involved and their position must be taken into consideration.

Of course, there are very many examples of good practice. In Leeds, for example, the CPS is involved in an experimental domestic violence court—a dedicated court with relevant advice and expertise. The CPS is also involved in projects being funded under the £7 million violence against women initiative, part of the Home Office's crime reduction programme.

The role of the police is vital. I understand what the hon. Member for Totnes said about training and the number of officers responsible. I pay tribute to the many officers involved. They are dedicated to their task, which shows when one speaks to them about it. They have a stressful and traumatic job, which many officers do very well. I understand what was said about training, and about the fact that ensuring good practice will make it a national response.

In drawing up a Home Office circular on domestic violence, officials worked in close collaboration with the Association of Chief Police Officers. They also had the great advantage of expert comment from outside bodies such as Women's Aid.

I have listened with great interest to the Minister's speech, which has been extremely helpful. I wonder whether the Department has comparable figures on domestic abuse in other European countries. It would be interesting to know whether Britain has the worst record. Is there something wrong with our society or the mental health of Britain that is not shared by other European Union countries?

I do not believe that that is the case, but I will send not only the hon. Gentleman, but all hon. Members present, details of any research or figures that we have. It is sometimes difficult to make comparisons, because domestic violence is not a category in itself. It is difficult to abstract figures if it comes under grievous or actual bodily harm or common assault. Different EU countries have different ways of categorising offences and some systems are completely different from ours. However, if comparative figures are available, I will consider them, because the hon. Gentleman has posed an interesting question.

To return to the police response, earlier this year we issued the police with a new Home Office circular on addressing domestic violence. We have also introduced two indicators relating to domestic violence into the suite of police best-value performance indicators. One relates to the number of incidents attended resulting in an arrest; the other relates to the number of incidents that represent repeat victimisation. The police are getting the message that the Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers take domestic violence seriously. Equally, the police take the issue seriously.

We must ensure that all other agencies join in. Without wishing to use jargon, a multi-agency approach is important. The probation service and social services have a part to play. Our pathfinder programme for the probation service is considering what works in perpetrator programmes for those convicted of domestic violence. The hon. Member for Taunton raised that issue. I remember discussing the subject in a Home Affairs Committee report, and the issue was controversial in those days. It is still a complex area, but we need to look forward.

We must ensure that our legislation addresses the issues and is used effectively in both the criminal and civil fields. As a result of this and previous Governments, there is now a single set of civil remedies with non-molestation and occupation orders to deal with domestic violence and regulate occupation of the family home. A power of arrest must be attached where the threat of danger makes it necessary. Like many people who practised law previously, I have been scarred by the failure of injunctions that did not deliver because that power was not in place. The new offences of causing harassment and causing fear of violence have also been introduced.

Domestic violence is an important issue, which demands everyone's attention. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) takes it very seriously as part of his ministerial portfolio. He has recently taken part in a conference on the matter.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes on his introduction of this debate. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part. People outside this place who follow our proceedings and who are, rightly, interested in the matter will, I hope, realise that the consensus in the House of Commons is that the issue is vital. We take it seriously and are determined to work together to make progress on it.

I have asked for today's debate because I represent a new town and I, and other Members of Parliament for similar places, are concerned about a range of matters. My object today is to establish that the aggregate effects of Government policies for new towns, particularly in the south-east of England, do not satisfactorily tackle the needs of those communities. I am happy for other hon. Members to intervene during my speech, because I want the debate to reflect the fact that the concerns that I shall describe go well beyond my constituency boundaries. In addition to providing an opportunity to discuss those concerns, perhaps the debate will allow the sense of grievance that has been growing to be aired.

I do not, of course, want to suggest that a Government Department has it in for new towns. Rather, a series of initiatives threatens, severally, the welfare of new towns. Jointly, those initiatives add up to an agenda for decline. I shall explain why new towns are right to feel worried about the future. I hope that the programme for redress that I shall recommend will commend itself to the Government, who are the successors of those who founded the new towns—largely successfully—50 years ago.

Why do new towns have a special problem, if, indeed, their foundation has been in many ways a success? Do they not incorporate features that many other towns and cities would want to emulate? The problems originated in the foundation of the new towns. They were not merely built, but planned. It must be admitted that much of that planning was successful, although that aspect of the matter is not what I am principally concerned with today. Much has happened since the planning of the towns, and it is those changes that have caused trouble.

First, and most obviously, the original new town residents have grown older. Facilities designed for an estate on which every family had children and where there were few elderly people might not be at all suitable for an elderly population. We must ask whether the original planners understood that one day their designs for new families would have to serve the needs of an older population. Did they approach their design in such a way as to provide for the needs of those aged over 70? What foresight did the original planners show? In some ways, their vision was defective.

A second dimension to the new towns problem is that the facilities have also grown older. Some of the original facilities were built to last and do not show undue signs of age. The council houses built in the late 1940s to Parker Morris standards, for instance, may well have needed significant maintenance in their lifespan, but they were built well and those who live in them find that such houses can be adapted to their needs as they grow older. Indeed, I live in one.

Other facilities lack such good design. To cope with a large number of young children in the new towns of the 1950s, system-built schools were put up. Those buildings depended heavily on asbestos as a prime building material, and most were jerry-built. In the first decade of the 21st century, they are mostly beyond their natural lifespan, and what is worse, they have all reached that stage together. A system that was ageing in the 1990s has arrived at its dotage.

I do not suggest that the Government have not been aware of the needs of new towns. In my constituency, many schools have a mixture of old, and bright, new buildings, which have been constructed to a much higher standard. That is a tribute to the Government, who have tackled a problem that was heretofore ignored. However, the pace of change is too slow, and because of the scale of the problem, the overall effect, even given recent initiatives, is that the condition of the school estate worsens year on year. When buildings that were not well designed age together, much stronger measures are needed than hitherto.

A third dimension of the problem is that certain social changes were not envisaged by the designers of new towns, which is not surprising. They did not plan for communities to change organically, and action taken by successive Governments since then has constrained those communities in their need for such growth. The original designers of the blueprint had a vision of what constituted a community: a cluster of houses around some green space, in the middle of which would be a small shopping centre, to which local residents would walk; one large pub, which all members of the community could use; and a community centre to service a great variety of social activities. When one walks around Hemel Hempstead, one could be forgiven for wondering whether one is in Stevenage, because the same blueprint was adopted.

In some ways, the blueprint was resilient. The community centres, for example, play an important role in the life of new town communities, although in general they are used much more by older people than by the young. Younger people often hang around the shopping centres, which as a result do not have quite the community focus that the original planners envisaged. Indeed, the standard shopping trip now is not a walk to the neighbourhood shop, but a drive to a massive supermarket from a road that, even at that late stage, was planned in the belief that few residents would have cars. In some new town areas, the lack of car-parking facilities leads to ugly disputes among neighbours.

In many other ways, too, the original planners were unaware of how community needs would develop. In my constituency, we need a mosque for the 3 per cent. of my constituents who are of Muslim belief. At present, a private house, with inadequate facilities, fulfils that function. None of the original planners would have thought that the town might need such a facility somewhere central.

New towns need scope to grow organically. Successive Governments have, to put it mildly, constrained the capacity of new town residents to tackle the problems that they face in their daily lives. The problems inherent in the flawed blueprint that I described—as I said, it is flawed only in patches—have been exacerbated by a deficiency in resources, which is hard to explain clearly. Some people have even been confused about what can be meant by the title of this debate. I am thinking particularly of resources in land and of financial resources vouchsafed annually to those who control the destiny of our communities. The history of that resource allocation system is important. We must understand the operation—labyrinthine though it is— of the Commission for the New Towns. If we do not, we will not understand the scale of the problem facing new towns today and why the Government must give the matter much more urgent attention.

Some people might ask, "Why are you worried about Hemel Hempstead? Isn't it fair that, in deciding the overall allocation of resources, the Government should take something away from such privileged areas, where there are unemployment rates of, for example, 1.6 per cent., and give it to others?" The trouble is partly that there has been a resource-abstraction mechanism from new towns since the Domesday book. The Commission for the New Towns has been required to take resources away from new towns in a way that is prejudicial to their interest. In the last year of its operation, the commission contributed around £160 million to the Exchequer.

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on that important matter. I wish to focus on the issue of paying for new facilities, particularly housing, in new towns—many of which are twice the size originally envisaged. Is my h F aware that 500 new houses have been built in Crawley over the past five years for people who have been excluded from the market, for the economic reasons that he mentioned? How can such a problem be redressed in the new proposals for resource accounting, so that we continue to ensure that people who are excluded from the market because of the sheer enormity of housing prices can still live in our new towns?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is good at making all hon. Members aware of the problems that Crawley new town faces. I shall deal later with housing resources—a significant source of trouble to some of us in the new town sector—and particularly with the definition of that phrase. There is a philosophical continuum between the old ideas of the Commission for the New Towns—CNT—and what is happening now.

A specific problem is that, once new towns were established, it was thought that they had been the recipients of considerable resources from the rest of the country. As they were new communities that had to make their way in the world, however, it was not deemed appropriate to vest all the functions of community governors in the local authorities. The view was taken that another authority had to be created, in addition to the normal local authority, to ensure that appropriate quantities of taxpayers' investment were pulled out to repay the rest of the country for having established such privileged habitations. The new agent, the CNT, was therefore established—consisting of those with experience of governing communities—and enjoined to ensure that the considerable resources ploughed into the new communities were not frittered away or wasted by immigrants from places such as the east of London. The CNT oversaw the inauguration of the new towns and, as they became more established, its role was to make a return to the nation of at least some of the resources that the new towns had, as it were, taken.

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in this important debate. As he will know, it cannot be said that the Commission for the New Towns discharged its remit in Stevenage very well. It fragmented the ownership of the town centre in such a way that it is impossible to redevelop it properly. Will my hon. Friend and others who represent new towns consider what the now reformed Commission for the New Towns, which has been absorbed into English Partnerships, could do to redress the errors in its management of those new towns over the years?

My hon. Friend well illustrates a reason for the problem. It is interesting that the financial memorandum under which the Commission for the New Towns was established instructed it precisely not to subject parcels of land to such treatment, but to work with the local council and community to ensure that such fragmentation and inefficiency in patterns of ownership would not occur. I agree that we must try to evolve a new way of going forward that will deal with the problem satisfactorily. Since securing the debate, and following recent discussions with the CNT's successor body, English Partnerships, I have however experienced some joy at the way in which it has responded to some of my requests. I can see the first signs of a brightening dawn on the horizon.

The interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) have established that I am not alone in thinking that the Commission for the New Towns did not do its job very well. My problem has been to identify the villains of the piece, which, in many ways, have been the terms of reference under which the CNT was set up. Paragraph 1.6 of its financial memorandum stated that the commission should attain the best price

obtainable in the market…The highest bid should normally be accepted.

Even though other paragraphs in the financial memorandum instructed the commission not to fragment land, the onus was on maximising financial return. As a result, the commission would fragment land if it was in its financial interest to do so.

Paragraph 2.1 of the financial memorandum stated:

The best price will normally be achieved by marketing assets in such a way as to maximise price competition

and that delay would be countenanced only if it would achieve "a significantly higher price".

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Commission for the New Towns. Its major problem was its indifference to consequences. I was heartened by his suggestion that English Heritage, which has assumed responsibility for such matters, might have a different approach. Is he convinced that indifference will not continue? Is he sure that the organisation will be able to resource the effects of 50 years of new town development? Does he believe that the Government will provide sufficient resources to ensure that?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations, although he should have referred to English Partnerships, not English Heritage. He may have made a few enemies, so I want to get him back in those people's good books fairly quickly. He asked whether the manager of the assets of the Commission for the New Towns will adopt a different strategy. If hon. Members were convinced that a different strategy were required, I could almost move on. However, I should dwell on one feature of the commission's operation.

I have mentioned the commission's powers of delay. On my own patch, an extremely important area was required for the building of a 400 m hospital access road. The commission sat on the project for eight years. I was elected on 1 May 1997 and mentioned the subject in my maiden speech, so important was it to me and so dear was it to my heart. Following various meetings with all the interested parties—the health trust, the county council, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all—and the commission, there would be, perhaps, three and a half weeks of extraordinary activity. I might almost describe it as hyperactivity. The job of a Member of Parliament is to get a train back on the rails when it comes off, and sometimes to give it a shove as well. However, in that case, the moment that the train went out of sight and around the corner, it ground to a complete halt. Four months later, preparation of the various promised documents was no further forward. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage is listening to my remarks with some enthusiasm.

I echo my hon. Friend's comments. The same thing has happened and is happening in Stevenage, where English Partnerships now holds small but significant pieces of access land, preventing many developments to which it holds the key. In the mid-1980s, Stevenage attempted to wrest control of its destiny from the Commission for the New Towns under a Bill which, I am sorry to say, failed. It would be far better if Stevenage, rather than English Partnerships, controlled its own destiny.

My hon. Friend anticipates one of my solutions. A danger of accepting interventions is that other hon. Members may filch one's best lines. Other hon. Members in the Chamber nodded at what she said: the way in which the CNT proceeded, which she described, is of course inappropriate, but it is not completely new. My father used to work on a building site, and sometimes the people on the site would find out that there was likely to be no work in the near future. As the desperate day grew ever closer, the work grew ever slower—until they found out that there would be new work. Then they speeded up and finished off the first work. People will react rationally. I suspect that employees of the Commission for the New Towns were in some areas a little like those people on the building site. If they did their job incredibly quickly, they would have no job left; so they did it rather less quickly.

As I have said, my main concern is that the framework in which the commission worked was invidious. The financial memorandum that describes the framework for its operations considered whether some land might, for instance, be sold to the National Trust. It seems to me that if land is of a suitable character to be sold to the National Trust, it is precious and hence tremendously important to a community. Indeed, the National Trust land at Ashridge Park is precious to the people of my constituency. However, the Commission for the New Towns took the view that a selected purchaser such as the National Trust—which figured as an example in its financial memorandum—should be treated with caution, because of the risk of it not realising full market value. In other words, if something of strong environmental character is retained, lo and behold, that could blow it for realising the money intended to pay wages and honour obligations to the Treasury.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the guidelines that are given to English Partnerships contain at least a theoretical possibility of deviating from maximum return for the Treasury, but that the problem in practice is that the rule of deviating for community gain is not applied consistently?

My chain of argument must be immensely logical, because my hon. Friends are seeing the next step, and hopping in to wrest it from me. As my hon. Friend says, there is potential for a change in methods. I emphasise that there was a conflict between those living in a new town and the old commission. A question arises about the extent to which the CNT's philosophy has been carried through into a new structure.

There are in some respects clear discontinuities, at least of principle. I have become aware of those only since requesting this debate. I was not optimistic about the changes. However, something happened with respect to the hospital access road site that I mentioned, which was so frequently booted into touch, to use a new metaphor, by the Commission for the New Towns. To be fair to English Partnerships, it took the view that it had continued the inefficiencies of the commission with regard to the site, and apologised wholeheartedly for those omissions. I was grateful for the honest approach to my sense of grievance on the matter.

The site for my hospital road, which, ironically, is called "Paradise"—I think that "hell" would have been more appropriate—is needed by the community. Its development would benefit the whole community, but that development must be strongly configured by the needs of the health service. The land adjoins the hospital. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) suggested, if there is a discontinuity in policy between the Commission for the New Towns and English Partnerships, a discontinuity in practice is also vital. That discontinuity in practice needs to be consistent, as my hon. Friend said. We cannot continue with a system in which there is a feeling that such decisions are made capriciously. I am therefore pleased that, in my constituency, English Partnerships has broken with the Commission for the New Towns tradition. Because of that, my object in seeking this debate has altered slightly. I should like to tell hon. Members something about that discontinuity, to give them some hope that things may be about to change.

English Partnerships has committed itself to treating the hospital-aspect land over which it has control in terms not of the financial return that it will make to the Treasury, but of the "best consideration" for both the community and the Treasury. Paragraph 69 of the English Partnerships financial memorandum, dated July 1997—the Government lost little time in addressing the matter after the election—requires it, as the successor authority to the Commission for the New Towns, to

obtain market value for any asset it sells, assessed in relation to the use proposed for the asset.

The paragraph provides a different way in which to think of the role of English Partnerships.

The precedent of taking into account "best consideration" rather than maximised value augurs well. It gives us the opportunity to overcome some of the problems that the communities and representatives of new towns have had with the old structure. The new financial memorandum will not prevent English Partnerships making significant sums for the Exchequer, but it will minimise the conflict between the community and itself by ensuring that it works closely with those in a locality. If English Partnerships emphasises that aspect of its brief, it will set a distance between itself and its predecessor authority. However, we should perhaps give it good notice that, if we get the train going and the authority stops it when it goes around the corner, we shall sack the driver.

When I called for this debate, I was not sure that the authority had the power to dispose of assets at less than the fullest market valuation; I now know that it has, and is prepared to use, that power. Following the "Paradise" decision, if I may call it that, there is clear water between English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns. In part that is thanks to the emphasis on urban regeneration in the relationship between English Partnerships and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), will respond in this debate.

I admit that I was prepared to castigate English Partnerships as a successor to the Commission for the New Towns. It seemed to be drawing down the maximum financial return from new town assets. However, there has been a change for the better on my own patch—and I hope in other new town constituencies as well. Members who represent new town areas will be pleased to work through the implications of those changes.

The history of the new towns suggests that the way in which they were set up resulted in little attention to fostering their own local democracy. That echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage. In a standard local authority, the land bank was under democratic control, to be used for the public weal. In a new town, however, it was controlled by an authority that was interested only in maximising the financial return it made to central Government. That historical residue and that view of new towns is still with us, because people still think of them as privileged places that have consumed a lot of resources and owe a buck in return. It is important that we address that view of new towns when we consider other aspects in this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that a threat lay in the wings for new towns. That threat relates to the requirement for councils that are technically in a position called negative subsidy to pool profits from April 2002. Those profits would be redistributed around the nation, which all sounds very technical. I previously secured an Adjournment debate on this subject, so I do not need to add much to what I said then.

It is important to note that the concept of a housing resource, as it is currently defined by the DETR, is deeply invidious for new towns. Most of the resources of new towns originated, in some way, from a housing source. Because housing was the new towns' only resource base, they will be left with nothing if the DETR adopts the historical definition for its concept of a housing resource. There may be odd bits and pieces of land that some vicar donated in the 17th century, but new towns do not have the same asset base as other communities. The DETR must take account of that point in its definition of housing resource. When, in addition, it ring-fences housing by saying that resources cannot be taken out of housing and used elsewhere, it denies new towns the capacity to develop an effective resource to address what I characterised earlier as the deficiencies of the new town blueprint.

That important matter is being articulated not only in this Chamber. For reasons lost in the mists of time, my local authority is called Dacorum; it has something to do with an Anglo-Saxon division of land. On its website, Dacorum council discusses the problems of current Government policy and the financial issues that face the borough council. It states:

Senior councillors and officers have been lobbying hard over the summer months to achieve

what amounts to an increase in the transition period that central Government will allow before they take all the money. That is what they have been "lobbying hard" for. I have been lobbying harder for something else: for the money not to be swiped at all. The Minister will be aware that I wrote rather passionately to her about that in my submission to a Government paper on the matter.

Dacorum council also says:

Meanwhile councillors have agreed proposals to plan savings of £2.25 million from the council's spending.

The council spends only £20 million, so £2.25 million is a cut of devastating proportions. The council continues:

We are expecting some good news about the amount of time the Council will be given to adjust to the changes which are being made by central government.

That reminds me of the story about someone who, on hearing about Nero's fiddling while Rome burned, asked, "What tune was it exactly?" When huge tranches of resources are being lost, it is beside the point to say, "We hope to have good news about the length of time that they will give us." Some people have suggested that cutting perhaps 40 per cent. from a council's budget, as proposed in the overall plan, could reasonably take 30 years—30 years of misery.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Crawley council, for that very reason, faces a 25 per cent. cut in its services to the community? I suspect that that is happening in other new towns, too.

I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. Initially, we examined the repercussions of the ring-fencing of housing resources and thought that it was especially bad for some new towns, but when we examined them further, we found that the new rules captured a greater number of new towns. The Government must consider the issue as a new towns issue.

In Stevenage, which is the oldest of the new towns and now well past middle age, most of the housing stock needs repairing. The council is grappling with the problem of having to install new boilers, and for it to have to face a cut now is little short of disastrous.

Those of us who are concerned about the problem initially wondered whether Stevenage had negotiated its way out of it. I am pleased to have my hon. Friend lobbying with me on these issues, although it is distressing to hear that her constituents are also subject to such cuts.

I do not mind if my local council loses money. I should qualify that: I do not mind if it loses money if it is wasting it; if it is not delivering best value; or if it can be shown that cuts will, in the end, provide better value for the resources that hard-pressed council tax payers put into local government services. I believe that the council in my patch would come out very well from a best-value assessment. In some respects, it has a claim to beacon status. For example, it anticipated the Government in setting up an advice centre so that the elderly would be fully aware of their entitlement under the minimum income guarantee. No pensioner lobbyists visited me yesterday, because nearly everybody in my area gets what he or she deserves.

The reality of a 5 per cent. cut in the voluntary sector, which is part of the proposals, is a reduction in resources for the blind, the mentally ill, the bereaved, the mentally handicapped, the homeless and the drug-dependent. Our meals on wheels service alone costs £750,000 to run, and will be dealt a severe blow by the proposals.

I challenge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say in replying to the debate that she will not remove resources from the local authority in my area except on the basis of an appropriate best-value assessment. I believe that such an assessment would leave all those services intact. One might ask what a borough council is doing providing such a wide range of services. The answer is partly that it has been proactive. It is in many ways a beacon council and should be honoured for its work, not savaged.

I should like to echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. Stevenage has tried to remedy some of the ills that the design of the new town has inflicted on it. There is strong evidence to suggest that, in new towns, boys are doing far worse than the national average, and we are building up severe problems for the future, when those young men attain adulthood.

In Stevenage, we set up the Raise project to try to motivate young men. That project is funded by the borough council, not by the education authority. We have also done a great deal of community safety work—in fact Stevenage is a beacon council because of that. I echo my hon. Friend in saying that such councils deserve better and deserve more.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is ironic that the arrangements for governing new towns revealed considerable scepticism on the part of those who constructed them about the ability of local people to get on and deliver a good quality of service to those in their locality. It seems that exactly the opposite has been so. In my local authority, there was also a pioneering community safety partnership, which included the use of closed-circuit television in some of the difficult areas. In a wide range of ways, the local people have shown themselves to be fully capable of utilising resources sensibly.

A Minister responsible for social services visited my constituency, looked at the advisory services for the vulnerable and the elderly and commended them highly. It is peculiar that while one arm of government says, "This is terrific, so many people could learn from this practice", a DETR Minister can say, "I am sorry, but I have some bad news. Resources will have to be chopped away."

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more; this will be my last intervention. In the light of the contributions to this important debate, what possible justification does he think there can be for taking money away from new towns and giving it to the Exchequer?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sorry that it will be her last, as her points have been most valuable. It feels as if the idea behind the old Commission for the New Towns persists and that some think, "These people got a lot; it is their turn to start ploughing it all back." Decisions are being taken without looking in detail at how their consequences will be borne.

The hon. Gentleman is being amazingly tolerant and understanding in allowing so many interventions. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) asked him about the motives behind the pay-back syndrome. Is it a Government-driven, political policy or a Treasury-led initiative? Historically, nobody has been able to budge that problem.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A sensible Government policy has had an unexpected backwash in new towns. When I was a councillor, the council made a profit on its council houses and used it to lower the overall rates. It made bigger profits by refusing to maintain houses properly. I understand where the Government are coming from in that respect, and it is vital that such policies are addressed, but it is very different when a council is delivering the services and policies wanted by those in central Government, when wearing all their other hats.

I must add one other thing. Some local authorities have been managed very successfully, but have not been able to participate in central Government programmes of allocating resources. The local authority on my patch has made no demand on housing improvement programme funds for many years—not because it does not have a housing programme, but simply because it knows that it can generate the resources from within, and manage without going cap in hand to the Treasury.

People must recognise that Government policies are running against each other. That is why, when I first called for the debate, I wanted a reply from a Minister who had a specific role in joining up government. I will be honest; I wanted a Treasury or Cabinet Office Minister, who, theoretically, has that responsibility, so that we could examine the cumulative effects of all the issues, and not simply financing. That is why I use the word "resources" and not "financing". We are talking about land banks, housing assets, assets for leisure and culture, and so forth.

I shall be brief on my final point about the problems facing new towns, though it could be the subject of a further Adjournment debate if we do not receive a satisfactory response. It originates again from the DETR, which is responsible, in my area, for providing resources to Hertfordshire county council through the so-called standard spending assessment. That allocation of resources is related to the expense of hiring people to do a job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who I know must leave the debate soon, mentioned the high cost of labour in the south-east, which has repercussions for the problem areas that we identified. The Government have decided not to uprate the standard spending assessment component that relates to the cost of labour, even though it costs much more in the southeast than elsewhere. I find that strange. One DETR Minister to whom I mentioned that point said, "Well, it would cost a lot of money and you are doing very well." If it costs an extra 6 per cent. year on year to hire teachers or porters, for example, that should be regarded as the going rate. Even if that is paid, we are not doing particularly well; we are just keeping a standard level of service, which is what the SSA is supposed to be about.

In Hertfordshire, cuts in next year's SSA could amount to about £7 million. Of that, about £4 million is for education and about £1 million bounces back on to new towns. I do not know the figures for other authorities represented by hon. Members present today, but that area cost adjustment is a further deprivation of resources from new towns. It originates, as I said, from the DETR, and it is important that the DETR takes note of it.

The cumulative picture, which is the result of all the different pressures, is of the erosion of the resource base, so that new towns face problems in addressing the problems of the community. They already have inherited problems and have had to cope with three successive whammies on their financial status. The first relates to the continuing depletion of resources through the aegis of the Commission for the New Towns—now part of English Partnerships; the second is the depletion of resources through the negative subsidy that authorities issue; and the third is depletion as a result of the area cost adjustment.

The result is a structure under which the Government's role in providing resources to people who do a job for our communities is compromised. Local schools, for example, require resources. If the Government, with a blast of trumpets, give £40,000 to a school to solve its problems, but squeeze that resource through technical adjustments to the new earnings survey component of the SSA of the area cost adjustment, we know that the latter policy will never hit the headlines. It is, however, a real issue for people in our localities, and the Government must address it as energetically as possible.

I am aware that time is short, so I shall try to be brief.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on putting the case so well. His arguments on a matter of real concern are shared by all hon. Members with new town constituencies.

Most new town communities were built at the same time and are deteriorating at the same rate. New towns have never possessed the land-bank assets of more traditional communities, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and its equivalent Department under previous Governments, has not given that sufficient recognition.

I shall deal with the issues in turn: first, the role of English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns, which the new town communities resent, as the organisation is seen as a remote and unaccountable asset-stripper—£162 million a year goes back to the Treasury. My hon. Friend was right to say that the rules allow deviation from those returns to the Treasury, but they are not applied consistently and are not made available to the local community or to local community organisations. Many community organisations that are trying to develop their own facilities, especially for sport, are being given conflicting advice, information, deadlines and time scales by English Partnerships, which is unacceptable. I can best sum up the organisation's remoteness and lack of accountability by recounting what was said when I intervened on a constituent's behalf and contacted an official of English Partnerships about the sale of a piece of land over which it was negotiating with a community organisation. The official, who will have to remain nameless, said, "Well I will talk to you, but you must realise that technically it is none of your business." For a member of English Partnerships to speak in that way to a representative of the local community—I am not getting on my high horse and speaking of myself as an individual—is unacceptable.

I agree, too, with my hon. Friend's argument about the area cost adjustment. There are significant extra costs in the south-east, and we thought that we had a "done deal" when the ACA was put on hold until 2002, but last year's earnings survey was implemented within the ACA, which resulted in a cut for Essex. This year, when the earnings survey shows a rise for Essex, it is suggested that it will not be implemented. That is inconsistent and unreasonable, and might be open to challenge.

The most important issue is that of resource accounting for councils that, technically, are in negative subsidy. My hon. Friend and I have spoken about the matter in the House before and we have had welcome access to Ministers. It is a huge issue and hon. Members have described the impact in their communities. In my local community, £3.1 million being taken out of a general fund annually of £12.6 million means either huge cuts or huge increases in council tax. I do not deviate from the Government's principle that tenants should not, as a rule, subsidise the general fund, but the impact on a handful of local authorities is disproportionate and unjust.

The Government have listened, particularly about phasing, and I welcome that, but I am worried that the impact of the proposals will come in two stages—first, on 1 April next year, which will have a major impact on my local authority and, secondly, on 1 April 2002. The way in which those two stages will be financed differs.

The first stage will be met by the local council's own housing revenue account; the second stage will be met from the national pool. The impact on my local authority is enormous. If it is to take advantage of phasing, the money must come from its housing revenue account and from rent payers in Harlow. As that is the Government's objective, I hope that my hon. Friend will listen to our concerns and ensure consistency so that both stages of phasing are financed similarly through the national pool.

Ministers have listened to us about what is called the item 8 credit transfer. It is the element that takes account of the set-aside capital receipts that were previously used for non-housing purposes. There was an assumed investment income to the housing revenue account, which is the main cause of negative subsidy. We went down that road because we did not have the asset base; the only asset available was the set-aside capital receipts.

The Government have listened, particularly through the local government technical working party, but I am worried that the concession that the Government are considering will apply only when a local authority becomes debt free. The trouble with that historic method of financing is that if we do not allow authorities that become debt free to have that assumed transfer nullified, it will not meet the needs of that small number of local authorities that have a real problem.

Finally, about 100 councils are hit by the negative-subsidy problem. For a handful of local authorities, predominantly new town authorities, the issue is severe. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will go further. I hope that she will ask her ministerial colleagues to reconsider the matter to see what support can be offered.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). I do not question the time that he took to introduce the debate because, logically and understandably, he raised issues that affect hundreds of thousands of people and many local authorities.

If a lesson is to be learned from today's hour-and-ahalf debate, it is that many people and local authorities are begging the Government to think again about that clawback. To take £162 million a year from new towns will deprive them of the opportunity to put into their communities what was not included when they were built. Those councils will not be able to prop up the communities that have aged with the new towns, or to take account of the problems that have resulted. For instance, community centres that were built for young people now no longer attract the youngsters because older people are using them, and the buildings do not adapt to use by varying age groups.

If a lesson is to be learned, surely it is that we must look at what has happened in the past 50 years, particularly in the south-east. We must not allow the new town syndrome to be repeated elsewhere in the same format. As a local councillor, I represented an authority that created two new towns, one of which, Leigh Park in Havant, is the largest council estate in Europe. We simply built houses, one or two schools, the odd pub, one community centre and a shopping parade. We then left it to the community and the small local authority of Havant to pick up that enormous baby. Those 30-odd thousand council houses in Portsmouth were able, for the best part of 20 years, to service many other activities from the housing revenue account. I cannot remember the general rate fund being used to support any activity on those large estates outside the city.

As leader of Hampshire county council, I was responsible for the development of Basingstoke, under which its population increased from 50,000 to more than 125,000, and the Andover development, under which 40,000 people from London moved into a small rural community with homes, schools and very little else. There was no infrastructure. Parliament and the Government need to learn lessons from the examples that have been mentioned today. It is not good enough to continue in the same way.

I am heartened by what two hon. Members said about the Government's new relationship to new towns—the take-over by English Partnerships, as opposed to English Heritage. I hope that that will come to pass; if it does, it will be a more positive, visionary and, perhaps, understanding approach. However, should new towns be run in such a way that the people who make key decisions—on the release of assets, the selling of land and achieving best value—are not part of the community where those decisions will have the greatest effect? There is no financial gain if one does not want to sell land simply because it makes good sense for the community for it not to be sold.

Where is the local authority's ability to resist English Partnerships' demands to sell assets? A mechanism that allows the local authority and the interests of the community to override the new relationship between new towns and English Partnerships is essential. Otherwise, sadly, the problems will persist. As hon. Members have said, some local authorities could lose 10 to 25 per cent. of their spend. Local communities will suffer, because desperately needed replacements and upgrading of property and other assets will not be undertaken. Ultimately, that will cost more money. Some support for the community will be lost, and it will not easily be replaced.

I hark back to what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said about living in a Parker Morris house and the standards that apply to such buildings. I wish that some of the properties that are now being built by housing associations could claim that in 40 years' time they will, perhaps after a little adaptation, still be fit for habitation, as are many Parker Morris houses.

When the developments were built, the people who were going to live there were not trusted. It was as if we as a nation said, "We will create new towns, but we will not trust these people who have been shipped in from cities such as Portsmouth, Southampton and London—we will put in an overseer who will control the way in which the towns develop, grow and resource themselves." That approach has failed miserably, and we must do something about it now, before it is too late.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to play a part in this debate, and I know that many of my colleagues would have liked to be present. I plead with the Minister to respond to the issues that have arisen. If we do not do something now, we will run out of time; resources will go and will be lost for ever.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate and on his full exposition of the problems.

Annunciators throughout the Palace are displaying the debate title, "New Towns (South-East)", and it struck me that many visitors will think that Parliament is considering building more new towns in the south-east of England. A chill is probably going down many spines at the prospect of such an ill thought out policy.

I had intended to divide my contribution between the details that were discussed by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and other hon. Members and more general issues about development in the south-east. In fact, many of the general points that I wanted to make arise in relation to the problems that the hon. Gentleman explained in introducing the debate.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, although he thinks that the new town concept was good and supports the ideas that lay behind it, current events represent an agenda for decline, and that even if we stick to the concept of what might be called oxymoronically the "old new towns"—or "middle-aged new towns", as they have been described—it is clear that something has gone wrong in the past 50 years.

When the Minister and her colleagues develop policy, on both existing new towns and wider planning issues, they must ask whether that agenda for decline has been a result of human error or whether there was always something systemic that would ensure that, over time, things would go wrong. One can draw conclusions about the undesirability of applying general principles too specifically across areas of the country in which local communities may have widely different needs. Those conclusions should enable the Minister to respond specifically to the points raised about new towns, and give her pause for thought when she considers the wider policies that the Government are proposing, not least in relation to the south-east of England.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke of problems, which are now very apparent, based on the hubristic application of once-fashionable nostrums. He talked about asbestos, school buildings, and so on. I am sure that all hon. Members have arrived at a school in their constituency, taken one look at the roof—knowing within 10 or 15 years when the school was built—and realised that they were about be told that that school had to spend a lot of money on its roof, because of permanent problems with buckets in corridors. That should serve as a warning to Governments not to apply the fashion of the day wholesale, everywhere, especially if some local wisdom suggests that what may appear a good solution 50 miles up the road may not be the best solution there.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made the point that one of the problems with the new towns, as they were set up, was that they were not planned for organic growth. It seems paradoxical to talk about planning for organic growth, but I think that the hon.

Gentleman meant that not enough flexibility had been built into the system to enable different towns to grow in different ways, and to become different types of towns.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) made the point that Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead look as though they come from the same blueprint. They may now be very different communities with different needs, but it is obvious that someone put down a single blueprint and said, "That is what we are going to adopt." That, too, should warn Governments against hubris, because every age has its blueprints and its visionaries who say, "This is the way to develop our towns." Many of them are genuine visionaries who produce a quality of life that did not exist before. However, Governments should be more modest about applying those blueprints.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made the point that resources are not only about money. He said that he was not just appealing for more money to be given to his area, although I note that, as one would expect, he went on to do so, and that other hon. Members joined in. He said that the assembly and provision of land—and I assume, by extension, the provision of other infrastructure that allows communities to grow successfully—are also vital to the planning process.

The lesson that the Minister and her colleagues could draw is that it is extremely short-sighted to plan for growth in communities simply by using housing numbers, without ensuring a supply of infrastructure before people arrive to live in those houses, and a future flow of the forms of infrastructure that make life tolerable in those communities. That mistake has clearly been made in the past, for which communities around the edge of London are now paying the price. Please, let us not repeat those mistakes. I am afraid that the Government seem determined to do so, judging by their current policies for the south-east.

The central question asked by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was who are the villains of the piece? Why are things going wrong in the various new towns? He made a good point when he said that, in some ways, the problem lies with the Commission for the New Towns' original terms of reference and their somewhat mechanical application. One cannot blame the commission for that. One should not condemn public officials for fulfilling terms of reference laid down by Parliament: if the terms of reference are wrong, that is the fault of Parliament and the Government.

However, I accept that, if a blueprint is established on a national or regional basis, the communities that are subject to those terms of reference are likely to suffer. The hon. Member for Stevenage said that her constituency has tried to grab back some power, so that local people can take the decisions that they regard as appropriate to their own community. I support that idea entirely, and it is certainly the way ahead. In the past, we have centralised too much, and we should try to reverse that process.

Another lesson that I hope the Minister will learn concerns the role of the regional development agencies. It has been fascinating to listen to hon. Members—mainly Labour Members—complain that problems in their constituencies are the result of power being taken away from, or not given to, councils, and given instead to relatively unaccountable and distant public bodies, whose agenda may differ from that of local people.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those problems are long-standing, and that at least we now have a Government who are listening? I spent 12 years as a councillor in a new town authority, and during that time the then Government simply did not listen.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are listening, but my point is that, in the past two or three years, they have been in the throes of setting up RDAs, which will be remote from most communities. RDAs will have extensive powers; they are already able to take decisions that should properly be taken by local councils. Those wretched institutions will not survive beyond the next general election, but were they to do so, the hon. Gentleman's and my successors would ask why those institutions were given such powers. They would ask why decisions taken by distant, remote and relatively unaccountable bodies had led to money being taken away from their local communities, or to the imposition of the wrong type of development.

One need not look into a crystal ball. The same wave of goodwill and good intent that accompanied the setting up of the RDAs also accompanied the creation of the Commission for the New Towns. As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, the commission seems to have introduced an agenda for decline. Moreover, its decisions—now under English Partnerships—are arbitrary and unfair.

As the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) pointed out, many who work for the commission display an intrinsic arrogance. They do not regard as legitimate the intervention of local representatives—be they hon. Members or councillors—in decisions that, in their view, properly belong to them. Were the RDAs to have a long-term existence, I am certain that that is how they would develop. Hon. Members and, above all, local authorities would discover that a bad decision had been taken in terms of planning, which should be responsive to local needs, and the preservation of proper local democracy and representation. I urge the Minister to take that lesson from our debate and the problems that it has revealed in new towns. Policies are being implemented that will replicate many of the problems that arose because of the way in which new towns were set up.

The thread that runs through our debate is the need for local sensitivity, and the Government would do well to take account of that. They should not continue in a direction that is fundamentally centralising but should devolve power to local authorities and communities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. He and other hon. Members have raised many important points in excellent speeches. Notwithstanding the fact that the debate has raised serious issues, it has been good-humoured and illuminating. I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend pursued the benefit for his town, as have other hon. Members. My hon. Friend is a veritable terrier; I hope that he will take that as the compliment that is intended.

My hon. Friend started by analysing the issues facing new towns, including the ageing population and infrastructure, and specific problems concerning school buildings. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked whether there are systemic problems peculiar to new towns or whether their problems are more general. He failed to see the obvious answer, which I shall give and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) referred. Many of the problems facing new towns, although they had a specific genesis and period of development, undoubtedly stem from 20 years' neglect of infrastructure, development and opportunity, and local government's inability to have an impact on the issues. New towns share some of the problems faced by inner cities, market towns and coastal towns following a lack of investment, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead acknowledged the extent to which that is starting to change under the present Government, with the additional resources that we are directing into a variety of places.

It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Ashford tried to hijack this important debate for party political purposes when all other hon. Members in this Chamber were trying to speak with one voice across party boundaries about the issues facing their towns. It is a bit rich for him to criticise the Government for establishing regional development agencies when the establishment of the worst sort of quango, with no local government representation, was a hallmark of the previous Government's record.

My hon. Friends referred to some important matters and I shall try to do them justice. They referred to English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns, the changes to housing finance and the area cost adjustments.

I am aware of the frustration, which my hon. Friends graphically described and which was audible from the passion in their voices, arising from the legacy of the Commission for the New Towns. The description of the commission operating as a resource-abstraction mechanism since Domesday may be a triumph of passion over accuracy, but it shows the strong feelings that have been generated.

Since coming into government we have tried to bring together, under the umbrella of English Partnerships, the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns. That is never easy. We have not been able to find the legislative time to make them one entity legally, so financially they have to operate as two entities. However, by bringing them together we have tried to change the culture that has been operating. Many important historic issues are involved relating to how the land that the CNT controls was assembled and where the resources for it came from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said.

Notwithstanding memorandum and legal requirements, much depends on the political context in which those bodies operate. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has acknowledged that he has seen a shift over the past couple of years under EP and because of a different political climate in—

Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, as time is short, but if she speaks toward the microphone the Hansard transcribers will be able to hear her.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We have introduced new draft financial memorandums to deal with some of the issues that hon. Members have raised, especially those relating to less than best price and to openness, accountability and partnership with local authorities. Land has always had to be sold for the highest price, although under the previous Government there was an aggressive drive and requirement for the bodies involved to achieve that. We have tried to change that culture, and I am pleased that my hon. Friends recognise that that is starting to happen.

One initiative that will help is the English Partnerships initiative for town strategies, which I hope will deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow, for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and for Hemel Hempstead. In that initiative, EP will reconsider how its remaining land assets can be used by forming strategies in partnership with local authorities, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I am pleased that local authorities, including Dacorum, which recently met English Partnerships to start developing a town strategy, will be able to take that forward.

The process is beginning, and I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that it involves a change of culture. We recognise that land assets need to be used for the benefit of the community and are trying to reinforce that politically. The new town strategy initiative is an important vehicle for doing so. For all sorts of historical and legal reasons, land cannot be transferred, but I accept the argument that such assets should be used in pursuit of benefits to the community.

Hon. Members also mentioned the major repairs allowance and negative subsidy, an issue on which two substantial debates have been held, in one of which I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. I know that my hon. Friends accept the basic starting point that it is wrong for council tenants to cross-subsidise general services and that subsidies for housing are a national resource that must be used to meet housing need nationally where need is greatest.

It is slightly unusual to feel that I am defending a policy that many people would consider good news. The extent of the major repairs allowance that councils will receive to offset the subsidy is significant for all the councils represented by hon. Members present.

I appreciate that the transitional measures are critical, and on behalf of hon. Members present I shall take back to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning the view that has been expressed that special circumstances apply in the case of a few new towns. Decisions are about to be taken; they are not yet final.

The final point that was raised related to the area cost adjustment. Hon. Members are aware that the information resulting from the new earnings survey would, if applied straightforwardly, result in a major redistribution of resources across different sorts of authority. As such a redistribution would be significant, and as we have promised stability, we consulted local authorities. No decision on the matter has yet been finalised, and we are considering several options, including whether the data will be applied and how the distribution might be made less dramatically different. We shall announce a decision shortly, having had a lot of feedback from local authorities.

I remind hon. Members that no authority will face a cut in its revenue support grant for this year. The spending review 2000 gave a generous overall settlement of approximately 5 per cent. Hertfordshire and other authorities in areas represented in this Chamber will receive substantial budget increases. Given the experiences of those councils up to 1997 and the money that they have received in real terms during the first three years of the present Government, those increases demonstrate clearly our commitment to increasing the resources of local councils, to deal with the precise issue that they raise: improving services for local people.

Order. I ask hon. Members who do not wish to remain for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

It was interesting to hear the back end of the previous debate. If we had some work in the north-east, there would be no need to build towns in the south-east—an argument that has been advanced by some hon. Members who represent southern constituencies.

This has been a torrid month for job losses in Blyth Valley. During the past two months, we have lost more than 500 jobs—530, to be precise. Courtauld's Ladieswear closed a few weeks ago, with the loss of 300-odd jobs. The rapid employment force is trying to find jobs for those people, but I do not know how many have been fixed up. I hope that the number is big, but I am not sure whether it will be. Valeo Security, a car component firm that makes locks, has also closed. Both firms were lost to foreign competitors. The managing director of Courtauld's told us that the stuff that was made in Blyth Valley was 70 per cent. cheaper to make in Sri Lanka, so the company is off there to make its ladies garments. Valeo Security decided to go to Czechoslovakia. I understand that at least two of the workers who were recently made redundant by Valeo went to the new location to train the local workers on how to work the line, as the saying goes. It is ironic that the company is establishing a factory abroad but the workers have to be trained by our people after they have lost their jobs. Unfortunately, that is the way things are today. At the time of the relocation, I asked the managing director whether the decision related to the single currency or the pound, but he said that although the pound was a bit high, such matters were not the first priority. The argument of both companies was that they could do it cheaper abroad. Obviously, that was our problem: cheaper wages abroad.

On top of those losses, during the past two years we have lost Wilkinson Sword to Germany and Cramlington Textiles has gone into liquidation. Somebody wanted to buy the factory and machines and to employ at least 80 workers, although there had been 300. However, the liquidator sold the machines to someone who sold them abroad. Blyth power station, which lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), closed completely in January. Half of our job losses occurred in the Port of Blyth, where several hundred workers have been paid off during the previous year.

In total, there have been 3,000 job losses in Blyth Valley and only 1,000 gains in two years. That is a significant loss, but until now we have not grumbled or complained. However, we have had a right rough couple of months in which 530 jobs have been lost and we have received no help at all. The employment force is trying to get these girls and boys fixed up with jobs, but I do not think that it is being very successful.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. Does he agree that high unemployment over many years, which has led to severe economic problems, has meant that car ownership is among the lowest in the United Kingdom, and that public transport is therefore more important? Does he agree that the single biggest improvement to public transport within the constituencies of Wansbeck and Blyth Valley would be the reopening of passenger rail services of the Blyth and Tyne line? That would bring huge economic benefit to not only our two constituencies but, the whole of southeast Northumberland. Will he join me in pressing the Government to give a firm commitment, in principle, to agreeing the scheme before the next general election?

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should not be mini speeches.

I do not mind that, as my hon. Friend made the valid point that the rail link would also come through my constituency. I am all in favour of that. I do not know whether the money for the rail link will be forthcoming; we will have to wait and see. Perhaps the Minister could answer that question when he replies to the debate.

My hon. Friend has prompted me to talk about two areas in south-east Northumberland—Blyth Valley and Wansbeck, which have 12 wards. Eight of those wards are among the most deprived 10 per cent. in the country, and five of them are in Blyth Valley. Wansbeck is the 18th most deprived constituency in the country, and Blyth Valley is the 88th most deprived constituency in the country. My hon. Friend's constituency of Wansbeck has the benefit of £3 million from the neighbourhood fund, but I cannot understand why Blyth Valley did not get any money, as it has five wards among the worst 10 per cent. in the country. As the Government decided to make it a district in which there are two wealthy wards—in Cramlington, which is a new town—the poor ones in Blyth Valley town have to stay poor. I cannot understand how the Government can justify that. The Minister may be able to justify that, but he gets paid for it. I have to tell people in my constituency, which has five wards among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country, that because of the good wards in Cramlington, they have to stay poor.

Last week, I went to a meeting about the Barnett formula. Lord Barnett said, "Don't even think about trying to apply the Barnett formula, as it is known in Scotland and Wales, in England." He believes that money should be used to tackle poverty and deprivation at source. If it exists in Blyth town, money should go there. Money has not come to Blyth town because the Government's calculations show that it has a rich part. Blyth Valley is split in two—the old town of Blyth, and the new town of Cramlington. As one is rich and one is poor, the poor part has to stay poor. That is not good enough. The Labour Government were not elected to leave areas poor. Lord Barnett was right—we should tackle the areas that are poor. Will the Minister reply to that? Will he do anything about it? If not, will our right hon. Friend the Member for Hull—the Minister knows who I mean—

Our right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) the Deputy Prime Minister.

Well, whichever Hull it is, will he do something about it?

I want to return to the rapid response team, which is doing an excellent job. I do not have the figures for what it has done. I also want to return to the issue of job losses. A report in the local paper said that, in Stoke, Michelin was to close with the loss of 950 jobs. Local papers, television and "Newsnight" all talked about the terrible job losses in Stoke. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was under a lot of pressure, although we had not put any pressure on him. He launched a £110 million aid programme for Stoke, which suffered those job losses. The people of Stoke have my sympathy, but we have suffered 500 job losses and not had such a response. I hope that the Minister can tell me what is going on and why we have not received a similar response.

I remember the hullabaloo about the closure of Rover and all the money that would be invested to save jobs or retrain people. We lost 500 jobs a couple of months ago, but we have had nothing. What is going on? Why does the north-east not receive its fair share of money, as everyone else does? The Minister can tell us whether we are getting any money.

The Government must acknowledge that serious economic and social problems in the north-east need to be addressed, especially in Wansbeck and Blyth Valley. We have no status and do not benefit from urban development or city challenge money. Unlike Tyneside, Newcastle and south Tyneside, south-east Northumberland does not even have an enterprise zone. Blyth Valley and Wansbeck cannot even get a call centre, because the companies would not get free rent or any encouragement to go there; they all go to Newcastle and Tyneside, which have enterprise status. That status must be expanded to include south-east Northumberland, where we need help.

We cannot go on losing jobs and expect people to vote Labour at the next election when the Government totally ignore them. The Minister did not ignore Stoke—it got £110 million—but he is ignoring Blyth Valley and Wansbeck. He cannot ignore me, because I am telling him that he is totally out of order. We are not getting a fair crack of the whip.

My hon. Friend mentioned the economic problems of both our constituencies. Does he agree that, if our areas had been allowed to stand alone, we would have received objective 1 funding as a result of the poverty and deprivation?

My hon. Friend is right. Devolution is at the hub of the argument. When devolution took place, the north-east lost out. People should make no mistake about that. When the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament were set up, money had to go to Wales and Scotland. Wales received objective 1 funding and millions of pounds were put into Wales, but we got objective 3 funding, which was very little in comparison. That is the problem.

The aim of the national neighbourhood strategy is to arrest deprivation. The situation in the present climate is desperate. Some neighbourhoods in the north-east, including your constituency Mr. Deputy Speaker, are deprived. That needs to be addressed. I believe that your area Mr. Deputy Speaker, received a few million pounds from the neighbourhood strategy. Wansbeck and Easington got some funds, but Blyth Valley did not. Unfortunately, we have a case to make. The town has one of the lowest numbers of start-up businesses per head in the country. People do not come to start businesses in south-east Northumberland because we are not in an enterprise zone. We do not have anything to offer. We have only a bit of land.

We need some incentive. People from my constituency are coming down to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 16 November. They are coming down full of hope, but I have a feeling that they will go back disappointed. I do not think that they will get anything at all. The trouble with this Government is that their views are set in stone and they do not see some of the problems. They do not listen to their Back-Bench Members. They have never listened to me. I have had a couple of debates about the north-south divide, although I promised not to mention that.

This is a problem that Ministers must address. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there are enterprise zones all over the north-east, as there is not one in Blyth Valley or Wansbeck. There is not one in south-east Northumberland and we are demanding one. Of course we can demand, but we may not get one. That is the problem we face. Funding is urgently needed in these areas. The Government's regeneration initiative should apply to areas that are in need.

I do not knock the new deal for one minute. It has done a good job in getting young kids to work or involved in some sort of training. Not all of them have been good schemes and not all have resulted in jobs, but it is a good idea and I do not knock it. With all these kids getting on to these schemes, youth unemployment has gone down in my constituency, but adult unemployment has risen by about 10 per cent., according to the latest figures. We need action and we need some money. I only hope that the Minister will reply in the affirmative and give me and my constituents some encouragement and hope for the future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on securing the debate, which is obviously of great importance to other hon. Friends in the area. That is underlined by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) are present. I readily accept that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his area and his constituents. I hope that I can clear up some of the ambiguities in the short time available.

My hon. Friend referred in his final comments to an increase in adult unemployment. That is not borne out by the figures that I have. I should be interested to know how adult unemployment is defined because various measures are used. The figures I have show a 2.3 per cent. reduction in claimant unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency since 1997. If long-term adult unemployment is defined as being unemployed for more than a year, the reduction has been something like 50 per cent. since the last general election. If it is defined as being unemployed for over two years, as we generally think of it, it is down by two thirds. I should therefore be interested to clarify those figures, perhaps outside the debate.

My hon. Friend raises serious issues. We are unfortunately aware of the closures that have taken place in Blyth Valley over the past 12 to 24 months. I know that Blyth Valley council estimates that anything up to 3,000 jobs have been lost in that period. As my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has agreed to meet councillor Dave Stephens, leader of Blyth Valley council, and council representatives to discuss employment opportunities in Blyth Valley. That meeting is scheduled for Thursday 16 November. Perhaps it can be a natural progression from our debate today.

I was extremely concerned to hear of the most recent closure announcements at Courtaulds Ladieswear and Valeo Security Systems. I appreciate that a combined loss of 500 jobs was a crippling blow to the area, but it is important to acknowledge the work that was done to try to prevent it. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry were in contact with both companies, making offers of regional selective assistance to try to prevent the closures. It is unfortunate that they could not be prevented. The companies had made strategic decisions and the offers of regional selective assistance were not accepted. It is important to emphasise the fact that the offers were made.

Blyth Valley council has set up and led a rapid response team to deal with both closures and to help those losing their jobs. The former Courtaulds workers have benefited from that, and I understand that rapid response funding is available to help them gain new employment. The sums involved are exactly in line with the assistance offered in the examples mentioned, and the principle is the same. We might not be able to affect the decisions of the company, but we can make financial assistance available to help people deal with the consequences of closure. We did so in Blyth Valley in relation to the two most recent closures.

The initial figures from the Employment Service are encouraging. They show that 50 former Courtaulds employees have already found work, and it is estimated that another 30 will do so in the next few weeks. The vast majority of those ex-employees are being placed in similar occupations in the area.

Valeo Security Systems is undergoing a gradual rundown of staff, with most of the work force likely to have left by December, although the plant will remain open until the middle of next year. The Employment Service is providing an on-site job shop and aims to highlight the considerable transferable skills of the work force to employers in and outside the area, with special emphasis on north Tyneside, where several recent job announcements have been made.

The two closures are not the only recent ones in and near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley. The closures of Wilkinson Sword and Cramlington Textiles were severe blows to the area. I share his frustration about Cramlington Textiles, which had a large order book shortly before the closure. In both those cases, many employees who wanted to stay in work have found employment elsewhere. That says much about the high quality of their transferable skills, and reflects the level of opportunities that our policies have helped to ensure exists.

The assistance that I mentioned relates to only the most recent closures. In the light of the comments made by my hon. Friend about the north-east, it is important to note that the area as a whole has benefited from substantial Government assistance. I want to highlight some of the help that has been given to Blyth. Before I do, I should mention the point made about the rail link made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. The Minister responsible—it is a matter for the DETR—met a delegation from Northumberland, after which she was positive about reopening the Blyth-Tyne rail line. She awaits the findings of a study that it was agreed would be set up. That is as much light as I can throw on the matter.

For industry, the area is covered by revised assisted areas maps, so it is eligible for regional selective assistance and enterprise grants. Since 1997, the Department of Trade and Industry has made 31 offers of regional selective assistance totalling £6,919,000, and relating to total project costs of £44,507,300. We estimate that those offers will lead to the safeguarding of 94 jobs and the creation of a further 1,345 jobs. I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the north-east will do all they can to contact companies in their constituencies, which do not always understand the assistance available, and encourage them to pursue the funds via my officials in the Government office of the north-east. Perhaps that would be a useful part of the discussion that will take place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next week.

Blyth Valley's share of the region's European funding has been significant. In the period 1997–99, the district received £3,530,834 from the European regional development fund and £551,917 in European social funding. My hon. Friend appreciates only too well that the regional development agency, One NorthEast, along with its regional partners, is the lead body that is responsible for the economic development in the region. Its framework for doing so is based on its regional economic strategy. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, in July, the Chancellor announced a national £500 million increase to regional development agencies and One NorthEast will receive a portion of that.

One NorthEast has assisted with several funding requirements in my hon. Friend's constituency, such as for the Blyth Quayside infrastructure and environmental works, the Blyth community enterprise and resource centre, the Blyth Quayside offices and Richard Stannard house. Blyth has been in receipt of various single regeneration budget moneys. In SRB round 2, the Renaissance of Blyth received £3.9 million to fund its integrated five-year strategy and in SRB round 4, funding of £1.7 million was provided. In SRB rounds 5 and 6, Blyth was part of a joint bid for £30.6 million, which was submitted by the Northumberland Strategic Partnership. I did not go into so much detail to dilute the passion with which my hon. Friend spoke, but I need to put the record straight. Listening to him, one could have gained the impression that his constituency was being treated differently from others, so I have needed to draw attention to the amount of assistance that it has received so far.

I shall now refer more generally to the north east. Indeed, my hon. Friend has been a fiery advocate of a north-south divide debate on many occasions. While bad news stories tend to dominate the headlines, it is important to emphasise that the north-east has a vibrant economy. The area has a long history of industrial growth and change and, consequently, several jobs in traditional industries have been lost. However, manufacturing still accounts for 28 per cent. of gross domestic product and for about 20 per cent. of employment. Employment levels in the region are rising, Despite the job losses, some of which we have discussed today, 25,000 more people are in work than was the case one year ago.

I mentioned earlier the level of regional selective assistance offered to businesses in Blyth Valley. It is worth noting that, as a result of the 1999 revision of the assisted areas map, the north-east continues to have the most complete coverage of any part of the United Kingdom, with 97 per cent. of the population living in areas eligible for assistance. My hon. Friend pointed out the two wards that are unfortunately in the 3 per cent. bracket, but we are governed by the European Community and the area would not have met its guidelines if coverage had been extended to those wards.

Over the past four years, regional selective assistance offers in the north-east have assisted projects that will lead to the creation of 17,600 new jobs and safeguard a further 5,500. Since the introduction of enterprise grants in January this year, more than 80 small and medium-sized enterprises have been offered more than £2 million of assistance, creating 600 jobs and safeguarding a further 140.

We cannot be complacent. I am aware that business start-up rates in the north-east, while increasing, are still a long way short of the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. To improve that position, almost half of the resources available from the new objective 2 programme for European structural funds will be devoted to business support for small and medium-sized enterprises. The news across the country is good as is the news in the north-east. However, that is no help to the people who have lost their jobs in the two recent closures, but I must give the broad picture on the Government's behalf. Companies are continuing to invest and to create jobs. I pay tribute to the skills, resilience and determination of the work force. With Government policies and the passion of local representatives, I am sure that new employment opportunities will continue to arise in Blyth Valley and the north-east as a whole.

The Minister will be aware that Eastleigh is at the centre of various conflicting proposals for primary care trust configuration in south Hampshire. I have advised her office in advance of the main thrust of my concerns. I have also have provided to her details of a particular constituent's case that shows, among other things, the importance of getting primary care trust configuration right.

The local health authority recommendations on the preferred option for primary care trusts will reach the Minister later this month. I accept that she cannot pre-judge the approval process, but I should like to draw her attention to some key factors that should be considered. They include the particular characteristics of my constituency in the context of health and social care, the primary care trust options on offer, the application of Government policy guidelines in judging the options—when they reach her—and the specific issues that Eastleigh primary care trusts must address. Additional factors relate to the provision of national health service dentistry and an appalling case of postcode prescription.

I shall deal first with the particular characteristics of Eastleigh in the context of social and health care. Eastleigh has a population of approximately 120,000, which is settled in the old railway town at the centre, in the suburban northern edge, which contains many London commuters, and in scattered villages to the south, such as Hedge End, Botley and West End. These villages also include Hamble, Bursledon and Netley, which are situated in a rather isolated position on the Hamble peninsula and have particular concerns about health care provision.

Eastleigh's character has changed dramatically over the years, through massive speculative development that resulted in the construction of more than 10,000 extra houses since the 1980s. We are now promised—perhaps I should say threatened with—another 5,000 houses in the next decade. In terms of health care provision, Eastleigh has the problem of lying across two health authority boundaries. Nearly half the population live in the southern parishes and are served by the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority. The rest live in the north and are served by the North and Mid Hampshire health authority. The 5,000 new houses that are to be developed over the next decade are likely to be sited on the boundary between the two health authority areas. It could be argued that that will make matters somewhat worse.

A comparison with other agency arrangements shows that there is an anomaly in our services. Hampshire county council social services division and the Hampshire constabulary division both embrace all of Eastleigh and Romsey. Eastleigh borough council embraces all of the parliamentary constituency up to the boundary of the Southampton city unitary authority. All the major agencies serving Eastleigh, including central and local government representation, are broadly coterminous, with the exception of health care. That is a key factor in determining primary care trust configuration.

Within Eastleigh's present divided health care provision, there are significant pockets of health care deprivation in what is otherwise a relatively prosperous area. These include Bursledon, out on the Hamble peninsula, and the centre of the old town of Eastleigh. We need to bear in mind that inequality of health care when we consider the primary care trust configurations that are on offer. The Minister will know that the health authority has reduced the number of options to a shortlist of two. I should like to place those options on record. The first is to create four new primary care trusts: New Forest, with a population of 185,000; Southampton city, with a population of 231,000; Eastleigh and Romsey, with a population of 152,000; and mid-Hampshire, with a population 169,000. Option two would create three new primary care trusts: New Forest plus Romsey, with a population of 221,000; Southampton city plus Eastleigh, south, with a population of 277,000; and Eastleigh, north plus mid-Hampshire, with a population of 239,000.

One of the arguments advanced in support of option two, which involves only three trusts, is that it would reduce health care management costs, but, as the Minister knows, those costs are marginal in the overall sense, and in any event management costs do not come out of funds allocated for clinical services. Creating trusts with populations of 250,000 or more hardly squares with a policy of bringing health care decisions closer to the people. How will Government policy and the Department's guidelines be applied to the two options?

As I understand it, the three main functions of primary care trusts are to be: removing inequalities and improving the health of the local community; developing health services through investment to improve quality of care and the integration of services; and commissioning secondary services. A key aim is to reduce the variation in quality of primary care provision.

I want to consider how the primary care trust configuration would work in the context of the national health service plan. Page 1 of the NHS plan summary document clearly states:

The purpose and vision of this NHS Plan is to give the people of Britain a health service fit for the 21st century: a health service designed around the patient.

Page 2 says that the NHS suffers from

over-centralisation and disempowered patients…The NHS has to be redesigned around the needs of the patient.

The Department's circular HSC 1999/167 deals in particular with the criteria that should be used for the assessment of primary care trust proposals. Page 12 states clearly that one should ensure that the proposed organisation has

robust arrangements in place to ensure it can deliver the 3 key functions of Primary Care Trusts.

The criteria will be established through the following questions:

Does the proposed Primary Care Trust show evidence of knowledge and understanding of the health needs of local people, including the pattern of health inequalities, and of how to take effective action for change?…Has an effective relationship been developed with local authority organisations (as well as Social Services)…?

That is a key point in this particular analysis.

Having examined the Department's circulars and considered Government policy, one does not have to look too deeply to find that option one, which proposes a separate trust for Eastleigh-Romsey, would meet the criteria in full. That option builds on existing interagency relationships within coterminous boundaries and has the support of a wide range of agencies that are keen to work together to develop integrated health and social care provision for the area. Most importantly, it breaks down the boundary of two health authorities that run through the middle of Eastleigh and serve different parts of my constituency. It allows resources to be focused on removing inequalities in health care provision and targets the areas of health and social care deprivation.

I will compare option one with option two as guidance for the Minister, who may not be as familiar with the area as I am. Option two would put half of Eastleigh together with Southampton city; there is no doubt that a trust under that option would be based in Southampton city and would focus on the 250,000 Southampton residents. The 50,000 residents of Eastleigh's southern parishes would be out on a limb, tacked on to the coat tails of a big city. My constituents could be the losers in that relationship, as the priority would be to serve the mass of patients, or customers, that live in the city and are easily accessible for a city-based trust.

I will give an example to show that I am not talking about simple tribal warfare. Under our existing primary care group, in the south of my constituency, which serves south Eastleigh and east Southampton, we have made little progress in establishing a new local health centre in Bursledon to serve the villages. Local health centres for the Southampton city part of that group, however, are well advanced. Clearly, there is real reason for concern about configurations of that sort.

I draw the Minister's attention to a comparison of the unified funding allocations for 2000–01. She will be familiar with the concept of analysing distance from targets of funding; I want to show the effect that that would have on the trust options. Under option one, the parishes in southern Eastleigh down towards the Hamble peninsula would level up under an EastleighRomsey trust, but under option two, southern Eastleigh could level down to match Southampton city. That would not be good news for people in my southern parishes who are looking forward to a significant improvement in the level of available health care. As I said, I realise that the Minister cannot prejudge the situation but I hope that she will bear in mind my analysis, which is based on local knowledge, when considering the primary care trust configuration recommendations.

I turn to two specific issues that come within the framework of PCT options. The first is an appalling case of postcode prescription, about which I have already advised the Minister. It concerns a constituent whom I shall call Steven. I shall quote some letters from his GP that make it clear that we still have a big problem with postcode prescription. The GP said:

I am writing to ask for your support in lodging an appeal with the Local Health Authority in Southampton against their decision not to pay for this patient's Clozaril. This is an extremely effective drug for the management of severe Schizophrenia. Without this treatment Steven would, almost certainly, be a long term hospital inpatient.

Steven has multiple disabilities including Paraplegia, severe Schizophrenia. and has Insulin Dependent Diabetes. He is also an Amputee, having lost a leg in an accident… He is also an Epileptic…

I recently managed to obtain a written guarantee from the Southampton South West Hampshire Health Authority under the continuing and Care and Community programme that Steven was eligible as a resident of their Health Authority Area for all the Services that are available to any other citizen of this country under the NHS free of charge.

It seems to me to be grossly unfair that this most unfortunate individual should be victimised by the National Health Service in this way.

It means that his mother

—who manages his trust—

has to pay £4,500 every year for the Clozaril, in addition to paying for the team of nurses, for his 24 hour round the clock care at their home.

In a further letter, the doctor confirmed that

The decision to force Steven to pay for his medication was apparently made by…a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Royal South Hants Hospital in Southampton. The reason given for this decision was that Steven's psychiatric care is supervised…at the Milbury Unit at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester. Steven lives in Hedge End

—in my constituency—

which is in the catchment area of the South Hants Hospital…

It is interesting that the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority agree with my contention that Steven is being discriminated against because he has the wrong post code.

The Manager in Primary Care at the Health Authority has confirmed in writing that Steven is entitled to all the facilities, services and medication available under the National Health Service. Unfortunately. the Health Authority no longer has any power to intervene in decisions made by individual Trusts.

That is the important point to consider in deciding new boundaries and management processes for the provision of health care.

Finally, I turn to the problem with dentistry in connection with the primary health care trust. As the Minister will know, under the NHS plan, the Government have committed themselves to making high-quality NHS dentistry available to all who want it by September 2001. The plan appears to rely on health authorities as the main drivers of NHS dentists working as part of primary care multi-disciplinary teams, but not within the PCTs, which I find strange. In the context of the options available to Eastleigh, a proposal is being developed to provide an NHS dental access centre in Southampton to serve my constituents in Hedge End, West End and Botley. That surely prejudges the primary care configuration options, within the trust and elsewhere. It is also woefully inadequate as a response to the Government's aim of making access to NHS dentistry available to all who want it. I would like the Minister to look at that in the round when assessing primary care trust recommendations.

I have tried to set out my concerns about the primary care trust configuration as it affects my constituency and I have highlighted an appalling case of postcode prescription. I have also shown that the proposals for NHS dentistry are inadequate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response; if there is enough time, I may intervene.

It is a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall after the summer recess; I had forgotten the joys of Adjournment debates. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on raising the issue of primary health care trusts. Before I respond generally, I shall deal with two specific points that he raised.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me prior notice of the case involving his constituent, Steven. My information is that it is not a case of postcode prescribing, but rather that the patient was originally a private patient at the practice, and subsequently changed to the NHS. It was then a question of the health authority assessing his case. I am informed that, after consideration by the health authority two weeks ago, it was agreed that he would be prescribed the drugs on the NHS. Steven is currently in hospital and on the drug. When he is discharged, he will continue to be prescribed Clozaril by the NHS for as long as it is clinically appropriate. I hope that that is good news.

It is.

I am glad to have cleared that up.

It is important to put on record the fact that NHS dentistry will remain the responsibility of health authorities. It is no part of PCTs. We recognise—as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when he was Secretary of State—that considerable improvements are necessary in this sector. On a national basis, we have funded several projects. One is an £18 million commitment scheme, which rewards dentists for their greater commitment to the NHS. From 2001–02, £35 million will be available to modernise NHS dental practices. Additionally, in the current year, £4 million will go to help dental practitioners give treatment to patients. So far, the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority has received £639,000 worth of investing-in-dentistry grants, which are intended to improve dental facilities. That has generated an extra 46,000 registrations.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that his area was chosen for one of the personal dental service pilot schemes, which bring together community and salaried dental services. By September 2001, we will ensure on a national basis that, wherever they live, people will be given information on obtaining NHS dentistry. There is still some way to go, but we have provided considerable investment.

The main subject of the debate is proposals on PCT configuration in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastleigh and across Southampton and south-west Hampshire. I want to consider the proposals in the context of the Government's overall view of the role of primary care.

When we published the NHS plan last July, few of us had any doubt about what was at stake. Fifty years after the NHS was founded, it was under attack from many sides. Its delivery was under attack from patients—and from those within the NHS—who had seen the effects of years of under-investment, too few staff, outdated equipment and crumbling buildings.

Underfunding has hampered the NHS, but so has the way in which the NHS operates—the way it is organised to make people wait; the barriers that prevent efficient use of staff; and the chasm that opens up between NHS and social care. The NHS needed money, but it also needed change. That is what the NHS plan is all about—investment and reform, money and modernisation. The money came at a price—the need to change the way in which the NHS operates.

The result was a plan that set out how the NHS needed to change if it was to make the best use of the new investment. More convenient access to primary care was necessary with more consultations, more tests, more diagnosis and more treatment in primary care settings. Proper priority needed to be given to the major killer diseases like cancer and coronary heart disease. There was a need to end postcode rationing for drugs and to secure better access to hi-tech equipment—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has played a significant role in that. However, that change can come about only with the full involvement of everyone in primary care.

We have already allocated £54.5 million to primary care groups and trusts this year, to kick-start the expansion of primary care services. Further investment will follow. It is important that those funds are used strategically to develop new services and improve access to primary care. However, although primary care will receive ear-marked funds, those are not the only funds that will affect how services are delivered. More than £20 billion has been devolved to primary care groups and trusts to commission services. That money must be used responsibly.

The creation of primary care groups was a vital step in the biggest devolution of power and decision making ever seen in the NHS. It brought together doctors, nurses, community nurses, health visitors and local people, and put them in the driving seat when deciding how local patients are looked after and treated. We have set up a central programme of support and development to help manage the transition because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the cultures of corporation and of management that have developed over the past 50 years were variable.

For starters—it is close to my heart because I have some responsibility for the use of IT—we have provided £50 million to help PCGs improve their IT infrastructure and data management, so that all the partners in the system can communicate effectively. The national primary care development team was set up to ensure that all PCGs have access to expert advice and support; we did not expect each group to reinvent the wheel but to learn from good practice. We have issued guidance to ensure that all PCGs have organisational development plans in place that are relevant to their needs. That has already made a real difference to patients. I shall give some examples from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Money allocated to the Eastleigh, North and the Southampton, East primary care trusts has gone towards training nurses and providing additional hours for triage services in GP practices; extending chiropody and podiatry services to reduce waiting times; and improving access to GPs and primary care professionals by ensuring that all practices are open 12 hours a day, because access is important. We have also developed a locality care centre to act as a one-stop centre for primary care services, a minor injuries unit and a patient information centre.

Those examples of good practice have been achieved by ensuring better working across boundaries and the development of robust links between primary and secondary care. That, and the more effective direction of resources, has meant improved services for patients, but we have taken it further.

The development of primary care groups into primary care trusts provides an unparalleled opportunity. It will allow local communities to determine the pace of change that is right for them. The system will allow local health professionals to control budgets, which will enable them to shape hospital and community services for patients in their area, and invest in improving the primary and community services provided by doctors, nurses and other local professionals. We must be careful not to talk only of doctors and nurses; we must not forget the important role of others in the chain of care. I am forcefully reminded that 60 per cent. of those working for the NHS are not doctors or nurses.

We want to develop more integrated services between general practice, community services and social services, and give patients better access to healthcare, by identifying which services most need developing. Again, the hon. Gentleman referred to historic inequalities, which must be identified; and some groups will need support to develop. Above all, decision-making must be placed closer to patients, and it must be shaped by the professionals who most often meet patients' needs.

Nationally, 40 PCTs are currently up and running and more than 130 PCGs have expressed an interest in becoming PCTs from 1 April 2001. That is a clear sign that primary care professionals recognise the benefits that becoming a PCT presents to them and to the development of the health economy. In reality, they realise that no other body has the same range of flexibility and opportunities to improve services, and we acknowledge the huge agenda they face.

Organisations such as the national patient access team and the national primary care development team have been set up to support them. They are working closely with PCGs and PCTs to encourage the appropriate management of demand and to enable primary care to play a full role in cutting waiting times. We have also developed a toolkit specifically designed for PCTs to ascertain how well they are doing with referrals, admission rates and lengths of stay and to determine whether that is good, bad or indifferent. Often, people in the health service had no means of comparing themselves with similar providers. Those tools will allow PCTs to measure their performance and compare it with that of others. The hidden message behind that is that, if they are not doing as well as others, they will be able to determine what they need to do to improve their standards.

With that level of support and the additional freedom and flexibility, PCTs will be the key vehicles to drive through our modernisation agenda. In general, PCTs of between 100,000 and 300,000 will be assumed to be of acceptable size. Those that are larger or smaller will need closer scrutiny. However, I must stress that that scrutiny will apply equally to all PCTs, regardless of size.

All PCTs must meet the same four basic criteria. The first involves a vision. They must be able to demonstrate the need to be a PCT and what will be achieved as a result of that. The second relates to support. They must show that the application has broad local support from all the stakeholders. Thirdly, they will need to show competency in clinical leadership, management capacity, technical systems and skills to manage large budgets and provide community services. The fourth concerns the fact that they must ensure that there will be no detrimental impact on other services or service providers within that health system.

PCTs must be able to balance local knowledge against the capacity to manage the provision of services and the management of resources necessary for delivery. We believe that that will best be achieved by responsive PCTs working effectively together to ensure a cohesive approach to health care across a locality, sharing management resources and requiring co-operation from other local providers to obtain the services required. The starting point for determining a PCT boundary should be the need to ensure a coherent and cogent focus on meeting the needs of all the people living in that community.

We have made it clear that PCTs should seek the best possible coterminosity with other bodies. In fact, while coterminosity is not a requirement to attain PCT status, we continue to encourage the move towards coterminosity between local authorities and all other administrative boundaries. It will be imperative for a PCT to forge effective links with county, district and borough councils in order to perform its health improvement functions.

Coterminosity with social services authorities may also be helpful in enabling the pooling of budgets, which will bring service delivery benefits to all those in the group. Although coterminous boundaries will certainly assist PCTs that wish to enter into pooled budget, lead commissioner or integrated provider arrangements with local authorities, they are not the only determinant of effective partnership working and should not halt progress in this vital area.

That leads me to events in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As he said, there is currently one PCT in the area of the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority—the Southampton, East PCT. It covers the east of the city of Southampton and the southern parishes of Eastleigh borough, which is within the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. It has been operational since April this year. That PCT and the Southampton, Central PCG have recently been the subject of a consultation on a proposal to come together to form a city-based PCT from April 2001.

The consultation exercise is a process designed to allow any interested individuals, groups or stakeholders to put forward their views on the proposals set out by local stakeholders. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made some detailed proposals, which I read again this morning. The Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority will take into account the representations made and consider them carefully before making any decision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have already taken the opportunity to take wider soundings. He made it clear in his letter that he was expressing not only his views, but those of a number of the stakeholders to whom he had spoken.

The proposals are now with the health authority and will be considered at its board meeting on Wednesday 15 November. At the meeting, the authority will also discuss wider plans for the development of PCTs in the remainder of the health authority area, including part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

The health authority's recommendations will then be received by the south east regional office of the NHS executive before being passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a final decision. Until then, we must remain impartial and must not be seen to be influencing any decision. We must not, and will not, prejudge the outcome of any local consultation.

I am sure that we all share a common desire to ensure that the right services are available to all patients at the right time and in the right place.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on an issue that affects not only my constituents, but thousands of particularly vulnerable people throughout the country. I say "vulnerable" because in Swindon, for example, levels of homelessness, especially among the young, single and low-income groups, have placed great demand on the houses in the multiple occupation sector. Those people are often not in the strongest position to insist on decent standards of accommodation, which should be available to them.

All hon. Members will have witnessed the impact that poor quality housing can have on the everyday lives of our constituents. Inadequate housing is not only a misery in itself, but has an impact on people's physical and mental well-being and on children's education and ability to participate and thrive in society.

The Government rightly want to ensure that there is quality housing for everyone. Their social exclusion unit has pointed out that to achieve that, action must be taken to improve the poor standard of many houses in multiple occupation, which I shall call HMOs. Organisations such as Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the National Union of Students and the national HMO network have been doing important work. Those organisations, as well as my local borough council, have asked me to push for legislation.

I hope that I am pushing at an open door, because the housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: a decent home for all", states that the Government are committed to introducing a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs as soon as parliamentary time allows. I asked for the debate to press for that legislation to be implemented as soon as possible—preferably, it should be included in the forthcoming Queen's Speech—because further delay means that my constituents are not receiving the protection that they should have.

The lack of better controls means that bad owners of homes are allowed to get away with bad practice, which does not support the good owners in our constituencies who are providing decent accommodation.

In Swindon, we have 550 known HMOs in the borough, many of which do not meet the basic minimum standards in terms of fire safety, overcrowding and provision of amenities. Many are poorly managed, which means that the council has to take regular action to try to maintain safe conditions for tenants. Nationally, the latest figures, from the 1996 English house conditions survey, show that 195,000 households live in HMOs. If we extend the traditional interpretation of bedsits to include shared houses, converted flats, households with lodgers and purpose-built HMOs, that figure leaps to 1.4 million households.

Swindon has only a small private rented sector, on which there is great demand. Because demand well exceeds supply, it is a seller's market. Unfortunately, there is therefore little incentive for poor owners to manage their property to reasonable standards. Tenants are prepared to rent small, overcrowded and often unsafe property because it is all that they can afford.

Consequently, many are unwilling to complain about the sub-standard conditions of their property, which often means that nothing is done to improve the situation.

Shockingly, Swindon has less of a problem than do many other towns and cities with even greater sections of the population in sub-standard HMOs. That emphasises the great need for nationwide action.

Any civilised society wants decent housing standards. All accommodation that is let, or is available for letting, should be free from unacceptable hazards, in a reasonable state of repair, and in an overall condition that will not adversely affect the health and safety of residents, visitors, neighbours or passers-by. A poor HMO does not affect only its residents.

At a surgery, a constituent told me of her fears of losing her property because the neighbouring property was an HMO that was not up to fire standards. She saw it as a fire risk. She was also concerned to discover that the rubbish was not being dealt with properly, which might pose a health risk to her. Therefore, taking action on HMOs also serves the wider community.

I do not want to give the impression that all HMOs are bad. The HMO sector contains some good examples of well designed, well equipped and well managed housing. There are some excellent owners and they are to be commended, but this debate focuses on problems such as overcrowding, inadequate fire precautions, inadequate shared facilities, poor maintenance, bad management and harassment.

As recently as last Friday, I visited an HMO in my constituency and I am disappointed to say that the standards of disrepair that I have described were in evidence. The house had six tenants but was suitable for fewer. The stair carpet—shreds of a carpet would be a better description—was dangerously ripped, and there was no stair lighting. The house had an illegal loft conversion, and two internal doors had broken panes of glass with jagged edges, on which people could injure themselves. The owner must be getting almost £300 a week from the property, but it had only one smoke alarm—even that had no battery—and there was no fire blanket in the kitchen. The house was a disgrace, and an unpleasant reminder of the need for legislation to deal with this problem. The council is aware of the property, and has served legal notices on the owner to take corrective action, but that was two months ago. Each day that passes is another day on which the tenants face unnecessary risks.

Sometimes the tenants themselves are at least partially responsible for such problems, but that is no excuse for the owner's failure to take corrective action. Ultimately, if a tenant is making a property hazardous, he or she must be evicted, so that the lives and health of other tenants are not put at risk. In Swindon as well as nationally, bad owners of HMOs are generally unwilling to improve properties on their own initiative or at the suggestion of tenants. Therefore, the first step to improving such properties is their identification by councils. Helpful suggestions from councils achieve results on only a few occasions. Councils use existing statutory powers to compel bad owners to improve standards but, as the example that I mentioned has shown, that does not produce a quick response.

Cases where financial assistance is offered in the form of a grant provide the only exceptions to the standard response from many bad owners. However, it is very unusual for a landlord to approach a council for advice on standards. The most unscrupulous owners prefer to remain anonymous, in the hope that their properties will remain undiscovered. Under current legislation, owners are not required to seek prior approval. They know that, if they are discovered, the worst that can happen is to be asked to carry out improvements. Ultimately, that breeds a culture of secrecy among many owners, and creates a barrier to their necessary education and involvement in improving the HMO sector.

In addition to the many HMOs that remain undetected, there is the huge problem of poor management and maintenance in properties that have previously been inspected and approved. According to Swindon borough council, once such premises are rendered acceptable, many owners lose interest and do not feel obliged to maintain standards. When subsequent inspections are made, it is therefore common to find defective fire safety equipment, amenities in disrepair, and other unsatisfactory conditions resulting from lack of maintenance by the owner. More often than not, a council's staff resources do not allow a proactive re-inspection programme.

Councils can establish registration schemes, and I have urged Swindon borough council to consider doing so. It is looking into the matter but, given the current regulations, such a scheme would not be as straightforward or simple to operate as a streamlined national system. Existing planning controls are weak, particularly in relation to small HMOs with fewer than six occupants. Such HMOs, which do not require planning consent, proliferate in Swindon.

Swindon borough council has considerable experience in tackling poor housing conditions, but it finds the current controls cumbersome and often ineffective in achieving the lasting improvements to HMOs that we want. A national system would allow a list to be drawn up of people who were judged to be unsuitable to own HMOs.

The early introduction of a mandatory licensing system would impose an absolute and unambiguous duty on all owners to declare the HMOs under their control. The message would be clear—that failure to do so would leave them liable to prosecution. Furthermore, owners would be aware that HMOs would not be licensed until they met minimum standards based on clear Government guidelines, and that licences could be withdrawn if the standard requirements were not maintained. Perhaps most important, tenants' awareness of the standards to be expected would be raised and they would have greater confidence to come forward and complain if standards were not maintained.

On the detail of the legislation, the same concerns and arguments arise time and again. I emphasise that I am not pressing for massive new regulation; I want better and simpler regulation. For example, a facility to specify the maximum number of occupants on a licence for any particular property would greatly simplify the current statutory powers. A comprehensive licensing scheme would make the controls in the Housing Act 1996 redundant, so the Government could repeal all those regulations. Swindon borough council would welcome that.

Safety is of first importance, and most owners recognise their responsibility and the regulatory role of Government and councils. Fire safety is the key. The Labour Government treats fire safety very seriously and the social exclusion unit has done excellent work as part of its neighbourhood renewal strategy. The risk of death from fire in HMOs varies considerably, as do standards of repair. However, research has shown that in several types of HMOs, the risk is considerably higher than in comparable single-occupancy dwellings. Occupants of houses comprising bedsits are about six times more likely to die as a result of fire than are adults in an ordinary house.

I spoke yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who told me that one of her constituents had died in a fire in an HMO because there was no adequate escape route from the fire. A window was jammed and there was no extinguisher, so the house was obviously unsafe. The owner was taken to court and fined at a level that did not reflect the consequences of the action. That decision did not send a strong signal to other HMO owners that it is unacceptable to place people's lives at risk in that way, and it shows again how important it is that further action is taken. The owner of that HMO owned properties throughout the country, which emphasises the need for a national scheme, including a list of owners who are unsuitable to run HMOs.

Better practice, particularly in fire safety, is important. I am a keen advocate of sprinklers in domestic properties. A demonstration house at West Swindon fire station shows very effectively how sprinklers can save lives and minimise the risk to property. I invite the Minister to come and see that for himself. Sprinklers in HMOs could make a big impact on fire safety, and the National Fire Sprinkler Network has examined that. It has called for sprinkler systems to be included in the guidelines of any future legislation. In new build homes, the cost of installing sprinklers is minimal and it is even becoming more economical to install sprinklers in existing properties. With sensible insurance policies, they could provide a quick payback to owners, particularly owners of HMOs. Immediate installation of sprinklers in all HMOs is not practical, but I hope that owners will be encouraged to install them because of our experience of fires in HMOs.

The organisations with an interest in this area have widely welcomed the Government's proposals in the Green Paper. We need action now. Legislation must include a broad definition of HMOs to encompass not only larger HMOs in Swindon, but smaller HMOs, which often place people most at risk.

I do not want a new scheme to lead irresponsible owners to seek to convert their property to one of the exempt categories, thus creating a two-tier sector of licensed and unlicensed properties, the latter being the death traps that we want to see the back of. Wholesale reform is needed, with existing controls repealed and a new, simplified scheme in their place. That would be better than modifying current legislation. We want a simple scheme that helps owners and councils to protect the thousands of people who currently live in squalid and dangerous conditions in HMOs. When do we want it? We want it now. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised an important matter and made her case clearly and powerfully. I share her concern about the poor standards of physical condition and management that can be found in houses in multiple occupation. As she said, other areas of the country, including Sunderland, which I represent, have the same problems as Swindon, but on a greater scale. I am very much alive to the difficulties. Whole areas of Sunderland have been dragged down because of the grip of absentee landlords on a street. My hon. Friend is pushing at an open door.

The Government remain committed to introducing a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation—and now I must use a phrase that my hon. Friend will have heard before—as soon as parliamentary time allows. She will appreciate that my Department must bid for parliamentary time against the Government's other priorities. Therefore, it will be necessary to wait for the Queen's Speech. If my hon. Friend is disappointed, there are things that can be done in the interim, as she acknowledged. Swindon does not yet have a registration scheme, and while such a scheme would not solve all the problems that she outlined, it would make a difference. She is right to encourage taking that route as an interim measure.

Few people, I think, would disagree that current provisions for houses in multiple occupation, which have been amended piecemeal over five decades, are unsatisfactory and not always easy to understand. Court judgments have also cast doubt over which properties fall under the current definition of houses in multiple occupation. Understandably, that uncertainty has led to some local housing authorities expressing reluctance to use their existing powers. That is why we are determined to replace existing powers in relation to houses in multiple occupation with a regime that is simpler to implement and which provides a much more effective and accessible framework for intervention. That will provide protection where it is most needed and benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike.

I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that a number of specific management problems are associated with houses in multiple occupation, which, combined with the higher risks to tenants' health and safety, have made the use of existing powers difficult. Those include a lack of clear management responsibility, evasive or absentee landlords, a lack of funds, irresponsible as well as vulnerable tenants and problems caused by poor management for immediate neighbours. My hon. Friend referred to all those issues.

Where houses in multiple occupation are subject to licensing, a single individual, resident in the United Kingdom, will be nominated as a fully responsible representative or duty-holder for each property. That will enable local authorities to identify who is responsible for meeting the requirements and conditions imposed under licensing. The licensing regime will also address the need for tenants to co-operate with landlords by respecting fire safety measures and allowing access for inspections. That approach will aid local housing authorities in identifying who is responsible for the health and safety of tenants, but will also encourage and support well-intentioned landlords in meeting their obligations and duties. We are determined to improve management practice in the sector of houses in multiple occupation. There is scope to strengthen the existing management regulations and we intend to do that without waiting for primary legislation.

Hon. Members will know that it had been our intention to consult separately on physical standards for houses in multiple occupation. It is very helpful in this respect that, in parallel with the reforms, we have been reviewing the housing fitness standard for all dwellings. The key to those changes is the recent development of a new housing health and safety rating system, which allows a wide variety of hazards to occupants' health and safety to be identified and quantified.

The rating system will, in time, replace the existing relatively narrow pass or fail standard and will apply to any unit of residential accommodation and to all landlords. It will reflect more accurately tenants' perceptions of the condition of their accommodation and the problems that threaten their health and safety. It will also permit a more proportionate enforcement response, which will enable responsible landlords to raise their game on the foundation of good regulation.

The rating system is no less relevant to houses in multiple occupation than it is to single-occupancy housing. As a result, it will form an integral part of our licensing system as the principal tool in assessing the physical condition of houses. All assessment and enforcement of physical standards in houses in multiple occupation will eventually be done using the housing health and safety rating system, with further risk-based guidance on fire, overcrowding and amenity standards.

Fire safety is a particular area of concern, and risk of death is significantly higher in HMOs than in single occupancy dwellings. Current legislation and guidance includes substantial guidance on fire safety measures for HMOs. In addition, the Housing (Fire Safety in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997 has widened local authority powers in respect of higher risk HMOs. Under this order, local authorities have a statutory duty, in consultation with the local fire authority, to ensure that fire safety measures are adequate in all HMOs of three storeys or above. The order has been phased in over the past three years and came into effect fully on 29 February this year.

For new or converted HMOs, building regulations have clear requirements regarding fire safety. Furthermore the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990, impose a duty on the manager of an HMO to maintain all equipment provided by way of fire precautions. My colleagues in the Home Office are also proposing to update fire safety legislation. One of the proposals under consideration is to develop a general duty of fire safety care, which would apply to all multi-occupied dwellings.

I am aware of the growing body of support for the provision of residential sprinklers in houses in multiple occupation. My hon. Friend mentioned the experiment in Swindon. Version one of the rating system guidance includes sprinklers as an option for multi-occupancy buildings. That does not mean that they would be mandatory for HMOs, but it does mean that where the risk is justified and where occupants are particularly vulnerable, sprinklers may well be appropriate. In view of the substantial cost and the need to protect the supply of cheap HMO accommodation, the case for sprinkler installation must be based on a proper risk assessment.

The development of the rating system means that we will be able greatly to simplify enforcement procedures by abolishing the current, separate standards of fitness for HMOs and provide housing authorities with a single set of powers and duties in respect of house condition. That will benefit tenants, local authorities and responsible landlords by promoting greater consistency. We think that there is much merit in legislating for the rating system at the same time as licensing. In practical terms, this will avoid two changes in quick succession.

Under our licensing proposals, local authorities will have a duty to licence higher-risk HMO premises such as bed-sits, hostels and larger shared houses. We also envisage a discretionary power for local authorities to extend licensing to smaller shared houses where that is justified by local circumstances, such as high concentrations of student lettings found in certain neighbourhoods in university towns. Land-use planning issues will continue to be treated separately from licensing, although before issuing a licence, authorities should consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether planning consent is also required for a change of use. At present local authorities are not required to reduce or cap existing concentrations of a particular form of tenure, whether owner-occupation or social or private renting. Planning legislation does not define 'multiple occupation' or HMO as such, but does rely on both the concept of a 'single household' and 'family' in making distinctions for land-use purposes. We are not proposing to amend planning legislation.

We also propose to introduce a broader definition of HMO based on the relationship of those living together rather than their mode of living. That will make the issue of whether a property is an HMO less critical and, in any case, the rating system will be relevant whether or not the property falls within the new definition.

We are determined to make bad landlords improve their performance or get out of the sector. The health and safety of tenants is paramount. However, we must ensure that the impact of regulation and legislation does not impose unreasonable burdens on responsible landlords, or we risk adversely affecting the supply of this valuable source of accommodation.

While I recognise the concern for speedy legislation, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we must do all we can to modernise and rationalise the confusing mass of controls, and ensure that future legislation is an improvement on existing statutes. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that the framework I have outlined today will strengthen local authorities' powers and duties to intervene when the quality of HMO accommodation or management causes anxiety. As I said earlier, in the interim there is nothing to stop local authorities setting up their own licensing system; indeed, we encourage it. That will leave them in a much better position to take up future powers in respect of HMOs. Hon. Members may be assured that HMO licensing remains a priority, whether or not time is found for it in the Queen's Speech.