I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate, hard on the heels of my question to the Prime Minister on 15 November about his plans to abolish community health councils. The questions raised by the Government's proposals are important and urgent for national health service patients and users, NHS staff and those who are employed by, or who do voluntary work for, CHCs. They are important to the people of this country in general. I know that I have support from right hon. and hon. Members of all parties in my concern about the planned scrapping of CHCs. I am glad that so many are present this morning. In particular I welcome the shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).

Given the importance that the Secretary of State for Health attaches to the Government's proposal, and with due respect to the less than lucky junior Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has been sent to reply to the debate, it is to be noted and regretted that—notwithstanding the embryonic conventions of this parallel Chamber, which are admittedly not yet settled—the Secretary of State is not here to answer for his and the Prime Minister's unpopular, unjustified and peevish policy of scrapping CHCs. It would have been better to see the Secretary of State here, with the courage of his convictions, defending the indefensible before his party's Back Benchers, let alone the massed ranks of the Conservative Opposition and other parties.

I start my remarks in such a tone, despite the expectation that this Chamber attempts to force consensus, because the Government's proposals to scrap CHCs are contentious and flawed. The issue is not of my, or the Opposition's, invention. That dubious honour belongs to the Government. Those who care about NHS patients' needs and their representation are bitterly opposed to the Government on this issue.

Some of my first constituency visits, since being elected to this House 16 months ago, have been to the two CHCs in the Eddisbury constituency. They are Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC and Cheshire Central CHC. I have maintained regular contact with them ever since. I am greatly impressed by their work and expertise, their care and volunteerism, their independence, the respect in which they are held by NHS providers across south and west Cheshire and their effectiveness in achieving real and proportionate results in a sober and professional way. They are led by experienced, expert, committed people. I am glad that Geoff Ryall-Harvey, who heads the team at Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC, is attending the debate. Mrs. Jean French runs the team at Cheshire Central CHC.

Community health councils were established as part of the major re-organisation of the NHS in 1974 under a Conservative Government. That was a positive and pioneering step. The councils have a statutory duty to represent the local community's interest in the health service, which includes acting as patient advocates in complaints involving the NHS. They are rightly often referred to as the independent health watchdogs. Most recently, South East Kent CHC played a pivotal role in the exposure of the Kent gynaecologist Rodney Ledward. In another well-known case, the CHC ensured that the victims of Harold Shipman were supported.

There are 204 CHCs in England and Wales. Similar bodies—local health councils—exist in Scotland. Northern Ireland has health and social services councils. I shall restrict my remarks to the English and Welsh bodies. Community health councils are made up of between 16 and 30 lay members, from all walks of life, with a chairman, a chief officer and varying numbers of staff. The chief officer is a paid employee of the NHS and sometimes one other worker is paid. Half the membership is made up of people appointed by the local authority, although they need not be councillors. A third are appointed by voluntary organisations and a sixth by the NHS. The employees and 5,000 unpaid, committed volunteers have a full work load. It is estimated that the volunteer CHC members contribute free labour worth nearly £8 million to the NHS.

Crucially, CHCs are independent of health authorities and boards, and of NHS trusts, which CHCs monitor. CHCs' functions are to visit NHS premises and make representations to health care managers about improvements in patients' interests, to consult on and review planning and development of local health services, to provide information about those services, and to monitor their quality through, for example, consumer surveys to find out what local people need from the NHS.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many cases, community health councils operate on a shoestring? For 12 or 15 volunteers and, perhaps, one and a half paid members of staff to carry out that list of functions is unrealistic. We should resource CHCs better.

The hon. Lady makes an extraordinary accusation. Most hon. Members would agree that CHCs have been extremely cost-effective, as well as effective on behalf of patients. It is extraordinary to suggest that they are failing because they do not have enough money to carry out the functions that they have been designed to achieve, and have successfully achieved.

I shall finish the list of what community health councils do effectively, admittedly with small financial resources, by saying that they must assist with complaints. Each year, CHCs assist around 30,000 people with complaints against the NHS by giving free, independent and confidential support.

Since 1974, CHCs have enjoyed generally widespread support, including from Members of Parliament of all parties, as evidenced by the 90 signatories to early-day motion 595 in the previous Session, which congratulated CHCs on their 25th anniversary.

The chief officer of Cheshire Central, one of my local CHCs, wrote to me on 17 August, saying:

We were looking forward to the arrival of the government's NHS Plan,

which was published at the end of July.

However, hopes were shattered when we eventually found the paragraph at the end of Chapter 10 which states bluntly that CHCs are to be abolished.

The option of abolition had not been discussed with CHCs or their national association and in fact comments had been made by ministers and civil servants indicating a strong future for us. No consultation has taken place on this and CHC staff have still (3 weeks later) had no direct communication from the Department of Health to say their jobs are to disappear.

There are two problems. The first is the absence of a proper democratic and consultative process that provides a rational basis for the Government's peremptory decision to scrap CHCs. The second is the substantive question of whether there is justification for the Government's plan to scrap independent CHCs and replace them, in-house at the NHS, with the so-called patient advocacy liaison services—PALS for short—and a plethora of sundry forums, representatives, committees and other bodies. That is, I suggest, yet another example of this Government's passion for complexity and divide-and-rule tactics, in this case against NHS patients' interests.

Let me deal with the failure of due process. Through the now Secretary of State for Health, the Government repeatedly stated before the publication of their NHS plan that they envisaged

No immediate changes to Community Health Councils.—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 454W.]

Also relevant is column 262W of the Hansard for 17 June 1998. It was later stated:

Community health councils are independent statutory bodies whose role is to represent the interests of the public in their districts in health service matters.—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 167W.]

One can imagine the consternation and despondency of those who work in CHCs on reading the Government's brusque, dismissive decision in July. The staff of my local CHCs have made that reaction clear to me in our regular discussions. However, the growing realisation of others carried the most weight for me. I was contacted by several constituents with NHS complaints and concerns, on whose cases I had worked in tandem with local CHCs. Naturally, the obligations of confidentiality preclude the identification of individuals, but their common reaction was to be aghast that their local CHC, which they regarded as a friend in need, was to be abolished. As CHCs are independent of the NHS, those patients, who felt vulnerable and let down, relied on them primarily because they felt that they could trust CHCs to guide them through the NHS maze and ensure that their complaints were addressed.

I tested the matter further. Like other constituencies, Eddisbury contains a number of NHS administrative areas, so I have convened the so-called Eddisbury health forum, which brings NHS service providers to my constituents together for regular meetings. At the last meeting, a month ago, the health authority, the two NHS hospital trusts, the two community health care trusts and the two primary care groups said, as the minutes of the meeting record:

South Cheshire Health Authority were disappointed at the demise of CHCs in March 2002 and appreciated the role they played in assisting patients with complaints. Concern was expressed that there could be a conflict of loyalty between Trust Boards and PALs and it would be helpful if those advising patients retained some degree of independence.

On 15 November, I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time whether he was aware that his proposals to scrap community health councils—the independent watchdogs for NHS patients—were bitterly opposed by my constituents, patients and staff, and whether he would drop those plans. He responded:

I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on. If he goes round the country, however, the hon. Gentleman will find that people in certain areas do not believe that community health councils have been as effective as they might be. It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 937.]

That is a surprising and encouraging reply. Despite the language and process adopted by the Government up to that point, the Prime Minister clearly intended to convey that he agreed that his proposals were bitterly opposed, but that they were being consulted upon. The report back to the House carried the hope that the issue remained open. I sensed, I fear wrongly, the prime ministerial hand on the steering wheel, about to execute a U-turn. I was not alone. On Monday 20 November, Ms Donna Covey, director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, or ACHCEW—it could be read "atchoo", which would be appropriate if one thought that it was catching a cold— wrote to the Prime Minister:

CHC members and staff were interested in your response to the parliamentary question on the abolition of CHCs, from Stephen O'Brien MP, on 15 November 2000. Many people, including members of the public who have contacted us, interpreted your response as indicating that the abolition of CHCs will be subject to consultation. We have, to date, been given the opposite advice by health ministers on many occasions and in quite specific terms. As I am sure you will imagine, this is a very difficult time for CHC members and staff, who face tremendous uncertainties over their future. Members of the public are also asking questions about how their views will be represented in the health service in the future. The Welsh Assembly is consulting on how best to deliver patient empowerment and public involvement, before making a decision on the future of CHCs. If your government is now intending to do the same prior to making a final decision on whether to place abolition of CHCs before Parliament, that will be very welcome indeed. However, this is not what we understand the situation to be. There clearly needs to be clarity on the processes around this part of the national plan, and I would be grateful for any advice that your office can give.

I am not aware whether the Prime Minister has responded to Ms Covey, but hon. Members will be as surprised as I was that, late on the same day, I received a three-page letter from the Prime Minister. I shall quote the essential elements, which best demonstrate the Government's failure to conduct a democratic, consultative process:

Dear Stephen,

I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature of the consultation in which we are currently engaged…Our proposals mean that community health councils are to be abolished, subject to legislation… This better describes the consultation I alluded to in my answer during Prime Minister's Question Time.

Apparently, an Evening Standard journalist was subsequently told that the Prime Minister's response to me was a "slip of the tongue". Oh dear, what a tangled web the Prime Minister weaves.

The disappointment for English CHCs is huge. We have heard that, under the Welsh Assembly's process, the Welsh CHCs are at least being spared this failure of consultation. The Prime Minister raised the hopes of CHC members and staff in his answer to me, but he and his Government have now backtracked and, in effect, are saying that they have decided to abolish CHCs, come what may. They will use the fig leaf of "consultation", but no matter what anyone says, they will not listen.

In this sorry tale of the Government saying one thing and doing another, ACHCEW published a note on its website entitled, "The abolition of CHCs—consultation or imposition?" That note reaffirms that the abolition of CHCs has not been the subject of consultation, by highlighting certain facts.

First, there has never been any consultation around the statement in the National Plan that "Community Health Councils will be abolished".

The National Plan statement came completely out of the blue. The process that took place prior to the publication of the national plan did not touch on the possibility of abolishing CHCs. Indeed, on 26 June, a month before the publication of the National Plan, the

Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, advised:

"CHCs … will be essential in ensuring the representation of patients during the implementation of the National Plan and in the new NHS. They will also be involved in the work on patient empowerment which will be taken forward as part of the National Plan."

It is, therefore, clear that no consultation took place on the abolition of CHCs prior to the publication of the National Plan. Richard Gordon QC advised ACHCEW that

"In my opinion, the consultation process over the new NHS plan was … legally flawed."Secondly, there has been no consultation on the decision since the announcement of the abolition of CHCs.

Following that announcement, ACHCEW wrote to the Secretary of State for Health, expressing particular concern about the failure to consult. The response from

the Under-Secretary

was:

"There are a number of questions we still need to resolve as regards the transitional arrangements for CHCs and ACHCEW. We shall ensure that you and all CHC staff and members are kept up to date with decisions as they are made."

Some time later,

the Under-Secretary

contacted the Association, and advised:

"On the understanding that the Secretary of State will not be reviewing the decision put before Parliament to abolish CHCs, I nevertheless agree with your earlier suggestion that a meeting would be very useful."

That was the only meeting between ACHCEW and the Under-Secretary. She responded to the opinion of Richard Gordon, QC by saying:

"We do not accept that ACHCEW or Community Health Councils had any legitimate expectation to be consulted in relation to the proposal that CHCs should be abolished in primary legislation to be introduced in parliament in due course … the Secretary of State will not be reviewing his decision to put legislation before parliament to abolish CHCs."

Thirdly, the dialogue on patient empowerment that has taken place since the announcement of he National Plan has not dealt with the decision to abolish CHCs.

Following the announcement of the national plan, five national seminars have taken place. One of them was a repeat of the first seminar, because it was held at such short notice—

but we have heard that before. The seminars were supposed to give participants

"a say on the key issues that need to be addressed as we develop the new mechanisms for patient empowerment." They have covered the following four topics:

PALS and the Patients Forum

The Independent Local Advisory Forum

Representing the views of patients—

and—can you believe it?—

Bringing it all together.

There has been minimal paperwork for these seminars, in some cases nothing more than an agenda. There has been no space on any of the days to reopen the debate around the abolition of CHCs. Attendance at these seminars has not been open, with participants being individually invited by the Department of Health.

ACHCEW is holding a seminar on 4th December to discuss the National Plan. Whilst

The Under-Secretary

has agreed to speak at the meeting. she has made it quite clear that:

"I will be unable to answer questions relating to the Government's proposal to abolish CHCs".

I would find it helpful when summing up if the hon. Gentleman explained his semantic interpretation of the distinction between consultation and participation at a number of seminars, which were all attended by representatives of the CHCs.

The Under-Secretary makes a fundamental point, which goes to the heart of the argument—and, indeed, to the heart of democracy. I draw not only on my relatively short parliamentary experience but on my business experience. There is a massive misunderstanding about the word "consultation". It is applied differently in many countries.

Consultation is generally expected to mean, "I have a proposal. I wish to listen to everyone's views and, in the light of those views, I shall reach a decision"; so everyone has the right to be involved in the decision-making process. The consultation that we are faced with is the sort of consultation that I am used to finding in continental Europe. There—for instance, in consultation with European workers' councils — it often means, "You have a right to your point of view. We shall have an exchange of views, but I will not change my decision as a right of management." That is a direct response to the Under-Secretary's challenge on semantics. In my experience, the word "consultation" is appallingly abused; those who, in the hope that the word means something, would like an influence on decision making are often excluded from that process.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the House, within the last 24 hours, a worse example has occurred of the way in which the Government have pursued their attitude to community health councils? In last night's debate on the mistitled Freedom of Information Bill, the Government tabled an amendment, in the third group, that referred to the very community health councils that they had announced that they were abolishing. That was a nonsense, as was the fact that we did not debate the third group of amendments because we got only as far as the first two of nine groups — due to the Government's ludicrous guillotine, in national guillotine week. The Opposition did not have the opportunity to point out how ludicrous it was for the Government to change their Bill to refer to community health councils that they had already decided to abolish.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are demonstrating, in national guillotine week, that they hold in contempt the democratic traditions and checks and balances enshrined in our valuable and ancient constitution. It is a great shame that bodies as valuable as community health councils have become trapped by the Government's arrogant mentality. The Minister responsible for the letters that I cited earlier is present and it must be said that, by any test, the process—or lack of process—that the Government have adopted is a complete and abject failure to achieve what is expected in a democratic country. The Government appear arrogantly hell-bent on implementing that fundamental change. Their actions are more those of the playground bully than of a responsible, listening Government.

I have been listening to my hon. Friend's argument, with which I entirely agree. Why does he believe that the Government seek to abolish CHCs, which are popular in my constituency and throughout the country? Is that popularity not due to their genuine independence and patient empowerment? The Government do not want that, and that is why they are abolishing CHCs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents, as I do, a Cheshire constituency. I hope that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who also has a Cheshire constituency, will entirely endorse those sentiments. We are extremely blessed in Cheshire with the quality and dedication of our local CHCs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, it is their independence, patient empowerment and, above all, the quality of the work that they deliver for patients that gives them such strength of repute in our county.

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Chester and Ellesmere Port CHCalthough —it is a pity that its chief officer did not tell me that he was coming today. On what experience does the hon. Gentleman draw in extending his praise of that CHC to the rest of the country? Are not CHCs throughout the country failing?

The obligation to respect confidentiality precludes naming those who have benefited from our experience in Cheshire, particularly with regard to complaints. Of course some of the 204 CHCs across the country are not working well, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. The sense of independence is valued. When patients using the NHS have a concern or find that the service that they are entitled to expect has been wanting, their knowledge of that track record of independence enables them to put their faith in the CHC, at what is often a vulnerable time when they need all the support and professional help that they can get.

As for parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal to abolish CHCs, right hon. and hon. Members—to date, no fewer than 137—have put their names to early-day motion 1103—including the Conservative Front Bench amendment—since it was tabled less than a month ago. The signatories are Members from both sides of the House, representing English and Welsh constituencies. However, considering the Government's approach to early-day motions, that is hardly scrutiny.

The only debate to date was in the other place a month ago, when the Minister, the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, sought to defend the Government's decision but avoided any mention of the consultation process — or lack of it—other than the prospect of some so-called stakeholder meetings. I look forward to the Minister's apology for the Government's woeful lack of consultation. Will the Government listen to representations on the proposals and confirm their willingness to be swayed to change their mind? That is what I would expect the word "consultation" to mean; if not, the only rational conclusion — this is partly in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield — is that the Government are determined to use their large majority in the House to ram through the unjustified abolition of community health councils. They want to rid themselves of the effective, independent watchdogs for national health service patients that properly criticise the NHS — and the Government — when it fails patients. That is perhaps not surprising in an institution as large, complex and unwieldy as the NHS.

We must ask with what the Government plan to replace CHCs and why they plan to do so, given, as the Prime Minister agreed, that there is bitter opposition to their proposals that the patient advocacy and liaison service will be set up and run within NHS trusts and their reporting lines. Those and other new bodies are characterised by their lack of independence from the NHS; they will operate from hospitals and other NHS premises, including customer service-type desks in hospital reception areas. The proposed new system is fragmented and the new structure will thus be more expensive, more cumbersome and less effective. The new bodies will lack statutory powers: the powers currently vested in CHCs are destined to disappear, so the new bodies will be little more than focus groups.

Patients with complaints frequently say that they do not trust anyone employed by the hospital. Many complainants, especially the bereaved, are reluctant to enter hospital premises because of the painful memories that they revive. The new bodies will lack independence and thus lack credibility with patients and their families.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sat on a CHC for four years and am closely allied with the CHCs in my constituency. Their attraction for the ordinary patient is that they are seen as the patient's friend because they are at arm's length from the health service, in separate shops in high streets away from health authority buildings, manned by people who are not seen as employees or lapdogs of the local health authority. That attraction will be entirely lost under the Government's proposals.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that point has been made to me frequently in my constituency and by hon. Members who were conscious of this debate.

The Government propose that PALS should be hospital-led, not patient-led, as CHCs are at present, and it will inevitably suffer from the strains of providing a service, for example to primary care trusts, which will be developed from the present smaller primary care groups and are likely to cover between 30 and 50 surgeries.

What will be the consequences of the Government's ideas on local authority involvement? Local authority members already feel relatively free to act in the best interests of patients, in conjunction with their colleagues in the voluntary sector. The Government's proposals will tilt the local authority committees into acting in allegiance on party political lines, thus doing nothing for, and probably distorting, local authority scrutiny.

One reason given by the Government for abolishing CHCs is that they are not known to the man on the street, but I assure the Minister that in Cheshire they are known, and respected, especially by patients who need them. I hazard a guess that a poll to discover how many people know who is the Secretary of State for Health would reveal that only a small percentage could name him—perhaps less than those who are aware of CHCs.

Like the Minister.

I shall not trespass on that territory and find out how many would know the Minister by name.

I am not aware that the Government propose to scrap the Secretary of State for Health. He is reported as saying in a television interview that CHCs are

dinosaurs without relevance in the modern health service.

Leaving aside the gratuitous insult to the thousands of dedicated CHC workers in this country, the CHCs fully accept, and were pushing the Government to accept, that they can and should change and improve. They are not dinosaurs. As I mentioned, some CHCs are not working well, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

The Government's peevish plan to replace CHCs with a plethora of supine bodies has incurred the dismay of many important third parties, of which I highlight but a brief sample. The Law Society said:

if CHCs are abolished there will be no local body with sufficient independence, responsibility and power to help to resolve patients' complaints. Abolishing the CHCs will reduce patient rights and incur greater costs.

Despite being a signatory to the NHS plan, Dr. Ian Bogle, chairman of the British Medical Association, said that the proposals

would seriously threaten patient advocacy.

Age Concern says:

The independence of PALS is open to question given that they will be employees of the NHS, and could even be an added layer through which a patient needs to take a complaint. It is vital that advocacy services are independent and can deal with all aspects of care.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about independence, but current CHC employees are NHS employees. Has he thought of any other possible solutions to promote independence?

The hon. Gentleman is right in that the funding for the chief officer comes from the NHS budget. Not only has the arm's length relationship been created, but the way that CHC appointments are balanced ensures that they are considerably influenced and guided by the volunteer sector. Only a sixth of CHC members come from the NHS. There is a crucial link. They are required to have local knowledge, familiarity and a sense of participation, but they have a reputation for being at arm's length. CHCs are not an in-house NHS creature and they sit aside from the NHS with statutory powers. That crucial difference gives them the proper reputation as independent and to be respected.

The Age Concern letter concluded:

There are concerns that being hospital based, they—

the PALS—

could be less effective in fulfilling the role of 'watchdog' in terms of primary and community health.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I see that there has been a change since I last looked up from my notes. I apologise, Mr. Gale. The Conservative party is pledged to retain CHCs, provided they have not been scrapped before the general election. If they have, the Conservative Government will reinstate a means by which patients can have a truly independent voice beyond the control of the NHS bureaucracy and politicians in Whitehall. I look forward to the shadow Secretary of State reinforcing that commitment and sharply delineating Conservative policies, putting patients' interests first, in stark contrast to this Government's politicians' first approach.

At Health questions a week ago, every hon. Member who asked the Secretary of State questions about CHCs—including no fewer than four Labour Members—supported their retention and urged the Secretary of State to think again. The Labour party is split on the issue and the Government are riding roughshod over their own Back Benchers. They plan to railroad these ill-thought-through proposals on their payroll vote. Constituents in Labour-held seats have the right to ask their MPs why they wish to scrap their local CHCs.

Why change something that works? Why put politicians before patients? Why destroy patients' trust by removing the independence of their NHS watchdog? Why should a Government long on employee relations rhetoric, cause such distress to CHC employees and volunteers? They are clearly a Government short on responsible employment practice. Why should there be such a complex and supine new system?

The Government's plan to scrap independent CHCs and replace them with a plethora of NHS in-house bodies is a thoroughly bad proposal, which is opposed on the broadest of fronts. The Government should think again and have the courage and confidence to admit that they got this wrong, rather than arrogantly ram through the abolition of CRCs for their own political convenience at the expense of the interests of NHS patients in Cheshire and the length and breadth of the country.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate, which many hon. Members, including myself, have sought to obtain.

We can all agree from the outset that there is concern, inside and outside Parliament, about the future of community health councils. The work of CHCs is important for individual health service users and for the community. CHCs and their equivalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland cover every parliamentary constituency, which helps to explain why the all-party parliamentary group on community health councils, which I have the honour to chair, is one of the largest in this place.

If we can all agree about the concern, we can also agree about the wider context of the debate—the national health service plan, which is welcomed by community health councils and others throughout the country. The plan is ambitious and far-reaching and aims to create a national health service in which the patient is the most important person. The plan is underpinned by the most generous and sustained commitment of additional resources ever in the history of the national health service.

If the plan is so important to the future of health care in the United Kingdom, why has the House never been given an opportunity to debate it?

I am sure that there will be many opportunities to do so, and we are debating aspects of it now. The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to secure further debate on the subject. It is because of the importance of the NHS plan and its positive context that the issues raised in our debate today deserve such careful attention.

We are talking about the future of community health councils in England. Health matters are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: in each case, the devolved authorities, instead of committing themselves to the principle of abolition, decided to consult on methods of adding to and reforming the basic health council structure.

My approach to the proposals on patient empowerment and community health councils in England is set out in early-day motion 1103, which is tabled in my name and has attracted more than 100 signatures to date. It is intended to demonstrate the measured and serious intention of parliamentarians to deal with the many issues and questions that arise from the Government's proposals. I refer, in particular, to the need for independence, local and national integration, appropriate statutory powers and access to information and support mechanisms to identify and promote best practice. Those considerations must be widely and carefully probed and then addressed—not least because, as they stand, the proposals beg more questions than answers and are notably thin on detail. That is widely understood.

I want to make it clear that these matters must be dealt with seriously and in detail, because I want the system to work. I want the national health service user and the communities served by the NHS to take a greater interest in their service, to participate more in it and to be listened to more by it. The mechanisms must be in place to deliver that desirable state of affairs. I want that to happen because it is right in principle and because it would provide greater depth and meaning to the widespread public support and good will felt for the NHS in this country.

The key question is: will the proposals for the new system of patient empowerment and community involvement provide the necessary mechanism? More important, will they do so better than community health councils?

Community health councils have done good work since they were established in 1974, but they certainly cannot deliver the necessary changes without reform. That is not at issue. The councils themselves and their national organisation in England and Wales have said for some time that that is the case. That is why the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales established, in March 1999, an independent commission to consider public interests in the national health service. That is also why several councils have taken useful initiatives about better ways of working and why, in June, ACHCEW submitted a document to the Department of Health's modernisation action team on patient empowerment. I am unsure to what extent those contributions have informed the NHS plan. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what notice was taken of them during the plan's preparation?

Many questions relating to the future of community health councils and the proposed new structures are already well rehearsed. I do not propose to cover all that ground today. I shall focus my remarks on the fragmentation that results from the redistribution of CHCs' functions between PALS, patients' forums, advisory committees, local council scrutiny committees and the Commission for Health Improvement. As the proposals stand, the first four bodies to which I referred—probably all five — are in danger of being isolated. They will need integration, information sharing, co-ordination and support. Something is missing from the proposals in that respect.

I served for several years on the social services committee of Bedfordshire county council. At the same time, I was a member of the North and Mid Bedfordshire community health council. The cross-fertilisation of ideas and information that I gained from my involvement in both bodies was invaluable. I am convinced that, to carry out the scrutiny function effectively, local councils will need easy access to independent and reliable sources of information about the national health service scene in their locality. I have given some thought, as have many others, to how that might be provided, for not only local councils but all the players and partners in the Government's proposed new arrangements.

The Commission for Health Improvement is an independent, national public sector organisation charged with inspecting, reviewing and developing the quality of every national health service trust every four years — more frequently, when problems develop. It also considers clinical governance issues and, as part of that duty, examines trends in complaints. For example, it is carrying out a root and branch inspection of the acute sections of Bedford general hospital, meeting with stakeholders, staff, service users and the trust board. The body is expected to produce draft recommendations for improvement during the 15-week inspection, and a final report, which will be made public. That report will set out a programme for improvement, which will require careful and detailed monitoring.

The Commission for Health Improvement will require a local presence to perform that essential and welcome task; it will surely not be able to do so from its national headquarters on the tenth floor of Finsbury tower. Given that it needs to maintain a local presence, why should it not use the offices of the local community health councils? Why not increase that presence by providing a secretariat service to carry out co-ordination, integration and information-sharing functions, which are essential if the new arrangements are to work, and which are currently missing from the NHS plan? We could call it CHI-plus, but I am sure that others will come up with a better name.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission for Health Improvement is not an independent body? Its constitution—the Act that established it—requires it to take directions from the Secretary of State.

I understand it to be an arm's length body—among those interested in such matters, it is perceived as having an element of independence. Such issues can be developed. The CHI-plus solution is worth considering and exploring. CHI-plus, locally distributed, could also house PALS, so that patients and their families could be confident about the independence of patient advocacy, as the Select Committee on Health has strongly argued that they should be.

The debate on these important matters is now clearly engaged. There will be primary legislation. There is a great deal to do. They are important matters and we must get them right.

I am honoured to be secretary of the all-party group on community health councils. Before I came to Parliament, I was a member—and chair for four years—of Salford community health council, so I have personal experience of the tasks that are facing CHCs in an ever-changing and rapidly developing national health service and the ever-changing world of local government. The two functions are interrelated in many ways in terms of how they affect local people's health.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) secured the debate, because there are important issues for us to consider. I am disappointed, however, that the debate seems to be developing into arguments for the status quo versus arguments for change. I do not think that that is where we should be going—nor should the debate be about the success or failure of community health councils. In my experience, CHCs throughout the country do a fantastic job with the resources available to them.

The debate should be about CHCs growing, evolving, developing and building on their best practice. Whether we call them community health councils ought to be an irrelevance. We should be directing our minds to finding the best way to ensure that local people have a real say in the way in which their health service develops and in the services that are available locally—a democratic accountability of the NHS to the people that it serves. I hope that all of us, in all parties, can share those aims. We want a national health service that is democratically accountable to local people and that shapes the development of its services based on the real needs of local communities.

Does the hon. Lady agree that her aspiration that we could all work together to achieve that laudable objective might have been enhanced had there been genuine consultation, which clearly there has not? We have been offered abolition, not exciting development.

I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to use terms similar to those that I used, such as evolution, organic change, and growing and developing—"abolition" is a harsh word. I hope that we can move the debate on to discuss the growth and development of services and I am interested to hear the Minister's view of the future. On a personal level, I am passionately committed to local people having their say. The NHS is such a massive organisation and there has been a danger of it becoming remote and distanced from those that it serves. It does not have the same democratic structure as local government and it can sometimes be hard to call it to account.

I also believe, and I know from experience, that local people can help to make the national health service more effective, responsive and efficient. As patients, users and carers, local people know about the quality of local services because they have to use them on a daily basis, so they are the best people to inform us about what needs to be changed and improved. They also know clearly, sometimes from personal experience, where things are going wrong. We have a duty in the health service to learn from patients' own experience and to try to ensure that we do not repeat mistakes that can cause such massive personal distress.

Does the hon. Lady accept that replacing the community health council with a patient advocacy service ignores the point of there being a forum aspect for the community? For example, Solihull community health council was successful in persuading the health authority to increase the number of magnetic resonance imaging scan hours to ensure that the waiting list for such scans was below one year. Such actions will be lost as a result of the Government's decision to abolish community health councils.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. One of my worries is that, if patients forums are to be established in each trust, we could be in danger of losing the overarching nature that represents the community—something larger than individuals. Will the Minister say whether a structure could be set up along the lines of that being proposed in my community to ensure that a collective as well as an individual voice is based in each trust? Although it is right to have forums in each trust, I am worried that they will not be enough to secure the wider voice of the community.

Putting people at the heart of the NHS is the direction in which we should be moving. However, community health councils have had to operate on a shoestring budget for many years. My community health council had two members of staff, one full and one part time. It served 250,000 people. We were often inundated with complex complaints that had to be followed up through a labyrinthine system that took hours. We were expected to monitor the quality of five different trusts and the whole range of services that they provided. Given that Salford provides teaching facilities, regional specialties and adult forensic services that serve the entire country, the poor community health council was sometimes left struggling to provide a high-quality service. Moreover, we had to participate in consultations and deal with legal issues and other complex matters.

The Government's proposals under the NHS plan should ensure that patient empowerment and citizens' involvement are better resourced. There is certainly a commitment to put extra funding into the system and, at long last, I am delighted that it has been recognised that the duties placed on CHCs have been not only burdensome, but not in the best interests of the community, as a result of which people have often not been able to provide such a huge range of services. It is right to pay tribute to the hard work of not only CHC staff, but volunteers. Their commitment throughout the country is enormous. I urge the Government to ensure that, in whatever proposals replace CHCs, we do not undervalue, denigrate or lose the tremendous commitment of people who want to be involved in their local health service. It is hard enough to encourage people to participate in public service. It is a real challenge for all of us. When people want to have their say about the health service and communicate with their local community, we should welcome them with open arms and ensure that the facilities give them the chance to be involved.

I am proud of the CHC in Salford. It is progressive and forward looking. It is excited by the Government's proposals and Manchester, Salford and Trafford CHCs, of which there are five, are all in the health action zone, which is undertaking tremendously progressive work. They have recently set up a project to commission research—on a proper evidence base, not only on anecdotal issues—into what should be the shape of future mechanisms for ensuring patient empowerment and citizenship involvement. That began in October and will be running for the next six months. In March 2001, we should have the results of that in-depth consultation with local people about what they want in terms of their ability to participate in such mechanisms.

We should be encouraged by the fact that the base of such research sterns from the NHS plan, which states that the NHS will

shape its services around the needs and preferences of individual patients, their families and their carers…respond to different needs of different populations…work together with others to ensure a seamless service for patients…help keep people healthy and work to reduce health inequalities,

and, my goodness, we need to reduce health inequalities much faster than we have done. We must also recognise that the NHS does not operate alone. The factors that influence good health are much wider than the health service. They include good housing, decent education, safe, warm and affordable homes and safe streets in terms of accidents and crime and disorder. All those factors affect people's well-being and health. Whatever system we have for consulting local people, it must take into account that the NHS works with local government, voluntary groups and local businesses, all of which go to make up a community. In the past, we have been guilty of putting the NHS, local government and education in separate boxes. All those matters are integrated and the community's views on them must draw everything together.

In inner-city areas such as my constituency, extra complications are involved, such as the neighbourhood renewal strategy, education action zones, the single regeneration budget and Sure Start—wonderful Government initiatives, but they all require consultation. We should like to ensure that NHS consultation keys into all those other consultation mechanisms, otherwise we will be in danger of developing consultation fatigue.

We ask the same few people all the time to be involved in the consultation process. In Salford, we propose something quite radical—SPAN, the Salford participation network, which will involve local people coming together to form a community voice in addition to the individual patient forums. We shall have a blend of advocacy, support services, and, crucially, the authentic voice of local people, which will be independent and challenging. It will certainly not be a Government poodle. It will point out where we are going wrong as well as where we are going right. With support—it will require funding and resources—I hope that it will be a vibrant democratic body at the heart of the entire range of consultation, including not only the NHS but local government and all the crucial functions involved.

We must face up to the fact that the world is changing. Services and the way in which they are delivered in communities are changing. We cannot simply argue for the status quo. We need better consultation mechanisms. I am extremely worried that the voices of many marginalised and excluded people are never heard. Even in our community health council, we have done some analysis and found that people whose voices are not heard include adults in residential care. When are such people consulted? They also include children under 12, people who are homeless, frail older people, people who are illiterate, people whose first language is not English, people with dementia—difficult to consult, but it can be done—people with learning disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers and travellers. How often are the voices of such people heard in shaping local services? It is hard to consult those groups, but that does not mean that we should not try to do so and be imaginative and creative in the mechanisms that we put in place to do so. Those people deserve as much of a voice in the health service as mainstream members of the community.

The Government are well intentioned and the new proposals will help to give more people a voice in shaping the health service. Advocacy must be a top priority, because many people need support to make their case and advocacy services have been drastically underfunded, existing on perhaps an even shorter shoestring than community health councils.

Effective scrutiny is essential. That will be a new role for local authorities and they will need support to exercise it properly. Involving local authorities in examining how the health service functions in their communities may even take us back to the days when those authorities had much more of a say in the health service—not something that I consider bad. The relationship needs to be closer.

I hope that the Government will achieve the necessary balance between ensuring that our empowerment mechanisms reflect changes in services while retaining the authentic democratic accountability that gives our service integrity. We must not end up with a bland service that people do not trust or have faith in and that they do not feel that they can go to in times of need.

The system must change, but we must be brave enough to recognise that on occasion the community will be right and the Government and the NHS will be wrong. The community has the right to have that say. We must set in train proper consultation mechanisms to draw in as many people as possible, because what will improve our health service is a constant process of renewal and dialogue, talking and listening to one another and changing our services to reflect the real needs of local communities.

That is the way forward. Much creative work is under way and I hope that across parties we can look to the future. I believe that the proposals are about more power to the people, and I say to Opposition Members, "Have courage, have faith. Look to the future, not the past, and welcome the proposals."

The hon. Lady has been talking about consultation. Is her message to the Government that she would have preferred proper consultation before the Government announced arbitrarily the abolition of CHCs?

My message to the Government is that the proposals that are set out in the NHS plan reflect the principles that I enunciated earlier. I agree entirely with those principles. It is right to look to the future and to set up mechanisms that are appropriate for the modern world.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important first opportunity for Parliament to discuss the future of community health councils. I warmly echo the tribute that he paid to their work over the past 25 years. He was right that there was shock and consternation when they discovered the sting in the tail in the NHS plan, which heralded their demise. It is not completely unprecedented under Governments of any colour for announcements to be made in a rather sudden manner. Indeed, such a bounce is part of politics, but it would have been more acceptable if the announcement were followed by meaningful consultation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the present consultation process.

The Under-Secretary has talked about the seminars that are taking place, but there are only four of them, with a hand-picked list of attendees in each case. It would be far more satisfactory if the Government issued a consultation document explaining the options that they are willing to consider and invited representations from all and sundry, whatever their particular perspective—whether they were patients, patient groups, people working in the health service or those who have had experience within the CHC world.

Since the announcement was made, I have spoken to many people involved with CHCs and with a good number of CHC chief officers. Every person to whom I spoke recognised the need for fundamental reform of the CHC. Not one person argued for the retention of the status quo and, if the hon. Member for Eddisbury will forgive my saying so, in the course of making a powerful case he strayed once or twice into the realms of viewing the current situation through rose-tinted spectacles. Undoubtedly, there is a need for fundamental reform. If the Government embarked on meaningful dialogue and consultation, it would be reasonable for us to ask ourselves whether their proposals offer a satisfactory blueprint for what might follow.

The Government propose that the local authorities should take over the role of statutory consultee on service levels and changes. That in itself is not inherently a bad idea, but to perform that function satisfactorily, they must have the relevant information at their disposal. I am concerned about the separation of the role of the statutory consultee from that of patient representation and resolution of individual complaints. If the statutory consultees are not those who are going out on inspections, are not those who are in regular dialogue with patient groups and are not those who are handling the individual complaints, it is difficult to understand on what the basis they will carry out their role as consultees. Unless that matter can be dealt with, there is a fundamental weakness in the suggestion that local authorities should take over such a role.

The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) spoke sensibly about patient advocacy. The Select Committee on Health, in its report on complaints procedures within the NHS, identified the need for much improved patient advocacy. That is particularly apt for mental health patients, frail elderly patients and those who are not able, for one reason or another, to look after their own interests. It is far too important a role to be put in the hands of an employee of the health service trusts that are supposed to be under scrutiny. It has been put to me that it would be all together far more effective if the patient advocate were an employee of the health trust. The chief executive of the trust will respond more positively if the patient advocate can go to him and say, "We have a problem and if we do not sort it out by 5 o'clock this afternoon, the local press will be on our back." The advocate would be more effective if he could go to the chief executive and say, "If you do not solve the problem by 5 o'clock this afternoon, 1 shall involve the local press."

I was trying to tease that out of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) about the line of accountability, but, as the spokesman for his party, does he have any proposals? Given the accusation of an absence of consultation, the hon. Gentleman may as well tell the Minister now how he thinks that line of accountability should work.

I shall be happy to do so. The NHS plan describes a set-up in which the patient forums will be serviced by the patient advocates—I presume that they will provide the secretariat—who will be employees of the hospital trust or the primary care trust. That is an unsatisfactory way of setting up such bodies. If the patient forum or patient advocates are to have any credibility, it is essential that they are independent. Their funding must be provided independently and they must be employed independently. The Government's description of patient forums and patient advocates may provide a sensible foundation, but only if they are separate from the trusts that they are supposed to scrutinise. That is essential if they are to have any credibility.

My greatest concern is that the disparate set-ups proposed by the Government will not hang together effectively. The complaints system in the NHS is profoundly unsatisfactory and very few patients are able to pursue complaints to a helpful outcome. Many CHC chief officers have been candid enough to tell me that individual complaints have often been the poor relation on their list of priorities. They are labour intensive and use up a lot of their resources. They often feel that dealing with such complaints does not achieve as much for the local community as putting the greater part of their efforts into inspection and scrutiny of the wider health service picture. It is essential that work on individual complaints is properly resourced, and if that means taking it out of the organisation that provides local representation, so be it. I am not convinced that that is necessary and it should be possible for it to sit within a patient forum set-up, but only if it receives ring-fenced resources and adequate staff to do the job. I am not convinced that the job is being done well at the moment. Citizens advice bureaux have a good record and their involvement was mooted, but their effectiveness is patchy. At their best they are very good, but in other areas they are not so effective.

The Government's plans may have shreds of logic here and there, but the whole will be less than the sum of the parts. Unless the Government can satisfy us that there will be some institutional mechanism by which they are linked together and can guarantee that there will be proper independence for those carrying out the roles, the plans are not supportable in their current form. However, I recognise the need for change and, if the Government would engage in open consultation, they could find a way forward that would enjoy wide support.

I, too, begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate. It is a disgrace that we have had no opportunity to debate the NHS plan in the House, despite the Government's oft-repeated claim that it is the most significant change in the running of our health care system since the inception of the NHS. The House has been treated with a combination of arrogance and cowardice. The Government treat Parliament with contempt, so it is little wonder that people who have given so much time and effort to CHCs are treated with similar contempt.

As my hon. Friend said, three facts are clear. There been no consultation on the abolition of CHCs, which is contained in the national plan, and no consultation on the decisions taken since the announcement of abolition, and the dialogue on patient empowerment has not dealt with the decision to abolish CHCs. I understand that ACHCEW is holding a seminar on 4 December, but the Minister has written in advance to say that she will be unable to answer questions about the Government's proposals to abolish CHCs. So far from consultation, the Minister will attend a seminar held by the body that represents the organisations that are about to disappear, having warned it that she will not answer any questions about abolition. That clearly shows the Government's view of consultation.

In early-day motion 595, the House congratulates the CHCs on the occasion of their 25th anniversary and marks its appreciation of their work. When the Prime Minister was asked by South Durham CHC to sign it, it received the following response from an agent:

I am replying on behalf of Tony to your letter…concerning the Early Day Motion congratulating CHCs on their 25th anniversary. Unfortunately the Prime Minister is unable to sign EDMs as they are a vehicle for back bench MPs to voice their feelings on an issue. However in this case of course Tony agrees with every word of the motion. Tony would certainly like to add his congratulations to the work the CHCs have done over the last 25 years and wishes them every success in the future.

The next time that the Minister receives a message from the Prime Minister wishing her every success in the future, I suggest that she thinks about the imminent prospect of her unemployment.

Important points have emerged from our debate. Many community councils have been effective, though some could be improved dramatically. There is a strong case for reform. For example, there should be more standardisation of CHC work and better resourcing. Had the Government proposed the reform of appointments to CHCs, their resourcing and operation, they would have received wide support across the House. Instead, they proposed simple abolition without prior consultation.

CHCs must have an independent role, a community role and a better patients' complaints service. Many people who have worked on the medical side of the NHS recognise that it is difficult for patients to make effective complaints within the service. Health care delivery is becoming increasingly politicised. It is extraordinarily naive to believe that a body set up for patient advocacy under the auspices of an NHS trust will feel independent enough to question and attack the trust when necessary on behalf of patients. I cannot believe that Ministers are naive enough to believe that. It is more likely that they well understand that the new bodies will not cause so much trouble, which is precisely why the new mechanism is being put in place.

As I said, there is increasing party politicisation in the NHS today. In a damning indictment of the Government's handling of appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie pointed out that, between March 1997 and November 1999, 284 Labour councillors were appointed to NHS trust positions compared with 23 Conservatives and 36 Liberal Democrats. The Government now ask us to accept that the Labour party cronies appointed from the local government pool into the NHS can be scrutinised by the cronies left behind in the same pool. That is a new Labour culture, not a means of improving patient care.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes, I will give way to the hon. Lady, whose speech gave naked careerism a bad name even in this place.

Just to correct the hon. Gentleman, I am fully clothed. Is the hon. Gentleman impugning the integrity of all local government in Britain? Many hard working local authority representatives would be extremely concerned at his suggestion that they lack integrity and would fail to carry out proper scrutiny. Are his comments directed at the whole of local government, including Conservative party councillors?

No, they apply to new Labour and the disgraceful abuse of the way in which appointments are made. If the hon. Lady believes that it does not happen, she should take the matter up with Dame Rennie Fritchie, whose recommendations were supposedly to be accepted by the Secretary of State.

Having been in government, Conservative Members know how effective CHCs can be in their role of reviewing and opposing plans for reorganisation. Secretaries of State and Ministers do not like it when CHCs say, "We do not like the way in which this reorganisation has taken place, and we are referring it back to the Secretary of State. There must be ministerial responsibility." One reason for the new arrangement is that Ministers find such comments uncomfortable; they would rather that that role disappeared altogether. That is typical of how the Government do business.

We have made it clear that, if the Conservative party wins the general election before CHCs have been abolished, they will not be abolished. If we win the general election after the Government have done their dirty work, we shall reinstate an independent body, but reformed in a way that would have the agreement of both sides of the House.

The hon. Member for Salford said that abolition is a harsh word, but it is also a good description. It is a harsh word because it is a harsh policy. That is what we shall find in the primary legislation. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends will hold the key to whether CHCs are abolished. She and they will need to consider where their loyalties lie—to their communities and to their experience, or to their Whips.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate. It is a measure of the importance of the subject that so many hon. Members are here this morning.

We should focus not on the future of CHCs but on the future of effective public and patient involvement in the modern national health service. A number of good contributions have been made. To my surprise, I agreed with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that the complaints procedure set up under the Tory Government needs to be improved, and the King's Fund and York university are consulting on that. However, if he were to read carefully our proposals about the overview and scrutiny committees, he would realise that final referrals can still be made to the Secretary of State in those uncomfortable cases to which he referred.

How apt that the Under-Secretary should begin with a matter that she would rather the debate was about. We are here to discuss the Government's plans for abolishing CHCs. It would help if she were to deal with that subject rather than the fancy debate that she would prefer to take part in.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have waited a little longer before accusing me of not addressing the subject.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury raised a number of issues. I am sorry that he is disappointed that it is I who will answer the debate, but that is as good as it gets this morning. I am honoured to have been asked to reply.

I want to focus on the important speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Salford (Ms Blears). I also thank the Members and officers of the all-party group, who have played an important role; it was important that I met the group as soon as possible after the recess. I also thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) for his clear and welcome statement that the public recognise that the status quo is unacceptable. Fundamental and radical change is needed. No organisation, not even a statutory body, has the right to exist just because it is there. They must continuously change in order to fulfil the function for which they were set up. That is why we must consider the past contribution of CHCs.

The NHS plan was the result of a huge and unprecedented consultation exercise. No previous Government have engaged in such a consultation with the public, staff and members of the professions, many of whom signed up to the plan. As a result, we examined the CHCs' important contribution over the past 26 years.

It must be recognised that changes that have occurred in the modern NHS mean that the organisations within the NHS need to change too. We now have primary care groups and primary care trusts. Things are changing. Let us examine the proposal and the criticisms.

For the sake of clarification, did the Government at any time discuss with the CHCs the possibility of their abolition?

It is important to put on record that there was CHC representation on the modernisation action teams, including the one that I chaired on patient empowerment. However, it was clear that, after the consultation period in which the teams met, any decisions made would be the responsibility of Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make a little progress, to put the wider picture.

Despite the significant changes in the NHS, CHCs have not changed. I commend the hon. Member for Eddisbury on setting up the Eddisbury health forum. In bringing together all those disparate organisations he demonstrated the need to scrutinise existing structures. Some health authorities are represented by as many as five CHCs. It is not unusual for one CHC to approve a reconfiguration plan while another opposes it. There is a need for fundamental restructuring.

Performance has doubtless been patchy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford for identifying the need for co-operation with other organisations. What we are doing concerns not just one organisation. Health provision involves more than that. The response to complaints is variable. Dealing with complaints is not and never was part of the statutory duty of CHCs. There has been an evolution of what is needed, and the time has come to re-examine the issue.

The fact that CHCs have had no rights within primary care has been a huge disadvantage. Given that 70 per cent. of patient contact occurs through primary care, councils had no right to become involved in 70 per cent. of the patient experience.

First, I reaffirm that it would be common ground across the House that CHCs need reform, but they do not need to be abolished. Secondly, even though there is no statutory provision for NHS complainants to make use of CHCs, they do so because those bodies have come to be trusted for their independence.

It would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had made it clear in his speech that he recognised the need for fundamental change, instead of making a pre-election Tory manifesto pledge.

There is clearly a democratic deficit in the current structure of the CHCs. Where is the structured involvement with the local authority? What is needed is not the politicisation of the NHS, or an adversarial system. It is strange to complain that the proposed new arrangements will lack independence, while claiming that CHCs—which are in fact funded by local health authorities—are totally independent. No one, for example, would accuse Marks and Spencer's complaints department staff of lacking effectiveness and efficiency just because they are employed by Marks and Spencer.

We need to consider what the Government intend to put in the place of CHCs. Hon. Members want and ought to hear how patient representation at every level, and the issues that have been raised today, will be dealt with by the new structure.

As an ex-retailer I know that people making complaints often make the additional complaint that they are being dealt with by staff who are not independent.

What is important is whether organisations learn from complaints and are responsive. Watchdogs play an important role, but more are needed. The public—patients and citizens—have a right to be represented at every level of the NHS because it is a public service. Under the national plan for NHS modernisation, patients and citizens will have a third level of representation, the Commission for Health Improvement. I shall carefully consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in that respect. Also at national level, there will be the new, independent reconfiguration panels, and at local level, the independent local authority forums—I was interested to note that they have not been mentioned— and the overview and scrutiny committees. At trust level, there will be patient forums; the patient satisfaction service will continue.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, the Government have no commitment to divide and rule. Patients' and citizens' representation will not be treated as an add-on, to be taken note of or ignored as we choose, but will be woven into the structure. The NHS is a public service, and the public must be consulted as a matter of course, so that there is continuous feedback. That is one the reason why we want a continuous relationship between local government and elected representatives. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woodspring cast aspersions on the integrity of local government. Local authorities are very powerful; their right to summon chief executives to explain their actions is vital, as is their continuing involvement.

The Local Government Association is happy for me to quote its belief that the plan offers an opportunity to tackle the democratic deficit in the NHS. The proposals to extend the local authority's scrutiny role to local health organisations will give communities a real say in the planning and provision of health care. The LGA is committed to working with member authorities and health partners to drive forward the agenda.

The original CHCs had three distinct functions, the first of which was inspection. The primary care sector was excluded, but the world has moved on after 26 years. The patient advocacy liaison service and patient forums will be set up not only in every NHS trust but in every primary care trust. The second function of CHCs was the reconfiguration of services, and the third was to deal with complaints. We genuinely wanted to strengthen all three strands of that work and we had to ask whether the natural tensions within those bodies could be combined in one structure, to which the answer was no.

The patient advocacy liaison service and patient forums will have a rolling membership, composed of 50 per cent. patients and voluntary sector groups and 50 per cent. of the most recent users of the health service. The long-term users of the health service tend to be forgotten, but they have huge experience. Our plans are not adversarial, but will improve the services provided.

At health authority level there will be independent citizen forums for strategic development, which I hope will allay the anxieties of some Members, and overview and scrutiny committees. The ongoing scrutiny of the health service is important. Health bodies will have a duty to consult and they will retain the right to refer contested changes, and—if something really has gone wrong—complaints, to the Secretary of State. That is why we are reviewing the complaints procedure and why we talked to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. If something has gone wrong it needs to be addressed quickly and effectively. It is a whole package. CHCs were just part of that jigsaw. I hope that hon. Members are convinced that we are putting patients back at the centre of decision making where they should be and where they should have been a long time ago.

The purpose of securing a debate on the employment conditions of construction workers is to add oxygen to the efforts and discussions that were kickstarted by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he commissioned the Egan inquiry two years ago. He has demonstrated his concern about this group of workers, which arises principally from the appalling safety record within the industry. That record is getting worse and worse. It is an outrage that there has been a rise of 22 per cent. in fatalities in 1999 and the figure for 2000 is likely to be even higher. Thirty builders have died on sites in the first four months of this year alone.

The Health and Safety Executive needs to take a tougher line. Of the 41 successful prosecutions involving fatalities in 1999, the average fine was just over £15,500. That amounts to crumbs when we are talking about people's lives and contractors are dealing with multi-million pound awards. Only two of the fines imposed last year amounted to six figure sums and 11 prosecutions for breaches of safety regulation resulted in fines of less than £1,000. The HSE has shown that it is prepared to take a tougher line, but not often enough. A clear warning needs to be sent to the industry. The HSE must tell it to wake up because it kills and maims its workers. It must stress that breaches of safety regulation will not be tolerated and will incur serious penalties.

It would be completely wrong to assume that this appalling safety record somehow operates in isolation to an otherwise trouble-free industry. The safety record is a symptom, a manifestation of fundamental and structural problems in the way that workers are employed. I shall argue that, if we tackle the employment conditions, not only will we begin to see a downward trend in the fatalities and serious accidents, but we will begin to address other areas of concern. We will see improved productivity, and we will be better placed to attract people into the industry and to encourage higher-quality workmanship.

The importance of bringing about employment changes in the industry was emphasised by the Prime Minister's announcement last week that the Government would double public capital investment. That was a welcome announcement for all involved in the construction industry. If we are to maximise that investment, we need a skilled, safe and secure work force. Skilled many of them are, yet safe and secure within their jobs many are not. Increased capital investment will provide great opportunities. However, while we want the new bypasses, new rail infrastructure, improved schools and new hospitals, we do not want our construction workers to end up as patients inside them because of inadequate safety measures on the site.

In our White Paper "Fairness at Work", the Prime Minister spoke of steering a course between the absence of minimum standards of protection at the workplace and a return to the laws of the past. He said in the foreword:

There will be no going back. The days of strikes without ballots. mass picketing, closed shops and secondary action are over. But it cannot be just to deny British citizens basic canons of fairness—rights to claim unfair dismissal, rights against discrimination for making a free choice of being a union member.

I spoke on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Employment Relations Act 1999. That legislation was deeply opposed by the Tories, but many of us believed that it heralded a new era in industrial relations—an end to "hire and fire". Combined with the working time directive, it was to bring greater security to the workplace, encourage partnership and ultimately increase productivity. The Act has made a great difference for many people yet, for construction workers, there has sadly been little improvement. The safety record of that industry alone highlights the need for a new culture of partnership and rights.

A recent report from the IMC emphasised the productivity gap in the UK. In the construction industry, we will not close that gap, nor fill the skill shortages, if we do not recognise the need for important changes to the way in which it employs people. We will not encourage young people into an industry with such an appalling safety record and variable employment conditions. The central issue surrounding conditions of employment is that of bogus self-employment—a system that enables contractors, and more commonly sub-contractors, to fiddle tax and prevent workers enjoying basic rights such as paid leave, paid breaks and representation by a trade union. That system is costing the Exchequer billions in unpaid national insurance. I am in the unusual position, for a Back Bencher in an Adjournment debate, of not asking for any money. Back Benchers usually come to such debates wanting more money from the Government, but I want to help the Chancellor by offering him ways to add to the healthy state of public finances.

In 1999, we saw the introduction of the CIS4 card, a construction industry scheme which was part and parcel of changes proposed by the former Tory Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). While the intention of the scheme was to claw back some of the lost billions of unpaid taxes, it has had only a limited success in terms of recouped revenue. More worryingly, it has led to ten of thousands of workers being incorrectly categorised as self-employed when they should be treated as workers and, as such, enjoy the better employment laws that the Government have rightly introduced. Bogus self-employment imposed on building operatives acts as a subsidy to the building industry by allowing employers to avoid paying national insurance contributions.

Since its inception, some 800,000 CIS4 cards have been issued, with little monitoring or checking by the Inland Revenue—indeed, they seem to be given out like confetti. A new practice has consequently emerged. Sub-contractors will tell a building operative that work is available only for the self-employed—who have no rights and to whom immediate notice can be given. However, in practice, such workers are controlled and directed, required to turn up at a site at a given time, instructed to take training, have to clock on, and may not seek to be replaced during the period of work. To all intents and purposes, therefore, they are workers and do not enjoy the flexibility of self-employed individuals. They should therefore be classed as workers and entitled to employment rights.

Trade unions have successfully brought cases to employment tribunals, yet the practice still continues. Even where workers are employed, disregard for the working time directive is commonplace, because people cannot afford to lose their jobs. They can go to an employment tribunal to demand holiday pay—and can, in the main, expect to win—but that takes time and puts individuals' livelihood at risk. If an individual has a family to support, he simply will not take that risk. The question is whether someone in such circumstances, who has been denied basic employment rights, will feel secure enough to challenge dangerous working practices. The statistics on that speak for themselves.

Many construction workers are employed by labour supply firms. That means that they are direct employees of the agency, pay tax and PAYE and have their national insurance contributions met. However, holiday pay and other benefits are avoided by engaging people on a contract of just short of the 13-week qualifying period and then offering them another contract, again for just short of 13 weeks. Such practice occurs where the client is the taxpayer, for example in the Government procurement of new hospitals. Bromley hospital is an instance of that. The contractor, Taylor Woodrow, engaged a sub-contractor, Buildstone, and accepted no responsibility for that sub-contractor's behaviour. Despite being found at an employment tribunal to have broken the law by denying workers holiday pay, sick pay and notice, Taylor Woodrow washed its hands of responsibility. So did the Bromley Hospitals national health service trust, the regional executive and, ultimately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government. The heart of the problem is fragmentation, with no one prepared to take responsibility.

What is especially galling is that costs are built in to take account of the working time directive when a contract is awarded for any public procurement. Taylor Woodrow would then have built in costs to its sub-contractor. Clearly, contractors are not only fiddling workers out of their holiday pay, but ultimately fiddling the public purse. The taxpayer says yes to the directive within the price of a new hospital, but the workers do not get what is intended. Where is the money? It is kept by the contractor or sub-contractor.

Another example is the channel tunnel rail link. It winds its way through Kent—our finest county, I am sure that you agree, Mr. Gale—including through my constituency and employs up to 1,000 construction workers. Some £4.2 billion of public investment is being poured into the project, which I welcome. However, is it not reasonable to expect people working on the project to enjoy basic employment rights? In case after case, sub-contractors ignore those basic rights. AMEC, McAlpine, Hochtief, Norwest Holst and Skanska all engage sub-contractors that have been found by employment tribunals to have broken the law by ignoring the working time directive and using bogus, self-employed labour.

Encouragingly, Balfour Beatty, which has contract No. 440 in east Kent, insists that its sub-contractors comply with the directive. If one sub-contractor can comply, why cannot others? The good contractor is being undermined by the poor one. We can apply the same principle as we did when arguing for the minimum wage. The client, Union Railways, should take some responsibility for tackling the problem, as should the Government.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in sending a clear message from the House to those who have public contracts, for the channel tunnel, hospitals or roads, to put their houses in order. They must ensure that people receive their basic rights. The issue cuts across Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the matter seriously, as I said, but we must drill down to see the relationship between the client, the contractor and the operative. If the situation improves, people will enjoy better working relationships and we shall have improved productivity. We might also save a few people's lives.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am sure that many hon. Members have heard of terrible tragedies in their constituencies of people being killed in construction work.

My hon. Friend talked about employment rights and the issue of the bogus self-employed. Does he agree that it is vital for the Government to consider carefully the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, to see whether they could make provision for roving safety representatives? That would give us much greater confidence about safety checks on-site by trade union members.

There is always a queue of issues to be included in the Queen's Speech, but I hope that there will be new health and safety legislation to begin to tackle my hon. Friend's sensible suggestion.

There are several ways forward already. I think that it was the first brief of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to insist that all public procurement contracts demonstrate that construction workers receive their entitlement to basic employment rights.

A year ago I attended a Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians health and safety conference. I heard horrific tales of intimidation of safety representatives by companies. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that sub-contracting has created a real danger. He mentioned drilling down. Does he believe that, if the main contractor and the sub-contractor were under a legal obligation to have the main contractor's safety policy written into their contracts and those of each worker, that might lead to a safer environment on building sites?

I was coming to that very point. I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. The health and safety policy of the main contractor should apply to all workers on the site. That is not the case at the moment. Construction workers can work alongside one another and be subject to completely different sets of health and safety guidelines from their different companies. Some of those guidelines are good, others appalling.

Finally, we need a review of the CIS4 card. The onus should be on the employer or the contractor to demonstrate to the Inland Revenue that the worker is genuinely self-employed, otherwise no card should be issued.

Will my hon. Friend, at the end of his fine speech, reflect for a moment on the legal ramifications of the matter that he is bringing to the Government's attention? Workers often have difficulty in establishing liability when they are injured but do not have a contract of employment. The legal liabilities become diffuse. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the Government can deal with that problem is by a simple Bill that reverses the burden of proof in situations such as those? Where a relationship is claimed to be one of employment, the burden of proving that it is not so should rest with the defendant and not with the plaintiff.

I will not argue with my hon. and learned Friend's legal expertise. I know that he takes a great deal of interest in the issue, and his remarks highlight the fact that we have a fragmented, casualised work force who are experiencing something unique: an increase in recorded accidents and fatalities in a particular industry. We cannot tolerate that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister listened to my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.

It is time to stop people dying in the construction industry. It is time to stop the tax fiddling, and the intimidation that goes on in the industry. It is time that we faced the fact that employment conditions hold the key to a safer, more secure and more productive construction industry. I recognise that I have painted with a broad brush in presenting my argument. There are many complex issues to tackle, because the matter cuts right across Government, involving the DETR, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, but they must be tackled and not placed in the tray marked "Too difficult".

I welcome this opportunity to debate employment conditions in the construction industry. It is customary to congratulate hon. Members when they secure an Adjournment debate, but I warmly and genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this particular debate on an issue that has been of immense importance to me and my Department during the past two years.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his sense of timing, because the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and I, launched the publication of a report yesterday evening, entitled "A Commitment to People: Our Biggest Asset". It is the report of an industry working group set up under the umbrella of the rethinking construction initiative to examine respect for people issues in the construction industry. That follows the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Minister about 18 months ago, when he chaired a meeting of leading representatives of the industry and trade unions to discuss what might be done to improve the way in which the industry treats its own people.

In July 1999, at the rethinking construction conference, my hon. Friend the Minister challenged the industry in strong terms to suggest some practical proposals for improving its performance in that respect. Alan Crane, the chairman of the board of Movement for Innovation, set up a working group drawn from all quarters of industry and from trade unions, whose report was published yesterday.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made some important points about the employment status of construction workers and the consequential working terms and conditions, to which I shall return, but at the outset I make it clear that the construction industry deals with a complex set of circumstances, all of which impact on working conditions. The excessive number of hours worked and some of the other employment issues to which my hon. Friend referred are important factors, but we must discuss those in the context of the industry's poor record on all areas of employment, including training, health and safety and site conditions. The industry's culture and attitude is often adversarial and aggressive, and for too long it has paid too little attention to the position of workers and the conditions in which they work.

We should note some key statistics. The age of people working in the construction industry is increasing. Ten years ago, one third of the work force was under 30; today, that age group accounts for only about 25 per cent. The work force tends to be made up of white males, the proportion of women is less than 9 per cent., and less than 2 per cent. are from minority ethnic groups. Construction workers work longer hours than those in other industries, and are more likely to be involved in an accident, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has graphically pointed out.

Safety is an issue about which we are especially concerned. As my hon. Friend said, the number of fatalities declined for several years but rose to 85 last year, and in the first half of this year 62 people have been killed in construction accidents. That is an appalling figure and totally unacceptable, as is the fact that the trend is rising instead of continuing to decrease. Every year, many thousands of people leave the industry as a result of a work-related injury. Twice as many people as in any other industry suffer ill health as a result of their work, one in 20 suffers from serious muscular-skeletal damage, and 600 die every year from past exposure to asbestos. Those statistics, taken together, represent an unacceptable record of fatal accidents and attention to health, to which we must put an end.

Two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I met leaders from all sectors of the industry, and we put it to them in the strongest possible terms that no change is not negotiable. We are also meeting trade union leaders and the Health and Safety Commission is inviting a wide range of leaders to a safety summit in February, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister initiated. We have not only the respect for people report but the "Revitalising Health and Safety" report drafted by the Health and Safety Executive. Because of the lack of time, I shall not dwell on statistics, but I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that we are determined to ensure that there is progress throughout the construction industry, not only in relation to site conditions. The attention to health and safety must start right at the beginning of the construction process. There are many means by which safer conditions can be adopted at the point of design and specification. Too little attention has been paid to the potential of design for increasing safety.

May I press my hon. Friend on the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977? Does she envisage that the review will include a close examination of the amendments that would be necessary to provide roving safety representatives?

Nothing is excluded from the review, which will examine a range of measures. Working with industry, trade unions and the Health and Safety Executive, the aim is to improve the record. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also committed to taking further action, but we shall have to wait for the Queen's Speech and further legislative proposals before we know exactly what is proposed. However, my right hon. Friend's commitment is clear.

The case for change is not just about health and safety. The industry's record needs to be improved across the board. The ethical case for improvements is important, but there is also a strong business case. The industry now faces severe skill shortages as a result of inadequate training and poor management. The case for radical change is powerful: not only is the construction work force ageing, but not enough talented young people are applying. In short, the reputation and the history of the industry in respect of its workers does not attract young people, who do not want to work in the poor conditions with poor prospects that have been the experience of so many people in the industry to date.

Civil engineering applications are drastically down and several courses that provide proper professional training in the construction industry are experiencing difficulties because young people are not attracted to it. It is an issue for the industry itself to tackle. In many respects the industry has a proud history, but it is facing serious difficulties as a result of its lack of attention to people.

The Government's report "A Commitment to People" proposes some practical suggestions for improving the industry's performance. I do not have enough time to explain it fully, but it deals with diversity issues, site facilities, the working environment, off-site health, safety, career development and lifelong learning.

I must deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford about bogus self-employed people and general employment conditions. The construction industry scheme is designed to stop tax evasion; it is not addressed specifically at shifting the balance in the employment status of individuals. I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognised the good practice evident in the industry in that regard. Some contractors are moving in the direction of employment. Over the past four years since 1996, the proportion of people working in the industry was initially broadly balanced between self-employed and employed, but the trend is now shifting. Now the proportion of employed to self-employed is almost double. Despite my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of the scheme, we are starting to see a shift.

One mechanism for promoting that shift is the Government's efforts on rethinking the construction agenda, which will promote good conditions, training and a long-term partner relationship between contractors and clients. Many improvements in the conditions of workers require investment in training, health and safety, and so forth. It makes sense for contractors who make that investment—and they are—to base their relationship with their work force on employment, rather than self-employment. If the best-trained people stay with the company, that is a return on investment.

My hon. Friend pointed out the importance of the role of clients. Central and local government have a key role in this context. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and reassure him about the Government's commitment to make progress in the direction that he outlined.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate such an important matter. It is important to several hon. Members with coastal constituencies. I shall focus on three matters that are of concern to many hon. Members with inshore fishing interests in their constituencies: the future and possible extension of the six and 12-mile limits; some issues concerning the work of the sea fisheries committees; and, the protection of low-impact fishing methods, which are often a feature of the traditional inshore fishing industry.

I shall refer to three reports, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. The report of the Agriculture Committee, on sea fishing, contained several recommendations on inshore fishing. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds produced a report this summer entitled, "Managing EC Inshore Fisheries: Time for Change". Also, in its document "1888–2000 and Beyond", the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales raised important matters relating to the committees' powers.

Clearly, the future of inshore fisheries is important to coastal areas. It is important to maintain a healthy fishing industry and healthy fish stocks and to set high marine conservation standards. I do not consider those aims to be in conflict. In fact, they converge and are mutually supportive.

The rules for inshore fisheries are based on the original derogations when the United Kingdom joined the European Community and were renewed in 1982 for a further 20 years, subject to a mid-term review in 1992. As we know, the UK accepted the principle of equal access to fishing grounds on entering the EC in 1973, but was granted a 10-year derogation allowing national control of coastal waters. It might be worth reminding ourselves of article 100 of the treaty of accession, which states:

Member States of the Community are authorised…to restrict fishing in waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, situated within a limit of six nautical miles, calculated from the base lines of the coastal Member State, to vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area.

It also refers to member states not adopting provisions

dealing with conditions for fishing in those waters which are less restrictive than those applied in practice at the time of accession.

That is important. The treaty has generally been considered a success and there has been a wish for the derogation to continue. It is important that Britain should retain some direct control over fishing activity within the six-mile zone. However, it is an important principle and it should apply throughout the EU.

What opportunities exist to extend that limit? The European Parliament debated proposals to extend it to 24 nautical miles and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that that is attainable or realistic. I accept that a wide range of foreign vessels would have historic rights within such a zone, but a lack of progress in establishing regional fishery management under the common fisheries policy would lead to much UK support for such an approach.

Rather than simply proceeding with a temporary derogation, why should we not make the restriction permanent? It is usually assumed that that would require a change to the treaty of Rome. A year ago, following my discussions with representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the society took legal advice, which suggested that a change would be feasible without amending the treaty. However, if a change were required, the chances of success would be slim—effectively, it would mean changing one of the basic objectives of the European Community.

The reasoning behind the legal opinion was that the access restriction was created to protect regions considered to be particularly vulnerable because of their high dependence on fishing. However, as long as the restriction does not involve discrimination between member states on the basis of nationality alone, it is not obvious why it would contravene the provisions of the treaty of Rome. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the restrictions would have been permitted if they had been considered to be in contravention of the treaty.

I would welcome the Minister's views on whether, instead of extending the derogation, we could negotiate a permanent settlement. It is worth putting on record that the purpose of the derogation was not and is not to keep foreigners out, or to allow the nation state to do what the hell it likes within those limits, but to protect traditional access and allow adjacent coastal fishing. That theme should be updated to provide sustainable fishing management.

On the future of inshore regulatory bodies, particularly the sea fisheries committees, the reports of the Agriculture Select Committee and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees both recommend a wide-ranging review of the powers of those committees. As the reports point out, the 1888 legislation was drafted in different circumstances and, despite subsequent attempts to bolt on additional powers, much of the present legislation is still based on the inappropriate language of the Victorian era.

The reports recommend the extension of the limit to 12 nautical miles. The Minister may ask why, but the offshore limit of other statutory bodies and conservation agencies, including that set by the Welsh Assembly, extends to 12 nautical miles. Those species that are economically important are managed to a six-mile limit, but are not confined to that limit. In fact, the prosecution of those species outside the six-mile limit has an impact on the industry within the limit.

Fishery management reasons for the extension of the jurisdiction to 12 nautical miles are not restricted to shellfish, which are often a major preoccupation of sea fisheries committees. Moreover, given that the committees have a wealth of experience of shellfish management, their knowledge could be well applied outside the six-mile limit into the 12-mile limit. The committees are also proposing that, to regulate the inshore area, article 46 of EC regulation 850/98 must be amended so that all national and byelaw regulations apply to all vessels fishing from within 12-nautical mile base lines. For example, around the Cornish coast, prosecutions cannot be undertaken for catches of lobsters that are v-notched but caught by foreign vessels outside the six-mile limit. It seems absurd that national and local byelaws that apply to nation state vessels do not apply to foreign vessels that have rights to fish up to the six-mile limit and within the 12-mile limit. I support the sea fisheries committees' proposal that those regulations should be extended.

Stronger and clearer enforcement powers are required. At present, there is a weakness in the legislation mainly because it was based originally on the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1888. The Act refers to taking from the fishery, rather than landing in the fishery. The officers of the sea fisheries committees have found it difficult to pursue such matters, although they have good circumstantial evidence to show that fishermen have not only taken, but landed, fish that was caught illegally or fish that was of an illegal size. Given that the language used in the original Act still applies today, it makes matters difficult. The position needs some clarification.

I am sure that the Minister knows that the sea fisheries committees are concerned about the landward limit of the fisheries districts and that that should be redefined.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the issues that he is raising. They illustrate the need for the reform of the common fisheries policy. The local controls of the communities involved in fishing those fisheries need to be strengthened. He is suggesting several changes that the Government can make and there is a need for wider renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend is illustrating the fact that, given the chance, the communities that have an interest in the policy know how to make it work and want to be involved.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that a review should be undertaken of the common fisheries policy, whereby, as far as possible, responsibility for such management decisions is delegated to the nation states. Furthermore, sea fisheries committees have the local knowledge about inshore fishing. They are on the spot and far better placed to ensure that the regulations are applied properly.

As for the landward limit of the sea fisheries districts, current legislation refers to the adjacent coast. In several areas around the coast, fishermen who are alleged to have been fishing illegally are known to have taken their fish across the road because, although only a few metres inland, it is beyond the area that may be considered in law to be within the sea fisheries committee district. As a result, the committee is unable to pursue what it believes to be an illegal landing. That is a small detail, but it shows the general need for a Government overview of the role and powers of sea fisheries committees. Consolidation, in a coastal fisheries Act, may be required to update and expand the powers of sea fisheries committees.

If regional fisheries management were introduced, as Liberal Democrats want, the sea fisheries committees should be involved in any review. It could bring the sea fisheries committees back to the original intention of the derogation and accession treaty, which referred to coastal ports in fishing regions. For example, at Padstow in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) there is a successful lobster hatchery, which will release 80,000 juveniles per annum. If there were a failure in fisheries in other parts of the country, boats from Yorkshire and elsewhere—we are not opposed to boats from Yorkshire visiting our area—could plunder the stock that was so carefully produced on the Cornish coast because the sea fisheries committees would have no control. They can release juveniles, but have no further control.

I am aware of the time, Mr. Gale, and the Minister knows my views on these matters. We have corresponded about the bass fishery and the controls on pair trawlers. The decline in bass stocks is having a significant impact on recreational fishermen and bass longliners, who are very successful around the coast of Cornwall. The Minister should consider ways of supporting low-impact fishing methods, such as bass longlining, and protecting them from the plundering of stocks, particularly when they are on the verge of collapse, as with bass and mackerel.

I have repeated the arguments so many times that I need not go through them here. The Minister knows that we need to protect, promote and secure the future of low-impact fisheries. I hope that this debate and further discussions will provide an opportunity during the next two years to take the issue by the scruff of the neck by protecting the future of inshore fisheries, making permanent the six-mile and 12-mile delineations, updating and strengthening the sea fisheries committees and protecting low-impact fishing methods.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this opportunity to discuss the inshore fishing fleet and its needs. The issues are important and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I place great value on the important contribution made by our inshore fleet. It is the largest in the UK fishing fleet, in terms of the number of vessels.

I shall refer to the Agriculture Committee's thoughtful report on fisheries, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food treated seriously, and the reports of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales. The inshore sector is important and we try to help it by underpinning additional stocks and swapping quota for them when there is a shortage of fish to ensure that we avoid early closure of fisheries.

We have been active in ensuring that the rules and regulations covering the inshore fleet are kept to a minimum because we recognise its localised nature and the level of investment. Having said that, we recognise that the inshore fleet, in common with the whole fishing industry, is a dynamic structure. A great deal of investment has gone into the inshore fleet. A considerable amount has been invested in new vessels, which has led to an increase in fishing efforts and we must be aware of that. It puts more pressure on the quota and we must try to manage that in the same way that we manage the quota generally.

To safeguard against further increases in effort in the inshore fleet, as the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware, we announced additional restrictions on the licensing of inshore vessels, which will apply from 1 January 2001. I said at the time of the announcement that any surplus on underpinned quota allocations for the under-l0-metre fleet could be used to acquire additional quota for those vessels. Where EU regulations allow, we shall make greater use of the provisions on end-of-year quota flexibility to borrow quota from the following year or to bank surplus quota for future use—banking and borrowing. That means that we can manage a fishery and eliminate the risk of early closures, which we are trying to do.

We have also taken steps to support the handline mackerel fishery in the south-west, a matter that I know is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). Since 1998, the guaranteed annual quota of vessels prosecuting this fishery has been significantly enhanced and we have made every effort to obtain extra fish through swaps where necessary. As a result of that action, we have been successful in keeping the fishery open to the end of the year and we are confident that this year will be no exception. That takes pressure off the handline sector.

The hon. Gentleman has made a good case for taking low-impact and sustainable fisheries such as the handline mackerel fishery out of quota management restrictions altogether. I sympathise with the case that he has made, but we have to take into account issues of which I know that he will be aware that relate to controlling efforts. If we are to take a fishery out of quota control, we must be careful to ensure that other fishing boats from all over the region or even nationally do not come into that fishery or immediately there will be trouble in relation to quota management. We must think about the matter and discuss it with the European Union. It is also important for member states to accommodate the needs of such fisheries within the framework of the current quota system—a view that was endorsed in a recent report from the industry working group on quota trading and related issues.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the 2002 review is coming up and I see no reason why we cannot explore a range of issues, including low-impact fisheries. It would be helpful if other member states that have similar low-impact fisheries shared an interest in the matter. If they recognise that there is a case to pursue, it will make progress more likely. I am willing to do that and see what opportunities there are.

The ASFC report "1888–2000 and Beyond" is also very important. I discussed it with the ASFC when I attended its 100th annual statutory meeting in July, which I was pleased to do. It is a good report and it raises a range of issues that we need to take into account. At the meeting, I also promised to send a copy of the association's report to the European Union Commission. It has been welcomed as making a useful contribution to the on-going debate on the review of the common fisheries policy, which will be concluded in 2002.

The report argues for a thorough overhaul of the legislation governing the work of the sea fisheries committees and for an extension of the committees' jurisdiction from the existing six-mile limit to 12 miles. The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good case and argued the advantages for that succinctly. I sympathise with the report's recommendation that there is a need for a legislative overhaul. There is no doubt that that is necessary. There is much in the sea fisheries committee model that is still valid and the committees have an important role to play in the management of inshore fisheries, successfully balancing all the local interests concerned and paying proper weight to environmental responsibilities.

The overhaul should include measures such as reviewing the landward limits, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. One of the great strengths of the sea fisheries committees is that they comprise local people who understand local issues. Such involvement is important for sustainable management.

The legislation under which the committees operate is long standing and was originally designed for different circumstances. There is a strong argument for reviewing it. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, securing parliamentary time for legislation is not easy. While I cannot make any promises, I can assure him that we take the matter seriously within the Department and that we will promote it in our bids for future legislation.

One or two aspects of the ASFC report need to be clarified, such as responsibility within the six and 12-mile limits. At present, responsibility extends to six miles. Going up to 12 miles will involve a range of new enforcements and significant financial obligations. If the ASFC wants to share that responsibility, there is the risk of duplication and confusion of powers. That is not to say that we cannot consider the matter. I have made it clear that I want to make some improvements.

We are making progress with the introduction of a restrictive licensing scheme for shellfish. Discussions in the UK conservation group are well advanced and I particularly welcome the active part that the sea fisheries committees have played. I hope to issue a consultation paper on the first stage of a restrictive licensing scheme shortly. Much of the inshore sector awaits that paper with keen interest.

I shall also want to monitor closely the operation of the first stage with a view to identifying ways in which an extension of SFC statutory powers could enable us to apply a more detailed scheme that takes full account of local circumstances and can be administered by the sea fisheries committees themselves. Even without primary legislation, I see a strengthened role for them, particularly on shellfish management and licensing. I want to explore that with them and the consultation paper will provide an obvious opportunity.

In relation to sea fish and shellfish licensing, would the responsibilities of the sea fisheries committees extend beyond the six-mile limit? Although I cannot speak for them, I understand that if they sought an extension of their powers to that area, they would do so in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the fisheries protection squadron.

We will certainly have to take into account licensing and how it would apply between the six and 12-mile limits, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, other vessels, both UK and non-UK, have historic fishing rights. I am confident that the six and 12-mile limits will continue when they come up for renewal and review in 2002. They are important for us and for other countries. I do not detect any desire in the Council of Ministers to take the provision away. All of us in the EU recognise the strong arguments for protecting localised management and localised fisheries. I have no fears about that matter.

I accept that it would offer greater certainty and stability for the industry if, instead of having to agree the renewal of six and 12-mile limits from time to time, we could establish them as a permanent feature of the common fisheries policy. That will certainly be one of our negotiating objectives and we will discuss it with other member states to try to guarantee that security for our inshore fleet. An extension beyond those limits has been discussed at the European Parliament and it voted for an extension to 24 miles. I am willing to support any possibility of such an extension, although it would depend also on general support and on whether the extension would be meaningful. If a 24-mile extension is made, but people continue to have historical fishing rights, would it mean anything?

I feel strongly about the bass fishery. Conservation measures should be strengthened and we are discussing that matter with those involved in pair trawling in Scotland, for example. We are also holding discussions with the French in relation to joint studies to introduce stronger conservation measures. I undertake that we will take that process forward as quickly as possible.

I warmly welcome the opportunity to highlight before London Members a range of concerns with regard to the allocation and distribution of Government resources to our capital city. The concerns inevitably cut across a range of different policy and departmental areas, and I fully accept that those include some not covered by the Department represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who will reply for the Government. None the less, I feel bound to raise many of those points, although I recognise that she may not be able to respond specifically to all of them.

In the wake of yesterday's revenue support grant announcement by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the Under-Secretary will understand that I am bound to voice grave disquiet about the Government's failure to introduce all the latest up-to-date information about the area cost adjustment. That element of the standard spending assessment system is designed to reflect the unavoidable wage costs that authorities face as a consequence of their geographical location. It is based on the new earnings survey, which is updated annually to provide an accurate measure of local labour costs. The data have been updated annually since 1990–91, when the previous Government introduced standing spending assessments. This is the first year in which any Government have suggested that that mechanical and technical data change should not be fully introduced. Not to introduce the data in full represents a complete U-turn on the Government's previous policy commitment to introduce a three-year freeze in SSA methodology between 1999–2000 and 2001–02.

Last year, the effect of updating the data to the new earnings survey was that London local authorities lost £37 million. No one suggested at that point that the data should not be fully introduced or that caps should be imposed to limit their effect, so it is inevitable that the Government's decision to introduce a new approach, involving so-called floors and ceilings, is regarded by many of us in London as a cynical manipulation of the finance system to favour one set of authorities over another, regardless of established practice or objective statistical evidence.

London Members and members of local government in London are not the only ones who believe that the full data should have been introduced. The Minister will be aware that the Local Government Association has previously been reluctant to comment on distributional issues relating to Government funding. However, I know that Sir Jeremy Beecham, the distinguished chairman of the LGA, recently wrote to the Minister and confirmed that it was the association's view that

it would be difficult to a justify a decision not to use the up to date data for the ACA

and that the association

endorsed the principle that up to date data should be used as far as possible in the RSG settlement.

The effect of failing to support the recommendation of the national association representing local government is that London authorities will lose out by £13 million this year. The Minister will understand that that decision has come as a grave shock and disappointment to those of us who represent London constituencies. However, we are relieved that the previous rumour and spin to the effect that none of the new data would be introduced has proven to be unfounded. In my view, such a decision would have been unconscionable, and the fact remains that the Government's preferred option of introducing new artificial floors and ceilings is bad news for local government in London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some instances, the imposition of a ceiling on the grant available to local authorities will substantially reduce the resources available to those authorities? For example, in my own borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which despite its image has high levels of deprivation and a rate of population growth that is among the fastest in the country, the effect will be to reduce the amount of money available for local people by —4 million. There are a number of other local authorities that, through no fault of their own, due to a combination of factors such as population growth and the imposition of the ceilings, will not get all the money to which they are entitled.

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am not sure how the Government will justify their decision to the council tax payers of Kensington and Chelsea, or to those other authorities that have lost out as a result of the introduction of the new so-called floors and ceilings.

I turn now to a different source of concern for Londoners. Some months ago, I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on the review of the index of local deprivation. At that time, I was worried that the practical effect of such a review would be that London would lose out badly in the allocation of regeneration funds from central Government. Despite the false impression—sometimes given in our national media and in glitzy magazines—that the streets of our capital are paved with gold, the reality is very different. Today, more than 500,000 of London's children live in families who depend on income support. In inner London, 49 per cent. of children live in such households, compared with less than 25 per cent. across the nation. Some 64 per cent. of England's most deprived council estates are located in London, and four of the five areas with the highest rates of teenage pregnancy are also in London. Some 57 per cent. of the country's homeless households live in London.

On 22 August, the Government published the new index of multiple deprivation for 2000. To date, the Government have, despite numerous requests from organisations representing local government, for some reason refused to release the full background data that inform the new index. It is clear that the new indices disadvantage London. The exclusion from the indices of domains that measure high levels of crime and degraded physical environment has created an imbalance in favour of rural deprivation. The information that was necessary for them to be included in the formula is now available. It was a major blunder on the part of the Government to publish this new index and use it to take decisions about the allocation of millions—if not billions—of pounds in funding initiatives.

In addition, we were misled at the time of the review about how widely the index would be used. Ministers from the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have already advised me in written answers to parliamentary questions that they are actively using the new index as an important, if not pivotal, ingredient in the determination of the allocation of Government resources. Such use of the index is contrary to commitments that were given by Ministers at the time of the review. Officers at the Association of London Government have calculated that if the 1998 index had been used as the key determinant of the allocation of resources instead of the new index, London's most deprived areas would have received an extra £ 140 million over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund. What appears to be beyond question is that London will continue to lose out whenever the index is used to distribute a wide range of funds.

About two years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on the Government's change to the regulations affecting council tax benefit claimants. The change penalised low-income families in areas of high property values by capping the level of benefit available to those in band E property. I regarded and still regard the change as highly regressive, offensive and directly contrary to the Government's stated policy of combating social exclusion. The vast majority of households caught by the unpleasant measure, previously proposed by the Conservative party, live in London.

In an answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister was kind enough to supply me with tables showing the number of dwellings in band F and above in each local authority in the country. There are more such dwellings in my small local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham than in the metropolitan districts of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham combined, so hon. Members will understand my bold assertion. Given that context, I was more than a little shocked and disturbed to read the Minister's answer to another written question. She said that the Government had no plans to alter the capping of council tax benefit, and that the measure had been introduced to ensure that taxpayers did not fully subsidise the cost of people living in high-value properties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial proportion of people living in high-value properties in boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster, Kensington and elsewhere in London are allocated to those properties by their local authority and housing association? They have no choice whatever as to the value and council tax band of the property.

My hon. Friend is correct. That answer was a revelation. It was completely different from all previous answers that we had received from the DETR or the Department of Social Security. The effect of such a policy, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that huge swathes of inner London would become no-go areas for anyone living on a modest to low income. We have received numerous assurances from Ministers during the past two years that the effect of the change is being monitored.

The total saving to the Exchequer in the past financial year was £4.5 million. That is a paltry and negligible saving when set beside the misery and anguish that the measure causes families that have lived in their current locations and in their local communities for generations. It is time for the measure, which affects only poor families living in London, to be scrapped without further prevarication.

Before the recess, I was fortunate enough to secure a debate in this Chamber on the cost of asylum seekers to London local authorities. London currently supports 65,000 asylum seekers, and 9,500 are provided with temporary accommodation. The Government have consistently refused to bear the full cost of that responsibility to London local authorities. In Hammersmith and Fulham last year, the council spent £16.3 million on asylum seekers and received grants from the Government of only £12.5 million—a net loss of £3.8 million to the council tax payers of my borough.

I emphasise that I do not have any cause for concern—nor do most of my constituents—about responding sympathetically, with compassion and understanding, to the needs and requests of asylum seekers and their families. In the past, I have criticised the meagre and ungenerous allowance provided by the Government to asylum seekers, and my view remains unchanged. However, if the Government expect London local authorities to respond effectively and enthusiastically to their new role—and they have, in sharp contrast to many of their counterparts in other areas—it is only right that they should receive the full cost of providing that support. By recently agreeing to pay the full cost of support to disbenefited asylum seekers, instead of applying the arbitrary cap of £300 a week that they currently apply to families with children, the Government accepted the principle of funding the cost of support in full. It is time for them to do so for the cost of support to all asylum seekers.

In conclusion, I emphasise that I, my constituents and the population of London do not expect preferential treatment from the Government. I recognise the huge plusses and advantages secured for Londoners by the election of a Labour Government, of which I am proud to be a supporter. However, on behalf of many in London, I reiterate that we have been subjected to an unwelcome form of special treatment in regard to some areas of policy. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the points that I have highlighted today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman)—and my other hon. Friends, who are out in force today to express their views about Government funding of London—on his effective speech. I shall deal with as many of the issues that he raised as I can in the time available.

The area cost adjustment was implemented in full. All the data changes in the ACA were applied within the formula in full at the start of the process. Few people are happy with the current mechanism for deciding the distribution of grants—the standard spending assessment formula—and my h F will know that the ACA indicator features in six of the seven SSA blocks and is included in the SSA system, as he said, to reflect the higher cost of provision in London and the south-east. There is, therefore, a simultaneous uprating on six of those seven dimensions.

Changes can often produce skewed effects such as those that we have had this year, which is why the ACA has always been contentious. Numerous research projects over the years have attempted to find a better solution. Having sought different options during the past three years, we have been unable to gain consensus among local authorities but we are committed to changing the system. When we updated the data used to calculate the ACA for this year, we found that the 1999 new income survey data had a sizeable impact because of the way in which it feeds into those seven dimensions, lifting the ACA indicator to the highest level since the mid-1990s. That is why we consulted local authorities on whether we should include that data in the 2001–02 local government finance settlement. We received many responses, with no consensus on how to proceed. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, many of his colleagues argued that the ACA should be applied in full, but other authorities, seeing the huge impact of that, argued the opposite.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Local Government Association said that we would be obliged to apply the data. It also asked us to find a means of assisting those local authorities that would be seriously affected. Bearing in mind our commitments in the 1998 White Paper to continue updating the data, we have updated the ACA, as announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. That was the starting point of the process. I therefore have to refute entirely my hon. Friend's claim that we have not fully updated the data; we have.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, to ensure that no authority is severely affected by the data changes, which would otherwise have been the case, we shall introduce a floor and ceiling for education and social services authorities. However, it is not, as my hon. Friend portrayed it, a matter of London versus everyone else. Two authorities in London benefit from the introduction of a floor, and they will receive an increase of 3.2 per cent. My hon. Friend nods, but he failed to mention that the two authorities will benefit from a higher increase in grant because they are uplifted to the floor in the same way as authorities in different parts of the country. Some London authorities will get a significant increase and come down to the 6.5 per cent. ceiling.

The system benefits London boroughs as well as requiring some of them, and authorities in other parts of the country, to contribute to the cost of the floor. It is not an unprecedented mechanism; last year, several London boroughs benefited from a floor, which is part and parcel of the usual methodology. The central support protection grant instituted a 1.5 per cent. floor last year. Brent and several other authorities, which would otherwise have received a lower grant, benefited from that formula.

I therefore refute some of my hon. Friend's tenets. We tried to institute a procedure to uplift the data in its entirety, while setting floors and ceilings on the grant increases to ensure that authorities will receive no less than the minimum and no more than the maximum grant increases. Given that the ceiling is 6.5 per cent., that is a fair response to an unusual situation this year in terms of the degree to which the data would have had an impact on many local authorities, two of which are in London.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Does she agree that if the new floors and ceilings had not been introduced and the data had been fully applied, London local authorities would have received an extra £13 million?

I cannot confirm the figure as I do not have time to calculate it from my table. However, I agree that some London authorities will contribute to the cost of the floor and two authorities will benefit. Some of those authorities will contribute because their increase otherwise will come down to the 6.5 per cent. ceiling, and others, like my hon. Friend's, will make a small contribution. His authority will have an increase of, I think, 4.7 per cent. if option A is endorsed. It would have an increase of 4.8 per cent. if the traditional methodology were applied.

I want to put the matter in a wider context. Whatever the figures in terms of costs and benefits, we must focus on the fact that London boroughs will receive a 5.3 per cent. increase across the board on average. Non-London authorities will receive a 4.1 per cent. increase. That shows the substantial extent to which the proposed grant settlement this year, notwithstanding the floors and ceilings, gives a generous, above-average increase to London boroughs.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the use of the indices of deprivation and I am glad to be able to clarify some of the issues that he raised. His starting point is that a number of London boroughs appear to be less deprived than they were on the 1998 index. My hon. Friend's constituency is in one of those boroughs and he has expressed anxiety about the matter in the past.

We should bear in mind, first, that the previous index relied heavily on the 1991 census information, which is now nearly a decade out of date. Since then, under the previous Administration, various areas have suffered. Serious job losses have occurred in coal mining, tin mining and other manufacturing industries that were in decline. It is hardly surprising if, in the new index, deprivation is defined in small pockets, with more reliable data and more sensitive methodology. If, as a result, we can see that deprivation exists in areas that were not identified in the previous index—in other words, the list now includes other areas—the relativities will clearly shift. However, that does not mean that we do not recognise the significant deprivation that still occurs in parts of London.

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is appropriate to include in the formula those areas whose level of deprivation had not previously been properly recognised so that they can receive assistance, but is she aware that a number of statistics in the urban White Paper confirm that London still has a lower level of employment than any other region in the country, despite the reality of its economic success? That is the result of the huge scale of multiple deprivation in our socially excluded communities. Although the index of multiple deprivation shows that London has lost out as a region, we believe that the change is not substantiated by the figures.

My hon. Friend will be aware that employment is one of the most heavily weighted domains covered by the new index of multiple deprivation. I do not accept her conclusion that London will lose out because of a change in relativities. It depends on the size of the cake, on what the index is used for and on what other sources for regeneration will be coming to London that do not have the index applied to them. I shall touch on that point later, if I have time.

I can give other employment statistics. For instance, the north-west has the largest number of people in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards—a figure higher than in London. Nearly 50 per cent. of wards in the north-east are in the 20 per cent. most deprived areas nationally. Again, London is second on that list. I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that significant deprivation exists in other parts of the country. My simple point is that the previous index did not sufficiently recognise the fact. We have now included those measurements and used a more sophisticated methodology.

Inevitably, when one includes new areas—in a sense, the list of those who are recognised as deprived is longer—their positions will shift. That does not mean that we do not recognise the significant and serious deprivation that exists in parts of London, although there is evidence of real change in some communities. The report, which will be published fairly soon, deals with that issue. Indeed, some improvements have taken place in those parts of London represented by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, although the index recognises that serious deprivation still exists in other parts of London, such as the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).

I am running rather short of time, so I shall touch on the council tax restriction mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham. I understand the point that he seeks to make about the cost of property in his constituency and elsewhere in London, and I know that he has discussed the matter with my hon. Friends. The point that he makes is recognised. We think it fair that there should be a cut-off point, and in a sense it parallels the provision for council tax benefit. A report has been commissioned to consider the impact of that move, and we are committed to considering the outcome of that research. I cannot promise that there will be further developments, but it is an issue that we take seriously.

In conclusion, I share the concerns raised by my hon. Friends but I do not share their conclusion. If they consider the whole range of resources announced elsewhere, they will see that London is dealt with fairly.