Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the forthcoming week?

The business for next week will be as follows.

MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Motions relating to the Capital Allowances Bill.

Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill.

Motions relating to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

TUESDAY 16 JANUARY—Motion relating to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

Second Reading of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

Motion on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions)(No.4) Order 2000.

WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY Consideration in Committee of the Hunting Bill.

THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day].

Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Teacher Supply and Standards in Education", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Maintain an adequate Police Force". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

FRIDAY 19 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include: MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.

WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

THURSDAY 25 JANuARY—Debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Debate on the rural and urban White Papers on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House will also wish to know that on Monday 29 January, there will be a debate relating to Members of the European Parliament and the audit of expenditure by EP political groups in European Standing Committee B.

The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee C.

[Wednesday 17 January 2001:

European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: (a) COM (99) 644: The Helsinki Report on Sport; (b) COM (99) 643: Doping in Sport; (c) Unnumbered EM dated 23 November 2000: Declaration on Sport; Relevant European Scrutiny committee reports: HC 23-viii, HC 23-xiii and HC 23-xxxi (1999–2000).

Wednesday 29 January 2001:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 9712/00, Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (b) 9560/00, Audit of expenditure by EP political groups. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000) and HC 28-ii (2000–01).]

I thank the right hon. Lady for announcing the business, but I regret that the Government have not listened to the Opposition's requests about the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill, the first part of which will be taken on the Floor of the House. That debate will still be restricted to one day, which we consider to be entirely inadequate.

The Leader of the House did not mention Tuesday 23 January. I assume, therefore, that there is a vacant slot, and perhaps she might be receptive to some of our suggestions about the business that may be taken on that day. At the last business questions before the House rose for the Christmas recess, I raised with her the increasing concern, both in the House and outside, about Equitable Life and the role played in the past three years, first by the Treasury and subsequently by the Financial Services Authority. There is a widespread belief that the supervisory role of those authorities was not carried out properly. In the circumstances, we believe that that merits a debate on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members can make their representations.

Another matter is still pending from the Christmas recess. Members noticed with interest the Deputy Prime Minister's activities during the recess, especially his presence at Leeds station. Leeds station is, of course, a mainline station for this country. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister was categoric that the problems there would be resolved, but there are still no mainline services from Leeds. Will a debate on that matter be held in Government time, because it obviously affects not only those who live in the Leeds area, but those who wish to use that line, both north and south?

Given the very worrying job losses in manufacturing, especially in Wales, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have the traditional St. David's day debate on the Floor of the House on 1 March? As that happens to be a Thursday, it would not be difficult to accommodate that request if she was minded to do so.

Will the Government also consider holding a debate on early years education? The Leader of the House will be aware that 1,000 playgroups closed last year and that 1,500 pre-schools have closed since new Labour came to office. The Pre-School Learning Alliance anticipates that another 1,700 will close as a result of the Government's policies, so it would be appropriate for the Government to allocate sufficient time for hon. Members to debate that on the Floor of the House.

Will the right hon. Lady consider very carefully the consequences of the way in which business is now taken in respect of programme motions and Programming Sub-Committees? I attended the first Programming Sub-Committee, which met this week to consider the programme for the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. The Chairman suspended the Committee for 15 minutes for the Clerk and others to take advice about the proceedings and how the Committee's business should be conducted. I draw to the right hon. Lady's attention the fact that no minutes are taken of such Committees. If hon. Members refer to what is said in such a Committee at the beginning of the Standing Committee, as happened this week with the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is a matter of one Member's word against another as to how that Committee's deliberations proceeded. That is most unsatisfactory. Even worse, a manuscript amendment was tabled in the Sub-Committee and a vote was taken, but there is no record of how that vote was conducted for the House to consider.

During this week's business, Mr Speaker, you ruled that such Committees would be subject to Select Committee rules. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to consider seriously the fact that those proceedings are the product of the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs. She will know that those proceedings and the proposal that she brought to House did not have the support of the official Opposition. Those proposals having been introduced by the Leader of the House, who has responsibility for the whole House, I must ask her to sort out the mess that has been created and to return such proceedings to the Floor of the House so that we can all make our views known.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of having only one day to debate hunting. I do not recall being asked for more than one day on the Floor in Committee on the Hunting Bill, nor do I see any great necessity for it. It is a relatively simple issue. Members will have differing views about the options that we should pursue. The whole idea is that a decision in principle will be made as to which option commands the greatest support in the House and that the detail will then be examined in Committee.

The hon. Lady asked me about the business for Tuesday 23 January. I said that some matters were still under discussion and gave a broad pattern for the business for the week after next. She will know that the usual channels are discussing those matters and that there is good reason for that.

The hon. Lady raised the matter of Equitable Life. That is under discussion and it will no doubt be examined in the course of the normal business of the House. At the moment I do not envisage finding time for a special debate, but I will keep the issue under review and draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who deal with these matters.

I am aware that some safety work is continuing at Leeds station. The hon. Lady will be aware that questions to the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department will be taken on Tuesday and no doubt an opportunity may arise to raise the matter then.

Obviously, I will consider through the usual channels the potential for a St. David's day debate.

I was a little surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks about the closure of pre-schools and playgroups as a result of Government policies. I take it that she means the enormous expansion of nursery education that the Government have undertaken.

My hon. Friend did not mean that.

The hon. Lady did not mean that, according to her right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, she must surely be aware of that investment and of the resulting far greater opportunities available to our young children. She should also know that the Government have put extra resources into playgroups precisely to help them deal with the knock-on effects of this different range of opportunities available to the youngest children.

The hon. Lady asked me to look at the management of Programming Sub-Committees. She will be aware that it was always envisaged that they would work by informal arrangement—[HON. MEMBERS:"By whom?"] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I will finish the sentence—along the lines of those undertaken successfully, for example, in the Greater London Authority Standing Committee. It was always envisaged that they would work along the lines of previously existing Business Sub-Committees. [Interruption.] As for the issue—[Interruption.]

Order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this is not to be a dialogue, we will have to proceed differently.

As for whether or not minutes should be taken and what reference should be made to the discussions and so on, those issues are in part at least, Mr. Speaker, for you and the Vote Office. Of course I undertake to consider these matters, but I cannot undertake to bring back to the Floor of the House for discussion a procedure which the House has begun on an experimental basis, simply because one Committee has met and the hon. Lady is unhappy with its proceedings.

The House as a whole has decided to adopt this new set of procedures, albeit not with the consent of all Opposition Members. It follows recommendations by successive Committees of this House for at least 10 years and it offers the Opposition an opportunity, should they wish to take it, to make constructive use of time for debate and to make sure that all legislation is properly debated. [Interruption.] Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is absolutely no compulsion on the Opposition to use this time intelligently—and there is no evidence to suggest that they intend to do so.

In considering her future programme, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the clear will of this House in the debate on the last Modernisation Committee report that we should end the nonsense of legislating in the early hours of the morning and that we should reassure the British people that we are not time wasting in debates on the Floor of the House or in Committee, but giving detailed scrutiny to legislation passing through the House? That was the desire and aim of the House. It is what British people want. It is what the Conservative party and others who are opposed to the modernisation of this place have been trying to stop. If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend ensure that further measures are introduced to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised, even if the Opposition are unable or unwilling to engage in that process?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct in saying that the purpose of the changes proposed by the Modernisation Committee is to ensure that we make better and more effective use of the time available to the House, and that we use that time a little earlier in the evening than has sometimes been the case. That is principally because successive generations of hon. Members of all parties have observed that people are not at their best in the early hours of the morning—they only think they are.

My hon. Friend also made an important point about scrutiny, which reminded me that, in many ways, there is no advantage to the Government in proceeding in the way that we have identified. It is open to any Government to guillotine and to curtail discussion on any legislation. In so doing, they can, if they wish, ensure that it is impossible for the House to have time to examine parts of legislation, detailed debate on which the Government—any Government—might find embarrassing.

A mechanism is now potentially available to the House whereby the Opposition can decide how to use the time available and decide on which items in the legislation they wish to focus the debate. However, I repeat that there can be no compulsion on them to do so. If the Opposition wish to continue to waste time rather than to use it valuably, there is nothing that we can do to make them change.

Can we have an urgent and early debate on the issue of the health hazards for our service personnel from depleted uranium? Is the Leader of the House aware of the report that was revealed this morning, apparently prepared by an official, which suggests that this hazard was identified no less than four years ago? Can we be told urgently—even before such a debate takes place—whether that advice was available to Ministers or their immediate advisers, and when it was available? Was it before or after the previous general election?

Reverting to the issue of scrutiny raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), I endorse his request that we reconsider that matter. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's management of their business this week has degenerated into a ghastly shambles that is certainly undermining the whole case for the modernisation agenda?

I particularly ask the right hon. Lady to consider whether we need to take the programme motion immediately after the Second Reading debate. Such a practice means that we cannot consider any of the issues that arose in the debate. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have already made the point that it is extremely difficult. I have re-read the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, which the right hon. Lady chairs and on which I sit, but I found no reference to the programme motion having immediately to follow the Second Reading debate. There seems to be no technical reason why it should, and not doing so would remove one of the objections that both Opposition parties rightly share to the way in which the business of the House has been handled this week.

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the basic requirement of the Modernisation Committee recommendations, which was that there should be informal discussions about the whole of the Government's business? I appreciate that this year might not be a useful one from the point of view of avoiding oppositionitis on the Conservative Benches, but even so, no attempt has been made to discuss the handling of the Government's business on an all-party basis. That is why chaos has ensued this week.

My understanding is that the document about depleted uranium to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which appeared in the press this week, relates to an incomplete draft paper that was produced as long ago as 1993. Much of its content is said to be scientifically incorrect or misleading. Consequently, there is nothing to add to the statement that was made about the issue earlier this week.

Regarding the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised on the handling of Programming Sub-Committees and programme motions, his recollection and mine differ somewhat. He may recall that we discussed whether the vote should be taken as a package, recognising that that would entail a number of votes after 10 o'clock. It was always my understanding that the Government's proposal for the programme motion would be taken as package on Second Reading.

As for the general discussion on business, we may be speaking at cross-purposes. The intention, which I understand has been carried out, was that there should be informal discussions on initial reactions to the Queen's Speech. There were proposals for a more formal process, but they were not accepted. Instead, we agreed that the discussions should be informal and informative, at least in part, so that we did not tie the hands of the Opposition by making them commit to decisions early on in the life of a Parliament before more information became available.

Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 175, which I have tabled?

[That this House expresses its disgust with, and condemnation of, Colley Civil Engineering of 76 Meagill Rise, Otley, West Yorshire, for persisting in failing to pay their former employee, Mr. Mark Aspray of Gorton, Manchester, £280 due to him in wages since April 2000 and for deliberately refusing to respond to correspondence sent on behalf of Mr. Aspray by his Member of Parliament, the Right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton; warns other potential employees to steer clear of these disgraceful employers; and calls on potential customers and clients of Colley Engineering to have nothing to do with an organisation which cheats those who work for it.]

It relates to the swindling of my constituent, Mr. Mark Aspray, of pay due to him from Colley Civil Engineering of Otley. Will she also look at early-day motion 176, which relates to the swindling of Mr. John Carroll in my constituency of pay due to him by Ideal Cleaning Contractors of Farnworth?

Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for the House to debate those motions so that I am able to draw attention to the way in which those companies not only swindled their employees, but will, no doubt, swindle their customers? It is intolerable that they should behave in such a manner and not respond to demands for the money to be paid.

I understand my right hon. Friend's anger on behalf of his constituents and, indeed, his concern, as I understand it from his early-day motions, that approaches to the companies have produced no response. All hon. Members would deplore that. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time to explore the issues in detail. We have provided substantially more time for debate and scrutiny in Westminster Hall, and he might like to consider raising the matter there.

As this is the first time that the Leader of the House has been at the Dispatch Box this year, may I wish her a happy new year? I hope that she enjoyed her visit to New York. Her absence would explain why she has not entirely understood some of this week's nonsense regarding the programming procedures of Committees. Does she accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we can debate in Committee all aspects of legislation? That was the intention of the recommendations of the Programming Sub-Committee. I am afraid that the Government did not make it clear from the Dispatch Box during the debates that that was the intention.

The idea was that the Government would attempt to meet, with all reasonableness, the Opposition's demands for the debates upstairs in Committee to be properly planned and programmed, which should be to the advantage of the Opposition. Will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear that the Government share that intention? That would defuse some of the feelings that are boiling up, as illustrated by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—or is it Shepherd's Bush? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shepherd's pie."] The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) has a difficult enough job; we do not have to add to it.

If the right hon. Lady makes it clear that that is the Government's intention, the experiment might have a chance of working.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I return new year good wishes to the whole House.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reaffirm that it was absolutely the intention of the Modernisation Committee's proposals, which were carried by the House on a free vote, to make public what all Members of any experience in the House know to be the case, namely, the date where the Government anticipate and want a Bill to leave Committee. The aim is to provide transparency in the management of discussions on legislation and, in particular, to ensure that if the Opposition want proper scrutiny and discussion of a Bill, that scrutiny and discussion can focus on the issues that members of the Committee, especially Opposition Members, believe to be of the most importance and weight.

I am slightly surprised to learn that the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is any dubiety about that. However, I undertake to write to all my ministerial colleagues reminding them of our purpose and making it clear that the Government hope that discussions will proceed in that way and believe that the arrangements will make a contribution to the scrutiny of legislation which will be to the advantage of the whole House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Health is today chairing an important seminar on organ retention? That follows the disclosure that organs of children who died at Alder Hey hospital and elsewhere were removed without informed consent. When the report on Alder Hey has been published, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the major, sensitive issues involved are properly debated in the House?

I am aware of today's discussions, which are of great interest and will arouse great concern throughout the House. On the assumption that there are weighty issues involved that will benefit from further scrutiny in the House, I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind and continue to discuss the matter, not least through the usual channels.

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the Government's announcement last July about resurfacing concrete roads? Is she aware that there is great disappointment in Doveridge that according to the Highways Agency's announcement on 29 December—a day on which there was a great deal of media interest—the A50 is not to be included in the programme for 2001?

I am aware that there are improvements that many of us want, not least because of the considerable under-investment over many years. I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the A50 in Doveridge, but I can again recommend the virtues of the extra time available in Westminster Hall.

As someone who has not always been in favour of programming business for various reasons, which I shall not go into now, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that the experiment will be judged largely on how far the Opposition of the day are able to discuss in Committee all the controversial matters that they want to discuss? If that happens, there will undoubtedly be a case for the experiment to be taken seriously, and not in the frivolous way in which the Opposition are conducting matters.

My hon. Friend makes the powerful, entirely correct point that in a rational world the experiment should be judged on whether it provides the opportunity for adequate scrutiny. He also makes the valid point that it is always open to any Opposition simply to waste whatever time is available—and if the Conservative party ultimately decides to do that, the changes will not benefit the scrutiny of legislation for which the Government wish and the House decided to provide. If it becomes apparent that time is being wasted, that will affect how people judge the experiment because, however much Members of all parties kid themselves, time wasting always brings the House into disrepute. The public do not understand when we waste time; they understand when we use it well.

The Leader of the House will recall the commitment that she gave me at business questions on 16 November about the Government's continuing consideration of the Liaison Committee proposals on parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. Did the substance of Tuesday night's debate on setting up the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, both as to the proportion and the relevant backgrounds of Back Benchers proposed for membership, reinforce or diminish the arguments that she deployed on behalf of the Executive in the 9 November debate on the Liaison Committee proposals?

Although I shall certainly do so, I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity to study in depth the link between the debate that I know was held on that issue earlier this week and the Liaison Committee report. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is hard to envisage that it would be likely to change the views that I expressed then.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 179—a very good motion that refers to taking back the track?

[That this House congratulates the railway unions on the launch of their campaign 'Take Back the Track' in the face of Railtrack PLC's failure to meet its obligation to provide a safe and efficient rail network; further considers that the current structure is insufficient to restore public confidence and attract people back to rail travel; and consequently calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to return Railtrack PLC to an appropriate form of public ownership.]

As a Member of Parliament for a railway town, my right hon. Friend will understand the virtues of such a motion. Will she find time for a debate on it? If not, will she bear it in mind that railway privatisation was one of the craziest things that the Tories did in 18 years, and that it was done with the purpose of lining the pockets of their friends? It will be necessary, because the subject will not go away, to take the track back into public ownership. If we cannot have a debate, will she join me in ensuring that that becomes part and parcel of the next Labour manifesto? It will be a sure-fire winner.

My hon. Friend is right to say that there is continuing concern about the operation of rail, but I fear that there are no plans to do as the early-day motion suggests and return Railtrack to public ownership, although he will know that we are reviewing whether there are any impediments in the current arrangement to the provision of a safe and efficient rail service. He will also be well aware of the enormous increase in resources that the Government intend to make available to rectify the problems that have arisen as a result of decades of under-investment.

I am not suggesting paying for it.

No, and I am well aware that my hon. Friend would be the last to suggest that moneys should be expended on compensation. Although his suggestion is interesting and we all share his wish to make improvements in rail transport provision, that specific path is not one that, at present, the Government are contemplating.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House from fishing constituencies will acknowledge and appreciate the fact that Government time has been found on 25 January to discuss important issues facing the industry. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Fisheries Minister will be able to react during that Adjournment debate to the important consultations in Brussels next week on the ludicrous and counterproductive European Commission proposals for prosecution in respect of cod fishery in the North sea in the ensuing six months? If he is able to do so, it would also be helpful if he could say a word about any progress being made to get the Commission to abandon its equally counterproductive and damaging proposals to cut the prawn quota for next year.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He was one of those Members who pressed for the fishing debate and he understood why we were unable to hold it earlier. Whether it will be possible for the Fisheries Minister to give such a reaction will depend a little on how the European Union discussions go and whether there is something constructive that he can report. However, I undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Fisheries Minister, who will, I know, take them seriously and give the House as much information as he can.

My right hon. Friend may not have had the opportunity to read this week's Basildon Evening Echo. Had she done so, she would have read of the tragic death of a brave young woman of 18 who died after waiting two years for a suitable donor for a transplant operation. On looking further into the matter, it was discovered that in 1994 the rules were changed so that kidney and organ donor cards were not sent automatically to chemist shops and GPs, who have to apply for and order them. As a result, there is a great shortage of them and people across the country no longer have the choice to take up a donor card and donate an organ after their death if they want to.

Can we have a debate on the subject to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health? We must reverse the rules introduced in 1994 and send cards automatically to all chemists and GPs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important and serious issue. The House no doubt wishes to convey its condolences to her constituent's family, especially in the difficult circumstances that my hon. Friend describes. I readily admit that I was not aware that the rules had been changed in 1994 in the way that she identifies. I have carried a donor card for more years than I care to remember, and share her view that it is important that as many people as possible who would be willing to be organ donors are able to do so. The most important thing is for people to make sure not only that they carry a card, but that they make their family and friends aware of their wishes in that respect. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, I know, will take them seriously.

Perhaps because of my characteristic generosity, I assume that the Leader of the House innocently misunderstood the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for a debate on early years education. The right hon. Lady should know that the Select Committee report published today calls for diversity of provision in early years, yet since 1997 we have 30,000 fewer places in pre-schools and playgroups, and we have a fall of 20,000 in the number of providers. That includes a sharp fall in the number of child minders. There is a crisis across the sector. We need an urgent debate, and I repeat the call made earlier by my hon. Friend for such a debate.

I am aware of the wish for diversity. No one on either side of the House would deny that diversity in provision is welcome, and it would be wrong for the impression to be created that there has been some deliberate plan to reduce diversity in provision. To some extent, a re-balancing of provision is taking place as a result of the far greater opportunities for nursery education opened up under the Government. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter. We have just had Education questions, but the hon. Gentleman knows that among the other virtues of Westminster Hall is the fact that there is infinitely more time—four times as much—for discussion of Select Committee reports. He may want to press, through the Liaison Committee, for the report to be one of those debated there.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on aviation policy? The long-awaited consultation paper, "The Future of Aviation", was issued on 12 December. There was no Government statement or debate at that time, nor has there been since, so I urge that upon my right hon. Friend. Will she pass on to her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions my thanks for their decision shortly before the recess that almost halved the number of night flights going over Putney? I hope that that will lead to a total ban on night flights.

My constituents have expressed concern that the consultation paper clearly states that the White Paper will be tabled only after a decision is taken on terminal 5 at Heathrow. It is extremely important that my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate covering aviation policy as a whole, but which particularly takes soundings of the views of the House on terminal 5, which I hotly oppose, as did some 99 per cent. of the people who appeared at the public inquiry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the discussions that are under way, and for the changes that have already been undertaken to try to achieve a fairer approach to aircraft noise. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but I can recommend to him, too, the advantages of a debate in Westminster Hall. I also remind him that it is questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday, and he may find an opportunity then to raise the issue.

I thought that the question asked by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was revealing. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the Opposition have played entirely by the rules this week—her rules—and that it would be monstrous and tyrannical if the Government, at the urging of their Back Benchers, tried to change the rules? The only weapon available to any Opposition, which she would have used—and, indeed did use—when she was in opposition, is time. Are the right hon. Lady and her colleagues beginning to realise that the old system based on consent was better? It may have resulted in people getting home to bed earlier. The right hon. Lady can go on changing the rules again and again, but we shall go on fighting the Government and ensuring that this is a proper Parliament with a proper debate on scrutiny.

The basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is misplaced. In all my years in the House, I have never ever wasted time on fruitless discussion of pointless and trivial matters. I have always planned any Committee stage of which I was part, and have always planned and programmed discussion to make sure that all matters could be aired, so that, in particular, most time is given to the most important matters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's basic premise is mistaken. I am not saying that there have never been Members who use time in the way that he describes, but I have never found that attractive and have never thought that it appeals to public or those who wish us to scrutinise legislation properly.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say, however, that, as with any other place of work, this place works best, most efficiently and most effectively when there is broad consent and understanding of what we are trying to do. We are supposed to be trying to scrutinise legislation, not engaging in self-indulgent time wasting.

My right hon. Friend will know that, with the change in the American Administration and the Bush takeover, there will be a welcome change in foreign policy on Iraq. Some of us would welcome taking a more aggressive position. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on Iraq, so that Members' varying and changing views could be well understood by the Government, as we ourselves begin to reform our foreign policy on Iraq?

My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that those issues are under continuing review, discussion and debate. He will know from his many years of experience in the effective use of the procedures of the House that debates on foreign affairs on the Floor of the House tend to range over a much greater expanse than one area of the world, let alone one country. One of the many reasons why the Modernisation Committee recommended that extra time should be made available in the procedures of Westminster Hall was to allow for debates of that kind. I believe that some such debates have already taken place, and have been found both constructive and genuinely useful by those who took part in them. Perhaps I could recommend that course to my hon. Friend.

The right hon. Lady will recall that, in two successive sets of business questions last year, I felt impelled to pursue her in seeking a debate on the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on our legislation and regulations. Re-reading her last oral answer to me, she rather pooh-poohed the importance of that. Will she look at the matter again? I could give her instances in which the Act will have a profound effect on parts of the town and country planning system other than the appeal system, which is the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords. For example, since I asked those questions, Members on both sides of the House have recognised the fundamental importance of the issue in arbitration in the construction industry. If we cannot have a debate on the Floor of the House next week, will the right hon. Lady kindly look at having it before Easter?

I cannot undertake to have a debate on the matter on the Floor of the House although, again, I would certainly recommend to the hon. Gentleman the greater opportunities available in Westminster Hall. Of course, I take his point and I apologise if I appeared to pooh-pooh it, as I did not intend to do so in any way. I simply took, and continue to take, the view that it is perhaps a little early to assess the impact of the changes. Many concerns which, I accept, are perfectly legitimate and reasonable, are as yet somewhat theoretical. I shall obviously keep the matter under review and consideration. However, at this moment in time, I am not sure that we are likely to find time for an early debate on the Floor of the House.

May I tell my right hon. Friend about a recent incident in my constituency, involving the vicious racist murder of a local taxi driver, Mr. Tariq Javed? Would she join me in sending condolences to Mr. Javed's family and in expressing thanks to the local police for their efficient conduct of the investigation into the incident? Does she agree that there appears to be a rise across the country in racist incidents of this kind, and that those politicians who choose to use intolerance and xenophobia for their own political purposes have a special responsibility for creating the climate in which the growth in racist incidents takes place? Will she find time in the near future to arrange for a full and frank debate on racist incidents in the United Kingdom?

I am sure that the whole House sends its condolences to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. It is always appalling when somebody's life is taken in such a manner. The House will also want to join him in appreciating the efficient and speedy way in which the police conducted the investigation. Many hon. Members will share his understandable concern that none of us should do or say anything that fosters a climate in which it appears that racist attacks are acceptable. I am not aware of a growing trend such as that to which he referred. Every such event is particularly shocking. I shall draw his remarks and observations about the trend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in case there is evidence or opinion that backs them up, but I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on the matter in the near future. Perhaps I can recommend to him also the additional opportunities for debate elsewhere.

The Leader of the House has my greatest respect for her abilities in her office. I do not, however, understand why somebody with those qualities can suggest to the House that she is the sole arbiter of what is important and what should be given time in Parliament. In any democracy, it is the right of the Opposition to decide what is important and what should be given parliamentary time. When she expresses such views and tries to impose on the House what shall be dealt with and in what time, she is patronising the Opposition; she offers us patronage that we then refuse. The Liberal Democrats might be bought off with such patronage, but they should be on the Labour side of the House anyway. Opposition Members will not be bought off, as we put parliamentary democracy and its effectiveness above all else.

I say with respect—I have respect for the hon. Gentleman—that I share many of his views about the importance of the use of time in the House. I am not clear, however, about where he believes that I suggested that I should be the sole arbiter of what is important. In fact, that is the opposite of what I have repeatedly pointed out: we have offered the Opposition the chance to decide how time should be used. As for the specific date when legislation leaves the Committee stage, that has always been in the purview of the Government; it is merely that nobody used to say anything about it.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the possibility of allowing a debate on the middle east? An Adjournment debate occurred in Westminster Hall in October, but far more hon. Members wanted to participate than could be accommodated. When I think back to crises, in Kosovo and Bosnia, I remember frequent ministerial statements and debates in the House. Since September and October last year, when violence erupted in the occupied territories, in the west bank and Gaza, we have not heard a statement from a Minister or been given an opportunity for debate. In the light of the current serious circumstances, the middle east, like Iraq and the change of presidency in America, deserves the attention of the whole House.

My hon. Friend is right that the middle east peace process raises issues that are of concern among hon. Members of all parties. I understand fully that there is rarely enough time to discuss all the issues that hon. Members rightly feel to be important and of pressing concern. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, there are other opportunities for raising the matter, not least Foreign Office questions on 23 January.

If indeed there is a vacant day on Tuesday 23, may I urge the right hon. Lady, in the strongest terms, to use that time for a debate on Lord Phillips's report on BSE? It will be almost exactly three months since that report was published. In Germany, two Ministers have resigned after a handful of cases. In Britain, the previous Government presided over events that led to the tragic deaths of many people, caused businesses throughout the agricultural world to go to the wall and resulted in an estimated cost of almost £5 billion to the United Kingdom. Is it not time the House had a chance to debate those matters properly?

I am afraid that there is no such thing as a vacant day in this life, but discussion is taking place about how to make most effective use of time on that day. I fear that we will not be able as speedily as that to have a debate on the Phillips report on the BSE crisis. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was something like a 16-volume report, and when it was first published my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture said that he wanted to give it the full consideration and weight that the work involved demanded, and that he hoped others would do the same. I anticipate that there will be a debate on that report, but perhaps not quite as speedily as the hon. Gentleman would like.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Education and Employment questions are dominated by education questions? In the Question Time that we have just had, only two of the 11 questions that were dealt with were employment questions. Out of the 36 on the Order Paper, only six were employment questions. Many of us want to raise issues at Employment questions, such as the problem that I keep pursuing—Biwater at Clay Cross, where 700 jobs have now gone and there are serious problems of regeneration. Should we not have separate Question Times for education and employment?

My hon. Friend uses all the opportunities available to him properly to raise the concerns of his constituents. The number of questions on education as opposed to employment depends on the draw, which is done randomly. I understand the wish to have further question sessions and to split the two subjects, but I fear that I cannot undertake to my hon. Friend that such a step is likely to be taken in the near future. There is always more demand for the opportunity to raise issues than any use of time could possibly supply, but my hon. Friend is a clear example and standard of how, no matter what the fundamental provision is and what the rules are about the way this place works, people manage to raise their points when they wish to do so.

What steps will the right hon. Lady take to protect the business of the House next week from the shambles that befell it on Monday night this week, when the House was without a quorum? Will she seek to maintain a quorum on the Government Benches next week? Will that quorum accord with the aspirations of major Labour party backers, in that it should not be hideously white, grotesquely male or of sadly uniform sexual proclivity?

I am not quite sure how a representative sample of the House would fit that definition. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government will manage their part in the public's business and the House's business effectively and efficiently. I wish I could see evidence that the same was true of the Opposition.

When can we discuss early-day motion 2217, tabled on 24 June 1993? It said that the House condemned

the Government's failure to respond positively to hon. Members' concern on the dangers of depleted uranium weapons,

and called for an investigation into the health consequences for British troops. That was one of many concerns expressed from 1991 to 1993 about uranium depleted weapons. The leaked letter today, although imperfect, reveals that the Ministry of Defence was genuinely concerned and knew about the likely consequences of depleted uranium in creating cancers among our soldiers. The story of the previous Government's policy—the denial of information and the neurotically secretive answers from the MOD—should be exposed to the House.

We should have a proper debate on this issue. The inquiry into the effects of these weapons should not be taking place now: it should have taken place 10 years ago.

My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. Some of the concerns being discussed today have been discussed for seven or more years—certainly during the Conservative party's time in office.

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and others will continue to raise these issues, and to hear them aired and debated properly in the House. All I can tell him now, however, is that—he probably knows this—there is still a dispute about the nature of the scientific evidence relating to the impact of such material. No doubt that question, like others, will continue to be discussed, as is perfectly proper; but I fear that I cannot find the time for a debate on the Floor of the House of the kind that my hon. Friend wants in the near future. In any event, it is clear from what he himself said that such an occasion would not provide the only opportunity for Members to give their views. The debate on this issue has been raging, and will continue to rage, for many years.

Will the Leader of the House afford us time at an early date to discuss transport in and for London? Is she aware that London Underground's rail unions are balloting their members today on industrial action—in effect, politically motivated industrial action against her party's proposals for modernisation of the tube? Is she also aware that the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), is egging the unions on, at a time when Londoners are paying even higher tube fares and receiving ever worse service? Is this not an intolerable state of affairs, and should it not be addressed by the whole House?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place next week. He will also know that there has been continuing discussion for some time about how we can best inject into London Underground—and other parts of our transport system—investment that London Underground has needed for decades, and did not receive under a Conservative Government.

These will continue to be matters for discussion, but I fear I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on them in the near future.

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on town and country planning issues? Only this morning, Conservative-controlled Bradford city council's planning committee decided to approve a development brief for new housing on the Baildon bank reservoir site, off West lane in Baildon. I am appalled that the threat of development should hang over that greenfield site, given all the consequences—not least the traffic that such development would generate.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, expressed on behalf of his constituents, about the impact of the proposed decision. I fear I cannot undertake to find the time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but I remind him, as I reminded the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that questions to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place on Tuesday.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence following yesterday's announcement of significant job losses at BAE Systems, formerly British Aerospace?

My constituency contains a plant in Samlesbury, and another nearby in Warton. We understand from the unions that there may be up to 2,000 job losses, and that they will fall significantly on the military side. Moreover, they will disproportionately affect a number of smaller businesses that rely on a healthy BAE Systems in the north-west. We have enormous skills there, and if we lose those jobs now it is unlikely that we shall ever regain them. If the Government are serious about having a strategic military defence capability, we must be more intelligent about the way in which we procure our defence.

I am of course aware of the announcements made by BAE Systems, and, as I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are liaising closely with the company with regard to the implications of those announcements. He will also know that we have repeatedly demonstrated our commitment both to the aerospace industry as a whole and to BAE Systems, through launch investment and other supportive action. We shall continue to work with the company to identify any further steps that can be taken.

I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the House, but perhaps I can recommend the virtues of Westminster Hall.

May I repeat the calls for an urgent statement and debate on the risk assessment process in relation to depleted uranium? The most disturbing part of the news today is that United Kingdom service personnel were apparently given the all-clear by the MOD screening process, but were discovered to have high levels of depleted uranium in their system when they put their samples through the Canadian scrutiny process. Can the House have an opportunity to discuss the urgent need, not for a voluntary system of screening, but for a universal and inclusive system that is administered by the Department of Health, not at the convenience of the MOD?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and perhaps slightly different point about the way in which any screening procedure should be carried out. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue on the Floor of the House in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health.

I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House a happy new year. Having got that cordiality out of the way, in view of the Prime Minister's failure to give an adequate answer in Prime Minister's questions yesterday to the serious problem of recruitment and retention of special constables, will she make a request to the Home Secretary so that we could question him on that subject, which is particularly important in view of the national fall in police numbers and the closure of three rural police stations in my constituency recently?

Part of the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is in error, as it is my understanding that we are beginning, although slowly, to turn the corner on police numbers, no doubt partly as a result of the enormous investment that the Government have been prepared to put into the police service. He makes a separate and different point about the special constables. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future.

May I press my right hon. Friend further on the question of a debate on early-day motion 179, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? She referred, rightly, to the Government's increased investment in the railways, but inevitably a lot of that investment will end up in the pockets of shareholders and directors, which is precisely what privatisation was designed to do—shift public funds into private pockets. The vast majority of the public are sick and tired of seeing the spivs and cowboys running the railways and they want us to take it back tomorrow.

I understand the strong feelings that have been expressed by my hon. Friend and others in the House about the developments of recent times. I also understand his anxiety that the substantial investment that is being made available should be well and effectively used. It remains the case that I cannot find time for a special debate on those issues in the near future, but I have no doubt that, over the course of that investment programme, my hon. Friends will find many opportunities to raise them.

Is the right hon. Lady minded to make time available on a Government day for an early debate on the plight of rural post offices? Post offices are writing to me at the rate of one a week to announce the closure or threat of closure of sub-post offices throughout the Vale of York. That is extremely alarming to constituents, who face the prospect of not being able to draw benefits and pensions at those sub-post offices. It has recently emerged that vacancies are being advertised offering less pay per hour than the minimum wage. Is that contributing to the problem? May we have an early debate to discuss that and a pledge of a positive future for post offices in villages?

Of course I understand the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Lady and I accept that it will be shared by her constituents. She will know that both the Government and the Post Office have expressed concern, although she will be aware that, unfortunately, it is by no means a record: far greater numbers of post offices have closed in the past. Nevertheless, we continue to express concern at the rate of closures. Further analysis of what is happening is being undertaken. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right to say that, in many cases, such post offices are reopening.

The. Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices and will continue to work with the Post Office at national level in order to do so. Although Department of Trade and Industry questions are next week, when she might find an opportunity to raise the matter, I cannot say that there is likely to be a special debate on the Floor of the House soon.

Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to finding time to discuss the closure of Leeds city station, given the scale of the inconvenience to people and the fact that Railtrack has described the closure as unacceptable? I recognise that engineers are working around the clock to install the new signalling equipment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are entitled to accurate information from Railtrack about when major projects such as this will be completed? In this case, by contrast, they have been given three successive deadlines for completion of the work.

I very much sympathise with the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of his constituents. I share his view that it is unacceptable to give people unsound information. That leads to doubts that those engaged in such works are clear about the scale of their task.

Although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, I remind my hon. Friend that it is Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions questions on Tuesday. If my hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may well have a chance to raise the matter then.

Does the Leader of the House feel proud or embarrassed at the fact that her ministerial colleagues are starting to make her look like a paragon of honesty and openness in government? At business questions on 21 December, I asked her about the Cabinet Committee set up to look at job losses in manufacturing, and she gave me a commendably frank and full response. I subsequently tabled a question to the Department of Trade and Industry, which denied that such a group existed. I raised the same matter at Education and Employment questions with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who would neither confirm nor deny the group's existence.

The Leader of the House is clearly ahead of the field among her colleagues when it comes to offering honest and open replies to questions from hon. Members of all parties. Will she therefore give some guidance to her ministerial colleagues, and will she make time for a statement to the House on the findings of that Cabinet Committee with regard to job losses in manufacturing?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, which I am sure were not intended to do me any harm, but I can undertake only to consider his question. No hon. Member wants there to be job losses, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under this Government, they are on nothing like the scale experienced under the Government that he supported. The Government continue to work with manufacturing industry to try and help to resolve the difficulties that it faces.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my ministerial colleagues always endeavour to give full information to the House, and that they will continue to do so.

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. The exercise involved in trying to catch your eye has been most useful.

My question concerns the replies that the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Will she please find time for an urgent statement on flexibility in the total number of hours available for consideration of a Bill in Standing Committee?

The right hon. Lady is usually spectacularly well informed, but is she aware that Conservative members of the Committee considering the Vehicle (Crimes) Bill have been complimented already—by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—on our constructive use of the available time? The problem is that there is too little such time.

Will the right hon. Lady explain why our request for a further nine hours' debate on the 45 clauses of the Bill—to which 33 amendments have been tabled so far—was summarily rejected on the basis of a Government vote in the Programming Sub-Committee? Will she concede that there is a powerful case for the establishment of a formal procedure under which members of the Standing Committee who are not members of the Programming Sub-Committee could put forward their own proposals and draft resolutions regarding the order of consideration of a Bill's clauses?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and worthwhile point and I undertake to consider it and to discuss it with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I would be reluctant—I accept that this is not what he is suggesting—to see us adopting a procedure whereby people are encouraged to spend time discussing how long they ought to spend discussing the legislation, as opposed to discussing the legislation itself. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. Also, to assume at the beginning of discussions on legislation that more time is likely to be needed will not always encourage the best use of the time available. He will know, I hope, that under the Modernisation Committee's proposals there is room for manoeuvre if it becomes clear that, for whatever reason, time has been inadequate. Obviously, the Government would be prepared constructively to consider that.

We would be reluctant to see this as the thin end of the wedge—always demanding more time regardless of whether it is necessary. I undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman's points and to discuss them with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to take up an issue raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When the proceedings of today's sitting are printed, would you cause a study to be made of the amount of the 55 minutes of Education and Employment Question Time that was taken up by ministerial answers? My layman's research found that on at least six occasions, questions that could have been answered in a quarter of a minute took upwards of one and a half minutes. If I were of a more cynical disposition, I would say—and you might agree, Mr. Speaker—that Question Time is being used not to answer questions but to peddle petty party political propaganda. More importantly for the rights of the House and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, because Question Time is limited, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that the greater the time used on ministerial answers, the more it infringes the rights of Back Benchers. Will you look into that please, Mr. Speaker?

I certainly do not intend to become involved in the content of ministerial replies at Question Time, but I am deeply concerned that Back Benchers are not being given an opportunity to ask their questions and that we are not dealing with enough questions because ministerial replies are far too long.

I call on Ministers to bear in mind what I have to say. I want to be able to call Back Benchers, particularly those who have tabled questions. The questions from Opposition Front Benchers could also be a bit sharper. I hope that both parties will consider this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a point of order about my written question on volunteering. Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the courtesy of informing me that he intended to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. Not only was that a gross discourtesy to me—I have informed him that I intended to raise this matter today—but had he approached me, he would have avoided misleading you, Mr. Speaker, and the House.

The hon. Gentleman reported last night that House of Commons Library staff had been told by the Home Office that they would not receive a copy of the answer to my question until after a press conference had been held by the Chancellor at 8.45 this morning. What he failed to tell the House was that the Home Office had told the Library that the answer would be given at 8.30 this morning, before the press conference. He also failed to tell the House that the and the Library had been promised an early copy of the answer, which would be faxed directly to them at 8.30 this morning. That procedure was confirmed to me by the Library staff.

It appears that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has misrepresented the facts and unfairly embroiled Library staff in his misjudged intervention. Surely he should come to the Dispatch Box to put the record straight and to apologise.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a matter with me, and the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) will know that I said that I would look into it. In doing so, I will take on board what the hon. Member for Corby has said. However, I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Aylesbury would deliberately mislead the House. Perhaps he was misinformed, but he certainly did not deliberately mislead the House. I will take on board what the hon. Member for Corby has said, and I will of course reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I think that that would help.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the matter that I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions, I should like to seek your guidance. Having established from the Leader of the House before Christmas that a ministerial group has been set up to look into job losses in manufacturing, I was perplexed to receive from the Department of Trade and Industry a reply to a written question to the effect that no such group exists. Would it be in order for me to table the same question again to the Department of Trade and Industry in the hope of an accurate response, or could the Minister be brought here to correct the misleading impression that he gave?

I have always found the Table Office very helpful, and that is where the hon. Gentleman should go in these circumstances.

I welcome the opportunity to present the report of my Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Cancer Research—A Fresh Look". I thank the Liaison Committee for allowing us to have this estimates day debate and the Leader of the House, who has now departed, for agreeing to include it in this Session's busy programme.

The attendance this afternoon may not be as large as we might wish to see for a debate on cancer, but those attending have a great interest in the issue and will, I know, make a useful contribution when the time comes.

Over my lifetime, there have been subjects that one has never talked about. When I was a boy and a youth, homosexuality was never mentioned. When I was a young man—even a married young man—contraception was taboo and not discussed. Yet both those subjects are now quite rightly widely discussed. However, all my life, until very recently, cancer has been a taboo subject, and only recently has it been discussed openly and frequently among people, at work and at leisure.

Why has cancer been a taboo subject for so long? It is not as though it is rare—40 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed at some time as having cancer. It is not as though cancer is something to be ashamed of: it is not caught from an illicit sexual contact; it is not a sign of unclean living; and it is not contagious—it cannot be transmitted by contact. So why has cancer been ignored in conversation and swept under the carpet for so long?

I believe that the reason is that cancer kills—it kills 25 per cent. of the population. Not only does it kill, however: until very recently, there has been no cure and little hope. If people spoke about cancer they did so in hushed tones, in awe of an unbeatable killer. They knew that for the friend, the relative, the loved one who had cancer, the death knell had sounded. For that reason, cancer was not discussed.

In recent years, there has been an amazing virtuous circle. Medical science has advanced quietly, very often from behind the scenes, without much trumpeting of its success. People have talked about patients surviving cancer. Cancer has slowly become a topic for discussion. The more discussion there has been, the more optimism has entered into the whole issue of cancer treatment and cancer medicine, and the more money has been given by the public to charities for cancer research. As a result, advances have been made in drugs and in treatment; there has been more success, followed by more hope, more money and more results. There is complete openness about cancer because we have got rid of the terrible situation that I described—in which cancer was a killer and there was little hope.

Our report was conceived at the beginning of last year; we started our inquiry in March 2000. We chose its title because we thought that there was a new opportunity on cancer. We were not the first to think so. In 1995, the Conservative Government published a report on cancer treatment, led by the heads of the national health service in England and in Wales, which became known as the Calman-Hine report. That was the beginning of the consideration of how to improve the organisation and delivery of cancer services.

In July 1999, about eight months before we began our inquiry, the Labour Government issued a report, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which identified cancer as a disease—among others, such as coronary heart disease—on which action was needed to improve the quality of life for people in this country. In October 1999, a national cancer director was appointed. Thus we do not claim that our report is the beginning of a movement for the improvement of cancer treatment; it is part of a continuum—we like to think that it is a helpful and significant part.

Immediately we announced our inquiry, the BBC contacted us and asked if it could make a programme in the "Scrutiny" series on the work that we planned to undertake. We agreed, but with the proviso that the programme should be a serious study of a serious subject—not a frivolous film that aimed to catch Members of Parliament out as they went about their business.

I am delighted to say that the BBC filmed the majority of our eight evidence sessions, in which we heard from 30 eminent witnesses. The corporation also filmed all but one of our five visits to cancer treatment centres in the United Kingdom; and accompanied us on our visits to the United States, Canada and Finland, where we compared and contrasted cancer treatments with those in the UK. A 40-minute film was produced; it was screened on BBC 2 on 29 July. The majority—if not all—members of the Select Committee thought it a worthwhile film; it was well and professionally made, and we thank the BBC for its interest and for its contribution to the fight against cancer.

While we were abroad, we found much to admire; we were grateful that every institution that we visited received us warmly. We were gratified that each of them appreciated and praised the work being done in this country. Our visits abroad were not just about finding out whether other countries were doing better than us, as they were in some respects. Each centre and each country congratulated us on the high quality of individual work in this country, on our centres of excellence and on our research. That does not mean that we cannot do better, because we can, but it does mean that we have international standing.

I note, in my hon. Friend's excellent report, recommendation (m):

More clinical research is needed to determine the benefits that patients derive from complementary therapies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that recommendation neatly ties in with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on complementary and alternative medicine, which argued for more research, and with the fact that nearly 160 Members of this House have signed an early-day motion broadly supporting the Lords report? Can my hon. Friend mention recommendation (m) in his opening remarks?

Of course complementary medicine should not be ignored. We mentioned it in our report, as my hon. Friend rightly says, and I would continue to support the need for research into complementary medicine, but I believe that our key priority at this stage is to find money for more traditional research, which is likely to have a greater payback in terms of cancer treatment. By that I do not mean that complementary medicines should be excluded. The research should continue in parallel with the traditional research to which the report principally refers.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about traditional research, and mentioned the fact that tributes were paid abroad to the research that was taking place in this country. May I press him and encourage him in his campaign to get more money into that research, bearing in mind the fact that at least £25 million will be needed in Northern Ireland alone—in an excellent department under Professor Johnston—and that that need is replicated all over the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman is right. At the end of my few remarks I shall discuss the need for more money. We recognise in our report the excellent work that is being done in Belfast, and Northern Ireland in general. We took evidence from people from the Province, and one of our last witness sessions—one of our larger sessions—gave us the opportunity to hear people who were recovering from cancer, who had travelled from Northern Ireland to tell us about the excellence of the service there.

Not only was it right that the organisations that we visited abroad should pay tribute to cancer research in this country, but that we as a Committee paid tribute to the cancer professionals, the cancer charities and all those associated with cancer care in this country. We are grateful for the willing help that we have obtained in preparing our report—from the Committee's own advisers, from the 30 witnesses who came to see us and from the host of institutions that we visited, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We received 106 written submissions, all of which were carefully scrutinised, and all of which were very valuable in helping us to prepare our report.

I mentioned that we had one witness session at the end to which we invited 20 witnesses, some of whom came from Northern Ireland to tell us of their experience of cancer. We lifted that idea from what we saw when we visited the United States Congress, where we attended a session at which members of the public were invited to speak for no more than five minutes to present their views on an issue. We held a similar session in this Parliament, at which we heard 20 witnesses in two hours. Each person was allowed five minutes to express their point of view. They came along with some trepidation, never having given evidence to a Select Committee. We received them in as friendly a way as we could and listened to their points of view, which we have taken into account in our report.

I commend to other Select Committees the idea of holding a witness session that members of the public may apply to attend to give evidence. Twenty are selected and can present their individual, and sometimes lonely, point of view to a Select Committee of the House.

It was right to call our report "A Fresh Look". There have been changes to the way in which the services are delivered. A national cancer director has been appointed, and the two largest cancer research charities are now willing to work together.

What was it, then, that triggered our report? Many factors did so, some of which I have mentioned. Comparisons have been draw between the mortality and survival rates in this country and those in other parts of the world, especially north America and Europe. It is difficult to draw definitive comparisons, but we found that some of our mortality and survival rates were not as good as they could be compared with those in other countries in the developed western world, particularly in north America. Although the survival rates for cancers overall have steadily improved in this country, there has been little or no improvement in the survival rates for cancers of the lung or the prostate.

Our report is comprehensive, as is the Government response, dated November 2000. Many issues were highlighted and discussed in our report, and other members of the Select Committee present this afternoon will wish to raise many others. I shall, therefore, quickly confine myself to dealing with three topics in the report—epidemiological and public health research issues; Government funding, as I promised the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth); and the national cancer research institute.

On epidemiology, cancer registration is an invaluable tool in the fight against cancer, yet the organisation of records is haphazard—probably because of historical accident, rather than by design—and needs to be improved if we are to get the most of our those records, which can be valuable in fighting cancer. If we are to fight cancer effectively, it is always helpful to know where, in which age group and in relation to which type of life style cancers occur. The Government are aware that data collection may be hindered by the Data Protection Act 1998.

In our report, we recommended:

The Government should introduce legislation to make registration of cancer a legal requirement, both to ensure completeness of the cancer registry data and to ensure access to those data for legitimate purposes.

I believe that the Government have sympathy with that point of view, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that matter and what she and the Government might do about it.

On Government funding, in the United Kingdom, for every pound spent by the Government, £2 is spent by charities. However, in north America, for every pound spent by charities, £2 is spent by Government. In the United Kingdom, because of the public's generosity to cancer charities, it is possible that the Government have, to some extent, been let off the hook. That is no longer acceptable. The Government should view public giving not as an excuse to minimise their own contribution, but as showing the public's earnest determination to improve the situation. The Government should recognise the fact that the public want to improve the situation, and match— and preferably double—charitable giving.

In paragraph 102 and 103 on page 16 of their response, the Government give an encouraging reply. They say:

The UK Government expenditure on cancer research is inevitably a smaller proportion of total expenditure from all sources than in many countries where a tradition of popular support for cancer research is less evident.

Nonetheless, the Government accepts the Committee's basic premise, and supports the case for increased investment in order to redress years of under-funding, to make the most of exciting new opportunities.

That is a generous Government response to the criticism that we made, but there is still a need for delivery in due course.

The day before the press conference on our report, the Government announced an extra £200 million for cancer research. I am sure that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will recap on all the initiatives that the Government have undertaken and all the new money that they plan to make available.

Finally, we proposed a national cancer research institute to co-ordinate cancer research in the United Kingdom and cancer research funding. On 27 September 2000 the Government responded positively with the announcement in the NHS cancer plan of their intention to come forward with definitive proposals for such a research institute, broadly along the lines that we had proposed. Page 20, paragraph 117 of the Government reply 117 sets that out. We are grateful to the Government for that response and look forward to seeing the benefits of implementing those proposals in due course.

Although we are debating cancer from our adversarial positions in this House, cancer is not a political topic. It is a human problem of national and, indeed, international importance and dimensions. The alleviation of suffering, the treatment of patients and the cures for the disease are also national and international responsibilities. We on the Science and Technology Select Committee have tried to present a fair, comprehensive and helpful report. The Government's response was appreciative and encouraging. I believe that the Government are ready to acknowledge that there is still a lot to do, and we wish them well in their endeavours.

As a member of the Science and Technology Committee I start by paying tribute to our Chairman, who co-ordinated the work and ensured that we all behaved cordially and made significant progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was the prime mover and the idea was his brainchild. We should, therefore, record, that the agenda was set by him.

As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) said, the debate is essential and we need a fresh look at cancer research in the United Kingdom. I agree that what the Government have done and the Secretary of State's announcements have given a boost to cancer treatment. That boost fits perfectly with the national plan for the NHS. The NHS is the greatest achievement of Labour Members. We recognise that the health plan fits in with the Government's programme for the 21st century.

As the hon. Gentleman said, cancer is one of the great scourges of our time. It is a disease that knows no boundaries—boundaries of country, class, gender or race. The prevalence of cancer means that one person in four will at some time be diagnosed as suffering from a cancerous condition and a third of all those here will die from that condition.

As anyone who has had a close family relative with cancer knows, the sheer malignancy can infect the entire household emotionally. I know that only too well myself as my aunt died from breast cancer in 1983. In a close-knit, Asian family where ties of affinity are great, it hit me hard personally and caused a lot of pain and heartache. I saw at first hand what a deadly disease cancer was. My aunt was only 52. She was effectively robbed of her young life. She was a happy, lively woman and I adored her. She faced this dreadful disease with dignity and courage. She was given all the support of her doctors, nurses and hospital staff and, of course, of her family— her nearest and dearest.

The challenge that we face is to eradicate the conditions that help to foster cancer. Society can then begin to make positive steps towards the better treatment and analysis of the cancers that still occur.

At this point, I want to highlight some of the Committee's findings and to place them in the context of the work being carried out on cancer research, treatment and prevention, from which my constituents could benefit. The report makes 38 good recommendations. I want to focus on only a few of them, specifically those in paragraphs 119 and 143 of the report, relating to the need for patient involvement and the need to spread cancer research across the United Kingdom in a new network of centres of excellence.

Research is being carried out into the causes and the nature of cancer and can be fertilised by other research being carried out in related fields, notably the work being carried out on the human genome project. Research into drug discovery and design is also taking place, as is translational research that seeks to transfer the findings of interdisciplinary teams of scientific workers into treatment regimes. Such work is based on clinical trials and their evaluation. Research is also being carried out into improving patients' quality of life. It is crucial that such work is seen as cross-disciplinary and cross-frontier, and that everyone involved, in whatever sector, is able to appreciate how his or her work can be seen to contribute to the over-arching cause: the eradication and overcoming of cancer.

There are many strands to the research work. The Medical Research Council, in giving evidence to the Committee, stated that such strands

can be pursued and shared simultaneously.

It is crucial that all the agencies involved in this battle see their work as complementary and not competitive. The national health service is the key agency in this country, but there must be parity of esteem between consultants and specialists working for the national health service and scientists working in an academic setting or in drug company laboratories.

Specialists working in those fields must, likewise, pay heed to the work of those dedicated people who manage national and local cancer charities. Charities fund much research work at local and national levels, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh mentioned. All those engaged in research must be conscious of the efforts of people working at the sharp end of the treatment process: the consultant oncologists, the nursing staff, professionals allied to medicine, radiographers and voluntary workers from the various cancer relief groups.

Those involved in research must, above all, have empathy with cancer sufferers and patients, who have a role in combating the disease by volunteering for clinical trials and by playing a full role in supporting research work carried out in their locality. One of the Committee's most far-reaching recommendations is in paragraph 119, which is that

all Government-supported cancer research committees include patients' representatives as full members and that the Government provides resources to ensure proper training and support for patients' representatives.

I said earlier that the NHS must be the UK pivot. The Committee's most important recommendation, to be found in paragraph 143, is that national health service funding for cancer research should be increased immediately by £100 million, and that this dramatic increase in funding should be spread geographically across the UK so that at least 12 new centres of excellence can be established. Those centres should be at least the equivalent of the Royal Marsden hospital, which Committee members visited.

This call for resources is little more than cancer sufferers and their families deserve. The Committee showed, on the evidence of cross-comparisons, that Government support for advanced research into cancer is low compared with that available in other advanced nations. We come out particularly badly when compared to the United States. Indeed, as paragraph 145 of the report points out, the two UK centres that we visited— Belfast city hospital and the Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow—receive better funding from the US National Cancer Institute than they do from our own Government. That should not be tolerated.

The siting of centres of excellence should be tied to existing facilities, such as new large hospitals and universities with records of excellence in medical research and training, and to areas where there are specific incidence of cancer. My area of Teesside should be considered. It has hospitals and university expertise at the university of Teesside and the university of Durham's Teesside campus, which is located in Stockton. The simple reason why such a centre should be situated there is that we are unfortunate in having one of the highest incidence of cancer in the country.

Specialists from the South Cleveland hospital, which is managed by the South Tees acute hospitals NHS trust and is the cancer centre for Teesside, told me that they support, from a local perspective, the sentiments of many of the report's conclusions. Oncologists in particular are optimistic. Mr. Peter Dunlop, the clinical director of radiotherapy and oncology, and a cancer specialist at the hospital, told me:

Research and development and education are vital elements involved in running an effective cancer service … Stimulate and advance local academic and research training activity and you will get quality outcomes for patients … Many of these recommendations for enhancing the UK cancer research resource base in the UK are fully supported.

However, Dr. Dunlop gave a serious warning. He said:

I still believe that difficulties lie ahead. Recruitment of specialist staff will be needed across many disciplines, particularly those suffering the worst workforce planning blight ever … We are still short of nurses, we have difficulty in recruiting therapy radiographers, medical physics and technical staff, whilst other specialisms such as clinical oncology … are entering a barren period.

In that context, Dr. Dunlop explained that he is one of only 340 clinical oncologists in England and Wales. On average, he sees two and a half times the number of new cancer patients that are seen by his equivalent in any other developed country. He thinks that at least 700 more consultants in clinical oncology are needed to meet European standards at a time when stress levels among staff are leading to an even higher number of people taking early retirement. Dr. Dunlop's warning is very simple: we must proceed with many of the improvements suggested in the report, but there must be full cross-collaboration, and we must not raise expectations unduly.

It is not only consultants who welcome aspects of the report. Another local leading cancer fighter, Dr. Pat Keane, director of the local Cancer Care Alliance at Middlesbrough general hospital, told me:

We would welcome the opportunity to increase our contribution in cancer research, both locally and nationally, to the proposals outlined within the report … Unfortunately the Teesside area has some of the highest incidence of deaths from cancer, particularly for lung … cancer, in the U.K … We are very keen to increase resources to support local clinical staff in matching their excellent clinical work with a higher involvement in both clinical trials and ongoing research associated with the quality of life of people with cancer.

That is the voice of the people at the sharp end who, in general, support the report's proposals. However, I acknowledge their view that simply considering the possibility of establishing new centres of research excellence without looking in more depth at the staffing of the centres is not enough. We need to consider the flow of research graduates from our universities and to tie in good links between research, clinical practice and the work of the pharmaceutical industry. We also need to use the national plan for cancer to train, recruit and retain more specialists. I know that the Minister recognises that need. There needs to be a proper dialogue with academia and industry so that everyone pulls together to ensure that the ultimate beneficiaries—cancer sufferers and their families—receive the treatment and the quality of life that they deserve.

I believe that this is an excellent report, though I am bound to say that because I was involved in it. It points out a way forward for the radical overhaul and improvement of UK research centres. I know that the Minister will respond positively and I look forward to a day when many more announcements will be made on the back of the work that we have done.

I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) and his Select Committee for their outstanding report. I served on the Science and Technology Committee almost 30 years ago, but do not remember any of our reports offering such a wide range of potential benefits to the community as that which is before the House.

I shall point out how the admirable recommendations of the Select Committee relate to the work of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood, in my constituency, which is one of the premier cancer treatment and research centres in the south of England and, indeed, the whole country. Recommendation (e) states:

We recommend that the Government and the National Screening Committee evaluate high speed and precise techniques with a view to commencing large-scale trials for CT cancer screening. This would require the NHS to purchase state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment.

Mount Vernon is pre-eminent in that field. Recommendation (g) states:

We recommend that the Government address the service problems in the delivery of radiotherapy and actively encourage research into radiotherapy.

Mount Vernon hospital has worked in this field since the second world war.

Recommendation (n) states:

We believe that cancer care networks should also provide an essential resource for clinical research and that research based on cancer networks should be given more emphasis than was evident in the Calman-Hine report itself. Clinical research should be an explicit part of the remit of both cancer centres and their associated units.

This is precisely what Mount Vernon is all about—the co-ordination and integration of medical treatment with cancer research. Recommendation (z) states:

There is widespread agreement that the poor state of the infrastructure for cancer treatment and research in the NHS is a serious barrier to clinical research. The Government must act quickly to address this through investment in the necessary staff, training, equipment and buildings.

Mount Vernon's work is second to none and the intellectual quality of all who work there is outstanding, but the fabric of many of its buildings is declining and needs to be addressed.

Last, but not least, recommendation (oo) states:

We recommend that annual NHS R and D funding for cancer research support be increased by £100 million immediately. This extra funding should be spread across the UK to ensure that approximately twelve large centres of cancer research excellence are developed, capable of delivering a volume of clinical research similar to or greater than that currently being delivered at the Royal Marsden Hospital.

Mount Vernon is in the Royal Marsden hospital league already, but it needs more money. Its research is largely supported by extremely generous donations, but the Government can and should do more.

Mount Vernon was established in 1930 as a cancer hospital, having begun operation before the first world war, and it quickly established a reputation in surgery and radiotherapy. The Radium Institute, which was originally established in central London in 1911, moved entirely to Mount Vernon in 1939. The radiotherapy department of the Middlesex hospital became established at Mount Vernon during the war. With the establishment of the national health service, a centre for radiotherapy for the north-west Thames region was established at Mount Vernon under the direction of Professor Sir Brian Windeyer.

To general medicine and surgery—well established on the site since the war—was added the centre for plastic surgery in 1952. Hon. Members are aware that in many cases, plastic surgery is an essential element in cancer treatment and rehabilitation. Sad to say, it is planned that the plastic surgery unit at Mount Vernon might be moved away from the site to Northwick Park in the not too distant future. I regret the move and have resisted it, but it does not mean that the excellent work of the cancer centre cannot continue.

The Gray laboratory was established in 1957 on the Mount Vernon site by the British Empire Cancer Campaign, now the Cancer Research Campaign. It was initially a unit for radiobiological research, but after the death of its first director, Dr. Gray, it was called the Gray laboratory and soon gained a premier position in research in its field. Now responsible to the Gray laboratory cancer research trust, with a staff of almost 100, it continues to play a leading role in radiation and tumour biology. The work performed in collaboration with the clinical oncologists of the cancer centre has received widespread international recognition. In many areas of research, the laboratory is ahead of the field worldwide.

In 1967, the Marie Curie hospital—established in 1926 in Hampstead for the care of women with cancer—was transferred to the Mount Vernon site and became part of the cancer centre. In 1977, Michael Sobell house, a hospice for terminal patients, was built adjacent to the site and later expanded to give out-patient as well as in-patient services.

The cancer centre at Mount Vernon is long established as a regional centre caring for a population of 1.8 million living in Hertfordshire, south Bedfordshire, adjacent areas of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and the suburbs of north-west London. Sixteen consultant medical staff visit 15 general hospitals in the area, where patients with cancer are initially seen and screened. Patients who are to receive radiotherapy or intensive chemotherapy go on to attend the cancer centre at Mount Vernon for their treatment, and return closer to home for follow-up treatment.

At Mount Vernon, about 4,200 new patients a year with cancer receive treatment by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. The centre currently has five linear accelerators for radiotherapy, but work is proceeding on two further accelerator housings, which should be installed this year, bringing the total number of high energy machines to seven. With the new building which is being constructed, a new treatment simulator is to be added to the two at present in action, and there will be an extension of the research facilities of the Marie Curie research wing.

There are 65 in-patient beds in three wards, together with a unit for high-dose chemotherapy. Complementing in-patient facilities is a hostel, a CHART—continuous hyperfactionated accelerated radiotherapy—lodge, which was constructed in 1990. It contains comfortable hotel rooms, which are extremely useful for patients undergoing chemotherapy or for their relatives to stay nearby.

The Paul Strickland scanner centre was opened in 1985 and has been extended on three occasions. The centre is supported by voluntary donation and is now equipped with a spiral computed tomography, two magnetic resonance imaging units and a positron emission tomography scanner. That equipment provides an excellent service for the radiological investigation of patients attending the centre, facilitating diagnosis, treatment planning and the assessment of response. During 2001, a cyclotron will be built in collaboration with industry, so as to allow further advance in the care and research that the PET has facilitated.

I must inform the House that a most imaginative scheme, the Lynda Jackson Macmillan centre, was opened in 1993 to provide support and information to cancer patients being treated at the Mount Vernon cancer centre and to the area served by it. Approximately 4,000 patients per annum use the service, and a psychological research team has undertaken several studies which show improvement in the quality of patients' lives and demonstrate that the centre is instrumental in giving them and their families invaluable support. The centre has recently gained an NHS beacon award, which is a Government recognition of high-quality cancer care.

The cancer centre provides comprehensive care in the treatment of patients with cancer. There are special groups concerned with breast cancer; cancer of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract; gynaecological cancer; urological cancer; germ cell tumours; head, neck and lung cancer; and haematological malignancies, including myeloma and lymphomas. A traditional strength of the centre is close integration of clinical care and research, which is at the heart of the Select Committee's recommendations. The translation of laboratory advances into clinical practice has long been a feature of the work at Mount Vernon, which is built on the strong links with the Gray laboratory.

The Cancer Research Campaign's tumour biology and radiation therapy group is sited in the Marie Curie research wing at the cancer centre. Professor Saunders, Dr. Hoskin and Dr. Makris have established an international reputation for its work on the physiology of tumours and the importance of their oxygen supply, together with programming radiotherapy to improve tumour responses and decrease the changes in normal tissues. The clinical trials group at the centre, under the direction of Dr. Rustin, has established an international reputation for its work in ovarian cancer. It is also engaged in original work looking at vaso-active drugs that shrink tumours by attacking their blood supply. A new clinical research group headed by Dr. Rob Glynne-Jones has been established to investigate the role of combination chemotherapy in the treatment of intestinal cancer.

The cancer centre at Mount Vernon plays a prominent role in the pan-London training scheme for doctors training in clinical oncology. Again, the Select Committee is adamant that we need to do more to train more specialists in that field. There are 24 junior medical staff at the cancer centre, whose registrars are trained in clinical oncology and medical oncology. Seventy nurses, including clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners, are responsible for the care of the patients on the ward, while 40 therapy radiographers operate and treat patients on the treatment machines. Postgraduate training for nurses and radiographers is continued at the centre, and they are encouraged to take part in research projects. Six clinical physicists and two radiographers are responsible for patient planning, together with the running of machines, quality assurance and the commissioning of new equipment.

There are difficulties at present. Organisational changes have been made and medical and surgical services have been shifted away from the Mount Vernon site. There has been a change in ownership of the site as a whole, which comes under Hillingdon health authority, whereas regional specialist services in cancer, burns and plastics are the responsibility of the eastern region to the north of the hospital. That dichotomy does not make administrative sense. It is accepted that the everyday working of the cancer centre has been made more complicated by those transfers.

As a consequence, the cancer centre is now a lodger in its own home. Maintenance standards of property have fallen and it is often difficult to get improvements to basic support services without making an enormous effort.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, despite all those problems, the number of patients treated at the Mount Vernon cancer centre, continues to rise. The standard of care continues to improve, while morale and staffing levels have been maintained. The centre's popularity among the patients attending remains high, and its national and international reputation continues to rise. Those performing clinical research, together with their colleagues in laboratory science, have performed well. The work of established research groups has been assessed by teams of doctors and experts from the United Kingdom and overseas and has always been given a high rating.

Funding has been maintained and, in some cases, increased. New proposals for research have a high success rate. I am convinced that the Select Committee proposals, which I wholeheartedly applaud, can only help the admirable work of the Mount Vernon cancer centre and its related research institutes.

For me, the inquiry was precipitated by two matters. First, cancer survival rates in the United Kingdom are atrocious when compared with those in other countries, especially in Europe, and they fall far short of those in the United States. That is true for breast, lung and colon cancers; indeed, it is true for 10 major cancers suffered by men and women.

Secondly, basic biomedical research into cancer in the United Kingdom is world class, yet the major discoveries are not being translated into clinical practice. There is little political recognition of that, and a serious lack of noise from many cancer interest groups. It took 26 years from the initial laboratory work to develop the drugs that we use to treat breast cancer today. That is far too long. We need a different infrastructure to make sure that that does not happen again.

The question is not whether the Government have tried to tackle cancer—they certainly have—but whether they will solve the problems that I described. Will the many recent announcements, including the national cancer plan and increased investment, correct the position whereby cancer survival rates in the United States are three times greater than those in the United Kingdom? Analysis of the statistics clearly shows that five-year survival rates for the major cancers are better in most European countries than in the United Kingdom. Let us put that in perspective: approximately 10,000 deaths per annum could be avoided if we attained the average European survival rates. Two thousand of those deaths are from breast cancer.

There are major geographical variations in the incidence of colon cancer in this country. High incidence rates are associated with economic deprivation and poverty. I acclaim the Government's attitude towards tackling poverty because health will benefit from that. We could save 2,500 lives a year through equality of diagnosis, treatment and patient care throughout the country. For major cancers, the 10-year survival rate for the richest sector of our society is better than the five-year survival rate for the poorest. We cannot justify that, and we cannot sleep until we correct that aberration.

I appreciate that basic scientific and medical research has received a large injection of money from the Government for equipment, repairing, for example, university laboratories and bringing the boys—and, hopefully, the girls—back home from their rich, luxury laboratories in the United States. However, is it enough? I agree with some other speakers who doubt whether it is enough at this stage.

It takes time to train clinical oncologists, thoracic cancer surgeons, histopathologists, radiographers, biochemists and physics technicians. I welcome the Government's injection of massive sums into the pay packets of such people in the past 48 hours. They are essential for providing cancer screening in this country. The Government's action constitutes a major political advance. Many of us acclaim it, and we will be proud to talk to the unions who represent those professions and the Institute of Biomedical Science, which campaigned for that tremendous leap forward. Many graduates will welcome the chance to enter those professions because we have addressed the pay problem and begun to consider the career structure.

I say to the Government, "Yes, great, more money has been put in, but we need even more." We can improve our basic research and cancer services even more. We can carry out clinical trials, which are shown to benefit patients, if we provide more money. I shall say more about the way in which we could do that. A local consultant told me last week that Culyer money was available to fund trials co-ordinators. The local trust refused the money and charity money had to be found to enable the trials to happen. I could repeat many such anecdotal stories of available money that does not get to the place where it counts.

We may need to think in the same way as we did for education. Perhaps we should give a pot of money directly to the relevant cancer network, unit or centre so that the practitioners can use it to effect improvements.

In order to establish a challenging service, we need to develop not a virtual cancer institute but a real one: a small centre, not a huge, rambling building as in Washington. It should co-ordinate and develop a national strategy for all aspects of the cancer journey and cancer care. That must be supported by a national cancer Act, as in the United States. The Government side-stepped that issue in their reply, so I look forward to the Minister saying something about that now.

A national cancer Act would make the matter independent of which party was in Government. The question whether we are putting enough money and resources into cancer research would have to be reviewed every year. That is a challenge for this century, and one that we could take up.

It is a tremendous advance that the Government have acknowledged the need for a national cancer research institute. The silence on that issue has been deafening. It is a major political contribution to the cancer arena and the national health service, and I look forward to hearing more about it. A national cancer institute could co-ordinate work on a tobacco policy, on diet and cancer, on the new human genome project and the outcomes of that, and the knowledge that we will have. It would be a real step forward to have an institute where people could talk about cancer and develop a national strategy and priorities.

Many consultants and practitioners would welcome a national institute. They have campaigned for such a body for some time.

I, too, welcome the Government's acceptance of our Committee's recommendation on the establishment of a national cancer research institute. How would my hon. Friend tie the funders, especially the charities, into the strategy of such an institute?

I would envisage a co-ordinated policy. A council could sit down with the national cancer research institute and combine their knowledge with that of all the other groups—consultants, charities and patients' groups. We should co-ordinate and combine, rather than continue the fragmentation that has beset the cancer challenge year after year.

To get decisions on cancer services and research requires the involvement of 46 groups and individuals. They all have acronyms and they have an input in decisions about funding. There are about 600 cancer charities in this country, and that cannot be right. I welcome the fact that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign have got their trustees together to talk about merger, which cannot come soon enough. The old rivalries must be dispelled, and we must have a unitary policy. We could take a leaf out of the Jubilee 2000 group's book. In a short time, it has affected the politics of world debt and how to handle it. That is a message for cancer charities.

The two-week waiting list proposal is superb, but we must ensure that at the end of that people do not have to wait weeks or months for a CT scanner and a linear accelerator. The whole process can be speeded up. I know that the Minister has many examples of that happening, and we need to make it happen across the country.

The issue is not just about cutting bureaucracy, but about getting trained staff and equipment together to ensure that the journey is much quicker for our people. We must carry out research into many areas of radiotherapy, IMRT and Conformal, because much research has led up a blind ally. That is the challenge of cancer research. There will be new technologies and new techniques, and we need a national strategy that can be developed locally in the various centres.

Although research and infrastructure are crucial to the task of defeating cancer, much can be done more immediately to improve the quality of life of people living with cancer. The increasing use of concepts such as "living with cancer" has shown how, in many cases, cancer can become a chronic long-term condition that responds well to treatment, with a good prospect of survival. Even when the survival prospects are less good, the quality of life of people undergoing treatment can be far greater than could have been envisaged a few years ago. Much research needs to be carried out in that area on quality care, drugs and so on.

Improving the quality of life for patients and coping with the side effects of treatment are just as important as the treatment of the disease itself, and in some cases more important. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) said, many people who visited the Committee called for research into improving the quality of life, yet research into service provision for all aspects of supportive care is accorded far less priority for funding and attracts far less academic interest. We have a duty to all who are living with cancer to ensure that the maximum effort is made to give them the best possible support, and to enable them to enjoy as much independence and as good a life as can be provided.

I was proud to be associated with the inquiry, with the members of the Select Committee and with the disciplined way in which some of us were made to respond in certain circumstances. I give credit to our Chairman for ensuring that, when excitement got the better of us, we managed to contain our enthusiasm.

There was a very unco-ordinated campaign, involving many different groups, to put pressure on the Government to show the political will that they are showing now. We have turned a corner, in that the Government now recognise the need to act, but there is never a time for us to rest on our laurels: we must deliver better co-ordination and teamwork between all the groups involved in cancer care.

What we have learned about cancer treatment could, I think, be applied to the treatment of mental health and heart disease. We are developing important structures. In the next few years, our message should be "teamwork, co-ordination, and partnership among industry, patient groups, cancer charities and Government". That will enable us to rise in the league tables and, I am sure, to be at the top in no time. Our people will receive the best treatment that is available to those elsewhere in the world.

The challenge is there, and the Government are taking up the cudgels. We must now give them all possible support in order to ensure that there is no rest, and that we continue to forge ahead in developing even better standards.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on an excellent report, which is also timely. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, cancer is not all about misery now; it is also about hope.

I remember that, 30 years ago, childhood leukaemias involved nasty treatment and extremely poor outcomes. People indulged in "heroic" surgery, in which the patient was the victim and the surgeon was thought to be the hero. We have moved a long way since those days, and I welcome the Government's response to the Committee's excellent report, but there are still some bits missing.

As the introduction to the report helpfully explains, the steps that we can take in cancer treatment and research depend largely on a fundamental understanding of the cancer process. We still do not know why some cells start to behave aberrantly; nor do we know why some people manage to get rid of the aberrant cells, while others do not. However, I think that we are near to finding answers to some of those fundamental questions, and that we should not forget the importance of basic research. I certainly approve of the concept of a national cancer centre, benefiting from international collaboration.

The report also deals with research in treatment. The last Government did well in commissioning the Calman-Hine report, but did abysmally in terms of its implementation. It was ridiculous to allow the market in health care to determine where people should have their cancer centres. It was ludicrous not to draw up a national, or even regional, strategy determining where radiotherapy services or linear accelerators should be. I am glad that the planning is now gaining some semblance of order, but I am disappointed that there is not a stronger regional input in decisions about where such services are to be.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke eloquently in support of his local unit. It is a unit of great excellence, but I sometimes doubt whether having two or three adjoining units of great excellence is the best way of serving the country. I do not deny that we have some excellent centres, but I also feel that one of the most striking aspects of outcomes is the postcode lottery. Outcomes depend on where people live, and where they can be referred to.

May I be critical of the Government? The new system of out of area treatment as opposed to extra-contractual referrals is having a dramatic impact on referral patterns, patient choice and patients' ability to get to units that may be at the leading edge of a particular treatment regime for a particular cancer, which could not have been foreseen by the health authority or trust. So arrangements cannot always be easily made.

We can refer out of area, but there will be no obligation on the people to whom we refer to accept that referral if they cannot guarantee getting the resources to go with the treatment. The OAT scheme must be looked at. We are almost working against the rules to make things happen. That cannot be in either the patient's or the clinician's interest.

I echo the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in congratulating the Government on recognising the tremendous value of laboratory scientists and pathologists. I remember the front page of a local paper having a nice picture of a man in a white coat holding a chicken. He was a qualified laboratory technician with a science degree who had stopped being a laboratory technician and become a chicken sexer, which brought in £2,000 more a year. That is ridiculous. I am glad that we are taking steps to correct that.

If we are going to get something out of the system other than just treading water and enormous pressure, all the people involved with research, whether it be fundamental research or research in treatment, require thinking time and deliberation time, which in today's clinical practice is often missing. That is one of the reasons perhaps why trusts are putting such an enormous premium on research being done within the trust. It is costing their clinicians' time and their scientific staff's time to an extent that is becoming unreasonable.

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Does he agree that the figures that the Prime Minister has used to suggest that the Government will match voluntary sector funding are deeply suspect, given that much of that funding is being used within mixed clinical and research situations in the NHS and is liable to be diverted in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested?

I am not as suspicious or as cynical as the hon. Gentleman, but we perhaps take a different approach to these matters. It is difficult to cost the two. My plea is that, where clinicians are working in an area where there is active research, that should be recognised in their work load and their departments should be adequately staffed to cope with some of the work that needs to be done.

I pick up two or three points that may seem minor in relation to the report but are important and practical. We now have to refer all research to research and ethical committees in a correct way, but we have not gone far enough in streamlining the system when the research involves more than one health authority area. The trading standards people have a rather better system. A home trading standards authority approves a particular product and that recognition is given nationally. We need to be a little more streamlined in sorting that out.

No one likes unnecessary animal research, but there is no doubt that animal research has made, and will continue to make for the foreseeable future, a big contribution to our understanding of the causes and treatment of cancers, among other things. The current process where one has to go through not only a Home Office procedure but a medical research and ethics committee is unduly cumbersome, very long and not in the interests of either the researchers or the animals that we are thinking about. It distorts and lengthens a process that should be rigorous, but consistent.

It is important that newer treatment be researched. We do not use the opportunities that the NHS provides. We probably have a unique system world wide in having records that are complete in a vertical sense—from primary care through secondary care to tertiary care. When looking at new treatment, we do not use adequately the enormous resource that an integrated health service provides.

I ask the Minister to examine the effect of the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on the introduction of new drugs and on research. There is some evidence that clinicians and funding health authorities are reluctant to accept the introduction of a new treatment because it has not been considered by NICE and, indeed, has not been referred to NICE yet. NICE should either be resourced to the extent that all new treatments can be looked at quickly, or it should be made clear to health authorities that the fact that NICE has not considered a drug is not an excuse for not using it.

That was the evidence with some of the new cancer drugs. Health authorities used the existence of NICE not to make a drug available. That will stultify the excellent scope for doing post-marketing and population research.

A number of expert hon. Members are keen to contribute to the debate. I again echo what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. I was taken by his comparison of mental health services with the approach to cancer services. Cancer is an emotive subject, but it is not a unique disease. Other diseases are just as ghastly and a number of diseases are more deadly than some of the cancers. There is a wide spread, as the report points out.

I welcome the focus on cancer services in the report, but I hope that, whatever lesson is drawn from the report, from the Government action and from the audit of the action on how to arrange the inter-relationship between primary care, secondary care and tertiary care, the experience will be reflected in how we deal with some of the other illnesses and diseases that we are all keen to tackle.

As many other hon. Members wish to speak and time is short, I will confine my remarks to just two main points.

I welcome the Government response to the Select Committee's report. I welcome in particular their recognition of many of the points that we have made in the NHS cancer plan. That plan acknowledges, as the Select Committee does, that there is a serious shortage of therapists and clinicians to treat patients who are suffering from cancer. The Government have promised that the process of improvement will begin immediately, provided that the NHS can recruit the staff that it needs, and that the necessary reforms are put in place. The aim is that, by 2008, access to treatment for all types of cancer will compare with the best in Europe.

Members of the Select Committee welcome and support that aim, but we must make the best use of resources available in the meantime, and especially of staffing resources. I want to highlight some work being done in Birmingham to encourage collaboration between different specialties to ensure that they work together effectively.

The joint approach to cancer outcomes in Birmingham project—JACOB—is greatly improving collaboration between different specialties. It is hoped that, by April this year, all projects will hit the target for first treatment within two months from urgent GP referral. That is the target that the Government have determined must be reached nationally by 2005. The work done by projects in Birmingham and elsewhere is putting us on course to reach it.

As an example of what is being achieved, in Birmingham the waiting time for prostatic biopsy has been cut from 10 weeks to two. I therefore commend the Government on the work that they are encouraging within the NHS. It is definitely leading to a substantial improvement in waiting times for treatment and therapy.

The other main point on which I want to focus is cancer registration. It is easy to underestimate the importance of cancer registration for cancer treatment and research. The Committee's inquiry identified serious concerns about the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on researchers' ability to gather and process complete data. Local interpretations of the legislation have already led to anomalies in cancer registration practice. For example, the Institute of Cancer Research told the Committee that enforcement of the 1998 Act had already held up its research into mesothelioma.

The Committee recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the advisory group on patient confidentiality should address the problems posed by the 1998 Act for the registration of cancer. The Committee recommended also that the Government should introduce legislation to make the registration of cancer a legal requirement, to ensure the completeness of cancer registry data and to ensure access to those data for legitimate research purposes.

That recommendation has been supported, through early-day motion 138, by 115 hon. Members, who also expressed concern about the guidance issued by the General Medical Council. The council suggested that doctors should no longer pass on the names of patients to the national cancer registry. In their response, the Government stated that they were determined to secure the future of cancer registration and that they would take the necessary action to do so. They also said that they would be setting out their plans to strengthen cancer registries, taking into account the review carried out by Professor Charles Gillis.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the GMC said that doctors should not pass on a patient's name if that patient expressly objected? It is a matter of patient consent.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I was trying to rush through the point, but the Committee was told time and again that it would be very difficult to get the express permission of patients. That is why we recommended that patient confidentiality should not necessarily apply in the case of cancer registration.

Local interpretations of the legislation are causing considerable problems. When they responded to our report, the Government said that they would respond early this year to the review being carried out by Professor Gillis. However, that already represented a shift in time scale from the original promise contained in the NHS plan, which was that a response to the review would be available by autumn last year.

When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will spend some time describing how the Government will deal with that problem. I know that the chief medical officer has written articles in the British Medical Journal emphasising the importance of cancer registration.

I am very pleased to have caught your eye in this very important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on this excellent report. It will make a sizeable and significant contribution to the alleviation of suffering experienced by people with cancer. In addition, the timeliness of the Government's response is helpful.

I want to suggest some alternative resources that may be useful to the Government and to everyone involved in caring for cancer patients. My approach may be a little oblique for some people in mainstream medicine, as I am the long-standing treasurer of the parliamentary group on alternative and complementary medicine. I may not have the length of service in the House of my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh or for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—the latter entered the House in 1970— but I have served as treasurer of that group during three Parliaments.

In that time, there has been a complete change in the approach to some complementary therapies. I want to suggest that the shortage of resources could be alleviated by looking afresh at some of the therapies that are available, and by thinking slightly differently about how they can be used.

When I entered the House in 1987, chiropractic and osteopathy were thought by many doctors to be pretty much off the wall. If they did not get the evil eye, patients who told their doctors that they had been to a chiropractor or osteopath would certainly receive a ticking off.

That has changed. Osteopaths are now regulated by legislation. Passage of the relevant legislation covering osteopaths and chiropractors took place over two Parliaments, and I sat on both the Standing Committees scrutinising the proposals. Disciplines that were once regarded as suspect are now part of mainstream medicine, but there is great scope for that process to be taken further.

In that regard, publication of the Select Committee report, and of the report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on complementary and alternative medicine, has helped the Government tremendously. In addition, an early-day motion supporting that House of Lords report has been signed by nearly 160 hon. Members of various persuasions, some of whom are in the Chamber today.

As I said, I want to focus on resources. The report emphasises the problems of availability—of personnel, drugs, equipment, technicians and communications. Recommendation (c) talks of an "over-stretched service" and of the need for a "fast-track system". Recommendation (f) speaks of the need for an increase in the number of specialist surgeons, and recommendation (g) of "service problems in… delivery". Recommendation (h) talks about drugs "only available to some" and recommendation (i) talks of the need for additional funding for NICE-approved treatments. Recommendation (g) talks about the shortage of key personnel.

There are shortages of key personnel—don't we know it?—but there are other personnel who are not referred to by name in the report but who are available. Recommendation (m) is specifically about complementary and alternative medicine. It says:

We recommend that the Government seeks guidance from NICE on the cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies for cancer care to ensure consistency of provision across the NHS.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh that I differ from him slightly on that recommendation. The need to establish the cost-effectiveness of complementary or alternative medicine is not necessary in many instances. Many therapists offer their services for very little money and some are free. If we can find a way into that pool of available complementary therapists, we could obtain their services for little or nothing. We should not ignore that, because it is important.

As the Government try to tackle the problem of cancer, the additional resources available to them include about 50,000 complementary therapists—homeopaths, herbalists, phytotherapists and traditional Chinese medical practitioners. In addition—perhaps parallel to those therapies—there are about 50,000 healers who channel energy. I have had some experience of their work and seen them working with cancer patients. I know that some hon. Members may feel that the idea of someone making a difference by transmitting energy flow through their hands is off the wall—that is what some hon. Members thought about osteopathy in 1987. However, the use of healers will develop. More and more people are learning to heal and there will be a greater opportunity for its use in the health service.

Some years ago I had the great opportunity of travelling on a lecture tour with Dr. Rosie Daniel. Dr. Daniel ran the Bristol cancer health clinic. Many patients who could not be treated by conventional means or who had received conventional treatment but whose cases were not satisfactorily resolved would call on the clinic for help— I am sure that that still happens now. Complementary practitioners can often help those to whom doctors have been unable to offer a cure.

One of the ways in which the clinic helped cancer patients was to look at their diet. One of the ways of alleviating the problems of cancer patients is a greater insistence on the need for a carefully controlled diet. The Gerson diet is well known for offering relief to cancer patients. At clinics such as Bristol, a range of therapies are on offer. I hope that the Minister will respond soon to the Lords report and that we can move further towards an integrated health care system. It is to be hoped that it will not only be osteopathy and chiropractic that can come in from the cold, but we will find a much greater use of other disciplines, such as traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy and aromatherapy. I should like to focus on those three therapies.

I have some experience of traditional Chinese medicine. I have talked at length to representatives from Peking university who are pioneering their brand of traditional medicine in the United Kingdom. They believe that they can help cancer patients in two specific ways. I know that there are many distinguished doctors in the House and they can interrupt if they feel that I am misguiding hon. Members, but I do not think that I am. The first method is by using traditional herbs, which will boost the organs of the body, and the second is by using acupuncture. An experienced acupuncturist can dramatically increase the energy flow to different organs in the body. One aspect of Chinese medicine that I find fascinating is the way that internal organs are linked to different limbs. For example, the kidneys perhaps have some influence on bone repair, and energy can be increased through the kidney meridians. Traditional Chinese medicine has had and will continue to have a considerable success rate with cancer patients. I am suggesting not that it should be used as an alternative but that it could be used to complement other therapies.

Homeopathic remedies are also useful. I will not go into detail now because I am aware that time is short. I have just received a friendly note from a friendly Whip telling me to sit down and shut up. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that I do not need to read it because I know what it says. One does not need to be psychic when my hon. Friend is on the Bench. He has often helped me during my contributions, as all Lord Commissioners do. [Interruption.] Although my hon. Friend is not yet a Lord Commissioner, we look forward to the day when he will be, after we return to government.

Some of the complementary therapies that are classified by the Lords report as needing further research offer a lot to cancer patients. Aromatherapy can offer a great deal of relief. The use of simple oils can alleviate mood and have a beneficial effect, not least in preparing patients for operations.

Following the help from my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I shall come towards the end of my remarks by saying that there is one other group of people who should be looked at with great care from the point of view of solving cancer problems. The healers or energy specialists—call them what you like—are trained to transfer, through their hands, energy of their own or from some other source. I have looked at healers at work in two prisons in Britain and seen how they can change the mood of dangerous prisoners. I have talked at length with healers about what they can do for cancer patients. They can provide relief for those who will not make it and perhaps extend their lives, and they can complement the work done by the mainstream profession, particularly after chemotherapy. They can change the mood and, apparently, increase energy levels.

There have been many trials on healing and there are always calls for more. The work of Matthew Manning was studied in great depth. Uri Geller, who is known for using energy to bend spoons, can also use energy to heal. There have been many reports showing that healing is an effective treatment. The Minister might want to take to heart the fact that many groups, including the National Federation of Spiritual Healers, do not charge at all. It is a free service and, when trying to square the circle of funding and resources for cancer care, I hope that the Minister will consider that. I hope that she will also bear it in mind when responding to the Lords report and in her winding-up speech today. I apologise to the Minister for the fact that, sadly, I will not be present for the end of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is again encouraging me to bring my speech to an end. He may have a word with me later in the Smoking Room—one never knows one's luck with a Whip. Complementary therapy has come a long way in 13 years. That which was right off the wall is now in mainstream use. There are many other disciplines that should be included in mainstream NHS provision, as many of them could help cancer patients. I have highlighted traditional Chinese medicine and the healing movement. I commend those practitioners to the House and hope that better use will be made of their services.

The report is concerned with the rational approach to cancer therapy and research, and that is meat enough for one discussion.

I am very proud to be associated with the report. I think that it is probably one of the most important Select Committee reports produced this Session—if not the most important. That is not simply because of the efforts of the members of the Committee, but because of the gravity and emotional impact of the subject. It is an authoritative and comprehensive report and a great deal of credit for that should go to the special advisers who helped us with it, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. If the Government have the wisdom to accept all our recommendations, they, too, will owe the special advisers a debt of gratitude.

In the very brief time left, I will have to cherry pick. I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We feel very strongly about the importance of a national cancer research institute and the central importance of its role. Although the Government have accepted the notion of such an institute in principle, I do not think that they have quite taken on board the degree to which we see it as essential to get proper co-ordination into the cancer research effort in this country.

We have seen how such co-ordination works in different forms in other countries. It does not have to be a mighty bricks-and-mortar edifice—that is not what we have in mind. We are not seeking to replicate Bethesda. However, the United States, Canada and other countries have a co-ordinating mechanism—even if they do not call it a national cancer institute—and it pays enormous dividends. It shows, in the long term, in their cancer survival rates, and that is the acid test. We have truly world-class, leading-edge, basic research, yet we have some truly appalling cancer survival rates compared with our neighbours. That gap must be bridged.

We see the national cancer research institute as the lead organisation co-ordinating the whole effort and strategy. We also see it as disbursing the money. I suggest that the amount of money that the Medical Research Council currently disburses for cancer research should be given to the cancer institute. When we took evidence from the MRC, some of us could not help feeling that there was a certain lackadaisical quality in its approach to cancer. We felt that it did not have the commitment to cancer that is really needed.

That is why we come back to a national cancer Act. It would be a political gesture but it would focus the effort on cancer and bind every party in the House to that effort. We have seen the American example, where the grand old party and the Democrats are committed to fighting cancer through their National Cancer Act and have virtually outdone each other to make sure that there are adequate funds. We were very impressed. On our visit to Bethesda, the Government's budget increase for cancer research in America was being discussed. They were in the middle of a five-year programme to double their spending on cancer research. The increase that they were considering and explained to us dwarfed our entire national cancer research budget.

I am not suggesting that we can match American big bucks or even that we should. One thing that British scientists have shown they can do, because they have had to, is to make the most of very limited resources. We have a history of cost-effective research, but that does not mean that we should not put more resources into research. We need to do so urgently because of the decades of under-investment, and we have to do some very fast catching up.

In recent years we have been deprived of taking advantage of certain new research technologies such as gene chip technology because there has not been enough funding available, and that has disadvantaged leading British laboratories. That cannot be allowed to happen in future. We need a commitment not just to match the charities' level of funding, but to do it quickly. It is a matter or urgency, as are other things. Our radiotherapy departments, for instance, have not had modern equipment for decades. Their equipment belongs to the stone age and that has a great impact on outcomes. So we need to act urgently.

We were very impressed, when we visited St. Mary's, to see the operation of a machine called a multi-slice CT scanner. That, in conjunction with therapeutic programmes, is fantastic. It can lead to realistic attempts to treat lung cancer and can revolutionise colon cancer therapy and detection. That involves a lot of such machines, and screening of at-risk groups can lead to a massive advance. The Government are interested in that technology but they still want to conduct research projects. Research has been done—it is all there, published in the literature. We must be prepared to use information that is in the literature, wherever it is.

I congratulate the Government on their wisdom in agreeing with most of our report, but we want them to accept everything in the report because we think that it is right.

In the final few minutes available for Back-Bench contributions, I want to continue that theme. First, I refer to the computerised tomography scanner at St. Mary's hospital. These new machines are made in Britain by Marconi Medical Systems UK Ltd. and cost about £250,000. Marconi told us at St. Mary's that it was willing to help the Government to put those machines in place in the cancer centres.

At present, the machines are being used as diagnostic machines. By the time people walk into St. Mary's with lung cancer, for example, the cancer is far too advanced. The specialist at St. Mary's hospital asked to use the machines as screening instruments. The scanners scan a whole body, tip to toe, in about 15 minutes. Within another 15 minutes, the computer attached to the machine will give a three-dimensional picture of any organ in the body. It was absolutely fascinating for us to walk through the three sections of the colon or both lungs of a patient and observe whether they were clean of polyps and tumours, or observe the size of the cancer and where it was in the lung. Sometimes it blocked a whole lung, so the patient had only one lung. If only that could be done when tumours were small, they could be eliminated without the cancer putting out secondaries all over the body.

The other instrument that we saw in action was at the Royal Marsden hospital at Sutton. When radiotherapy is carried out on various parts of the body—on the neck and head, for example, or on colorectal cancer—healthy as well as cancerous tissue is damaged by the radiation. Irradiation of the neck can result in paralysis and if the rectum is irradiated, incontinence can result—that is not very nice for the patient.

At the Royal Marsden, we saw three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in action; that allows the operator to shape the zone of radiation to the shape of the tumour. In Finland, we saw intensity-modulated radiotherapy—IMRT—which allows the operator to vary the intensity of the radiation. Those techniques combined can hit the tumour with extremely high doses while avoiding the surrounding tissue. That is extremely useful in killing cancerous tissue.

I make two pleas to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, please put in the money necessary to spread that new instrumentation across the cancer networks. Secondly, it is important that staff be adequately trained; radiotherapists will need retraining and there is in any case a shortage of radiotherapists. We need to train many more people to handle those state-of-the-art machines.

I begin by congratulating the Select Committee on Science and Technology and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), on this excellent report and on the obviously exhaustive inquiries they carried out during its production. It is a testimony to them not only that Members of the House will congratulate them on their work, but that the perhaps far more knowledgeable body of people with cancer research expertise has congratulated them. The Committee has done a great service to the House.

I pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have spoken during the debate. All but two of them were members of the Committee and had thus contributed to its work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who gave us a slightly different perspective on some of the issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who eloquently described the centre of excellence at Mount Vernon hospital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh gave a characteristically understated description of the reasons that had driven the Committee to begin its investigation into cancer and cancer research. In fact, the figures produced by the Committee and published in its report are quite horrifying. It is not merely that we do not perform well according to European standards on cancer survival rates; we are at the bottom of the league table, among the newly democratising east European countries such as Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia—way behind our north European neighbours. That clearly shows that something is wrong and that something must be done.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said that he wanted Government spending on cancer research to match that of the voluntary sector. He may have missed the Prime Minister's announcement on 26 September 2000 when the right hon. Gentleman made precisely that pledge; it seemed extremely grandiose at the time. However, the Prime Minister pledged money that the Government had already announced. It amounted to additional spending of only £24 million.

In the context of public spending, Government spending on cancer research is relatively small. I repeat to the Under—Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the concern that I expressed during an intervention on the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand)—that a significant proportion of Government-funded spending on cancer research is allocated to NHS hospitals, where the distinction between research spending and the financing of general overheads and clinical service support is not always clear. We all realise that hospitals are under tremendous pressure, especially as they try to deliver the Government's newer targets for cancer treatments and the times for such treatments. Will the Minister tell us what she intends to do to ensure that the money allocated to hospitals for research is used for that purpose and not for the equally worthy and valuable, but quite different, purpose of day-to-day treatment of patients?

The report makes 48 recommendations. I shall address a few of them specifically and ask the Minister some questions. Recommendation (d) deals with screening. The Opposition have pledged that, if prostate screening has been demonstrated to be effective, we shall introduce it when we are in government. Can the Minister give the House a similar assurance? The Government response to the Committee report notes only that the Medical Research Council is considering a proposal for a prostate screening trial.

We are delighted that the Government are moving towards considering overall time scales—from initial referral to commencement of treatment—as the relevant milestone. I only wish that they would acknowledge that such time scales are relevant for patients throughout the NHS. The amount of time patients spend on waiting lists is not the key issue if they have already waited a year to get on to a list.

We are slightly surprised, however, that the Government persisted with their two-week target for urgent GP referrals to initial specialist consultation. Those who know much more than I do about such matters question the wisdom of that target. The president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Professor Barry Jackson, said that

clinics are being snowed under with inappropriate referrals for breast cancer … breast surgeons are coping, just, at the moment, but it could be at the expense of other things.

Dr. Joan Austoker, of the Cancer Research Campaign, said that

the two week rule has completely backfired. It has led to a waste of resources, and a waste of specialists time.

Professor Karol Sikora, the former head of the World Health Organisation's cancer programme, said:

New guidelines for urgent referral of patients with cancer are a waste of energy.

I entirely understand that the two-week limit is intended to reassure patients who have been told by their GP that they may have cancer. In fact, 90 per cent. of breast cancer referrals will be found to be clear of the disease. As physical resources are still scarce—although, hopefully, that will ease over time—does that limit really make the best use of them? Would they not be better directed towards speeding up the time between diagnosis and treatment rather then being focused at the front end of the process? I realise that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will review the guidelines in 2002–03, but the problem exists now. Hopefully, by 2002–03 the additional resources will be starting to relieve the problem somewhat.

Are initial figures available to show whether the two-week target for GP referral to consultation is successful for all cancers? Will the Minister do anything about the problem that beset the early stages of the breast cancer pledge? That guarantee applied only to referrals received by the hospital within 24 hours of being made by the GP; hospitals were counted only on their performance in dealing with that particular group of referrals—not on all referrals. From the point of the view of patients, that is quite unacceptable.

Who is actually seen when a referral is made? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that early referral helps, but much more to suggest that the degree of specialisation of the person who sees the patient has a far greater influence on the outcome. In the summer, I asked the Minister a series of questions—ending with one on 27 July, to which I received no answer—about the specialism of consultants who saw patients referred within two weeks. At the time, the Minister told me that it was not possible to distinguish consultants' specialisations from the data. Will she take steps to ensure that we begin to measure and record those specialisations? All the evidence shows that they are a more important determinant of a successful outcome than a simple time scale.

Will the Minister also acknowledge that, as long as initiatives such as the waiting list initiative distort clinical priorities in the national health service, cancer patients, along with all other patients, will suffer? I have in my hand a letter from the consultant urologist at my local hospital to the chief executive, copied to me, which refers to a particular case. He says:

You were fully aware of three other patients of mine who were admitted for major cancer surgery, only

for the surgery

to be cancelled three times, each within 30 minutes of being called to the theatre. These are but three examples of a long-standing problem. One year ago, I was put under pressure by the management to treat non-urgent, long-waiting patients instead of patients with cancer.

That is happening in hospitals throughout the country. Can the Minister do something about that problem by restoring proper clinical priorities to the national health service to ensure that patients who need cancer treatment do not get pushed out of the queue in order to achieve the Government's political waiting list targets?

The Committee made several recommendations in relation to prescribing and the way that NICE operates. It specifically identified a concern that the mere fact that NICE recommended that a drug be made available did not ensure that it would be made available, and that patients in the United Kingdom were being seriously disadvantaged by the low levels of use of the latest cancer drugs. The Government's response was simply that trusts

will be expected … to promote the rapid uptake of NICE's guidance,

but Cancer Bacup reports that more than 20 per cent. of health authorities are still not following national guidance for the drug treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. What will the Minister do to ensure that, once NICE has approved a drug as appropriate for a certain class of treatment, health authorities make that drug available?

I am not bashing health authorities; we know that some of them labour under very serious financial pressures and have deficits to pay off. However, will the Minister consider the solution that the Opposition propose: an exceptional medicines fund, which would take the funding of those expensive but efficacious medicines out of the local health authority budget? Patients throughout the country may then be assured of equality of treatment in the knowledge that a national fund is available to support treatment with proven, efficacious drugs that have been through the rigorous NICE appraisal procedure.

I shall use the last couple of minutes available to talk about the problem of data transfer and the cancer registries, which several hon. Members mentioned. I hope that the Minister can tell us specifically what solution the Government propose. It was not clear yesterday, on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, whether clause 59, on patient information, is intended to be the basis of the solution.

Will the Minister confirm, for the benefit of some of her hon. Friends who may not have heard this remark, that Lord Falconer advised the other place that the Data Protection Act 1998 presents no impediment to the transmission of data to the cancer registries, and that it is the GMC's interpretation of that Act that has proved to be the problem? I understand the difficulty of obtaining patient consent at a particularly sensitive moment—the moment of diagnosis—but I am sure that it will be interesting for the House to know whether the Minister believes that, to overcome this problem, some form of statutory compulsion in relation to the registration of cancer will be required. It would also help if the Minister could tell the House what arrangements she will propose—I understand that there was a commitment to do so in the new year—to finance and fund cancer registries. That will give some flesh to the statement in the national cancer plan, which says:

The public health benefits depend on the completeness of cancer registration in the population. The government is determined to secure the future of cancer registration and will take the necessary action to ensure this.

When we deal with something as important as cancer registries and the part that they play in the battle against cancer, it is vital that we do not allow the issue of transmission of confidential patient data to become muddied with other issues. Is the Minister aware that, during the recent Court of Appeal hearing in which the Department of Health initially sought to overturn the decision of the courts that pharmacists and doctors could supply anonymised patient data to drug companies, counsel for the Department admitted openly in court that the Department of Health's motive for wishing to deny the freedom to pass such Information, suitably anonymised, to drug companies was that it believed that it would increase the drugs bill? Will the Minister look into that question? I can assure her that, whereas we all want to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the cancer registries and the work that they do are protected, when the Government's own counsel openly admits that ulterior motives are in play, We become a little more sceptical.

I have asked plenty of questions and many issues have been raised today. We were already aware of a number of those, but we owe a debt to the Committee for having collated those questions and put them together clearly and coherently. I look forward to the Minister's speech and hope that she can answer many of the questions that have been posed.

I join hon. Members in congratulating members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on their report into cancer research, and on today's debate. The report and the debate have been far-reaching on the subject of cancer, which is extremely important because lives are at stake. I congratulate the hon Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on his able and expert chairmanship of the Committee in complex scientific and medical territory, and on producing a well-informed and thoughtful report.

The Committee's deliberations, hearings and conclusions have contributed to the Government's developing work on cancer, particularly in the run-up to the publication of the national cancer plan. I believe that today's debate will also make a contribution, as it is an area where a considerable amount of work is under way.

The national cancer plan was published after the report and, for the first, time drew together as part of a single strategy work on prevention, screening, treatment, support for patients, palliative care and research. It is the first time that this country has had a national overarching strategy on cancer. We should not underestimate the significance of that because, although it does not sound like rocket science to draw together all those strands, it is fundamentally important, to improve treatment, care and research across the board, that we co-ordinate properly our work on cancer, which is one of Britain's biggest killers.

It is in the context of the national cancer plan that I want to reply to many of the issues raised today. The Committee's report makes it clear that we face a serious problem. Each year, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 120,000 die of it.

This country's strengths include research, children's cancers, rapidly developing prevention services such as smoking cessation, national health service screening programmes and palliative care, particularly as a result of the tradition of the hospice movement and the voluntary sector. However, the Committee and the House are right that some aspects give cause for concern. Survival rates for some cancers do not match those in the rest of Europe. We have huge inequalities in who gets cancer and who survives it. Those on low incomes are more likely to get cancer, and they are also less likely to survive it. The quality of care varies across the country and there is a long legacy of underinvestment in cancer infrastructure, equipment and staffing, which reduces the quality of care.

The national cancer plan aims to produce a turnaround—to build on progress that has been made so far but to go further and deliver the fastest improving cancer services in Europe, and to push our survival rates up to match the best in Europe.

We have already made considerable progress in cutting waiting times, in new international standards, new investment, new equipment and in bringing new services on stream, but it is absolutely right, and the Committee is right to say so, that we have much to do.

We have set out in the national cancer plan proposals for extra spending of £570 million on cancer each year by 2003, expanding capacity with 1,000 extra cancer specialists in the pipeline; new equipment; extra services, such as extending breast cancer screening; new prevention and palliative care services; new research programmes; reform of cancer collaboration to speed up care; and new national standards and guidelines to improve the way in which we provide services and raise quality, too. That is the greatest focus on cancer in the history of the NHS, and it provides a huge opportunity. Today's debate reflects the priority given to cancer in the House as well as by the public.

We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for Rayleigh kicked off by referring to the importance of increasing investment and the importance of the National Cancer Research Institute. Concerns about the cancer registries were raised by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) referred to the importance of patient involvement and the geographical spread of research, and of ensuring that research takes place throughout the country.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke in detail and with expertise about the work being done at Mount Vernon. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has done much in the House to promote the debate on cancer, described articulately the need to improve cancer survival rates and to cut waiting times. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) referred to thy, importance of basic research and proper networks for research and cancer care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) rightly referred to the excellent work under way in Birmingham, which I have seen for myself and applaud. She also raised concerns about the cancer registries, with which I shall deal later. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) spoke of the potential for complementary and alternative medicines in helping patients to deal with cancer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke in detail about the importance of the national cancer research institute and of further co-ordinating cancer research. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred to the need to spread new technology and to ensure that staff are properly trained to deal with it. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred in detail to a series of matters, including research on the cancer registries and treatment, to which I shall attempt to respond.

I shall deal first with research, as that formed the core of the Committee's report and has been referred to in detail today. Many forms of research are needed. Laboratory research helps us to understand the genetic and cellular changes. Genetics research is needed into who is at risk of cancer; epidemiological studies are required into the causes of cancer; and clinical trials are needed to find better ways of treating cancer.

This country makes a major contribution to all aspects of cancer research. We have world-renowned scientists, doctors and many others, working in centres of excellence funded by the Government, the cancer research charities and the pharmaceutical industry. Although we should be proud of the excellence in place across the country, three major concerns about cancer research emerge from the Committee's report: first, the research needs greater co-ordination and strategic direction, given the many different organisations involved; secondly, improved research infrastructure is needed; and, thirdly, there are concerns about the level of investment. I shall deal with each of those concerns in turn.

We very much recognise the need for greater co-ordination. The initial step in tackling that was the setting up of the Cancer Research Funders Forum in 1999. The forum includes the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Cancer Research Campaign, the Ludwig Institute and Marie Curie Cancer Care. It has been a considerable success in starting better to co-ordinate cancer research across the country. It has done a lot of work in developing the national cancer research network. We asked it to conduct a review not only of the gaps in prostate cancer research, but of the direction that should be taken in the key areas and the overall strategy for prostate cancer research.

That is an example of the potential to take forward research through the Cancer Research Funders Forum, but the Committee was absolutely right to say that we need to go further. That is why we set out in the national cancer plan proposals to create the national cancer research institute, picking up the Committee's work on the subject. Like the Committee and most of the charities and researchers, we agree that a single bricks-and-mortar facility would not be the best way to make progress in co-ordinating cancer research. However, it will be an organisation in its own right, with staff and the weight to work consensually with all the different organisations to develop an over-arching strategy and to ensure that all cancer research is properly co-ordinated.

The Government would disagree with the Committee in that all Government funding needs to flow through that organisation. We believe that the institute can co-ordinate the funding from the different organisations and that there are advantages—for example, for the Medical Research Council—in linking basic cancer research with other forms of basic research. For example, the human genome project will be beneficial to cancer research as well as having considerable benefits for other research.

The second concern that has been raised about research is the importance of improving the infrastructure. We strongly believe that we need to improve the clinical research infrastructure in this country. That is why we have announced the creation of a national cancer research network. Two groups will work together to achieve the overall aims. A consortium involving the universities of Leeds and York and the MRC clinical trial unit will concentrate on operating a network for controlled trials.

Professor David Kerr will lead the NHS contribution to early studies translating advances in basic science into promising new treatments for cancer through a network of centres. That research network will be integrated into, and work closely with, the National Cancer Research Institute. That approach has been broadly welcomed by the charities and represents a huge step forward, and we are putting an extra £20 million into it.

We strongly agree on the need to boost investment. That is why we are boosting the investment through the science budget by an average of 7 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years. It is also why we are increasing the money specifically for cancer research. In 1995–96, £50 million was spent on directly commissioned cancer research from the Department of Health and the MRC. That spending increased to £73 million in 1998–99, before the plan, and it will be £105 million by 2002–03, doubling the direct investment since the election. Of course, as we set out in the plan, we are increasing the overall Government funding to match voluntary sector funding.

I shall briefly deal with the cancer registries. Clause 59 of the Health and Social Care Bill includes a regulation-making power, which will allow the Secretary of State to require information to be passed on for important purposes. That will provide a legislative solution to the problem of the cancer registries. It is important, however, that the cancer registries also recognise issues of patient confidentiality. That is why work is under way to consider the use of anonymised data and to develop technical solutions to the problems of linking records, which may help us to find alternative ways to deal with patient confidentiality. It is certainly true that clause 59 will provide a legislative solution, and there will be time to discuss that in detail in Committee.

Let me deal briefly with the other treatment and care issues that have been raised. We set new targets for waiting times across the board, not simply those to see a specialist, but those for diagnosis and treatment. Those targets are coming into place this year. There is a one-month target for the wait between diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge remains so opposed to the two-week target for the wait to see a consultant, does he plan to state in the Conservative manifesto that he would abolish it?

rose—

I apologise for asking that question so late in the debate, but the hon. Gentleman needs to answer before the election, because that target provides patients with a lot of reassurance.

We are also providing investment to increase the number of oncologists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said. There will be an extra 1,000 new consultant posts, including hundreds of extra oncologists. However, our proposals are about not just extra investment, but reform involving the work of the cancer collaboratives, NICE and the new national cancer standards.

A huge amount of work is going on to improve cancer care in this country. It will take time; we must be realistic about that. It is about extra investment, but also about reforming the way we proceed—

It being Four o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, but you will understand why when I explain it.

I have just picked up the statement from the promoters in support of the consideration of the Bill, as amended. This is the second statement provided to the House about the Bill. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider what procedures should exist with regard to these statements, on the following grounds? The statement has been issued, but it was not possible to challenge it prior to its circulation to all hon. Members, so Members could not refute some of the information within it which I believe to be inaccurate and may well have influenced Members' decision whether to attend and participate today. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, examine the procedures whereby these statements are issued to hon. Members via the Vote Office, so using the offices of the House?

That is not a question of order for the Chair. Information has been supplied and, as the House knows, sometimes, from even more eminent sources, material is provided at short notice.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is not for any Member or for the House to impede the circulation of information to Members from whatever source. However, this statement has been provided to Members with a copy of the Bill via the Vote Office, in other words using the resources of this House, which, I believe, are provided for the facility of Members. If so, there must be a mechanism whereby the information contained in a statement can be challenged by other Members. It may be that a promoter should be required to give notice to interested Members in advance of a statement's circulation so that they can contradict elements within it.

These are not matters for the Chair. We have a procedure for private Bills and the promoter can deposit material in the House. If the material is in question or debatable, the next three hours have been set aside for such debates to take place. There is no further point of order on that matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the ruling that you have just made, that there is no further point of order about the promoter's statement, is it not incumbent on the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) at least to start the debate with an explanation of the derivation of the statement, the accuracy of the information contained in it and the thinking behind it? Should he not let us know at what level this has been discussed by the City of London Corporation? As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has just explained, the statement is given, in effect, an official seal of approval because it is circulated along with official House of Commons papers by the Vote Office. If there are serious inaccuracies in it—that could not happen in a statement from a Government Department because it would be challenged—why cannot such a statement be challenged in the case of a private Bill?

That is not a matter of order for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. I do not know what contribution the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) may wish to make to the debate. He has hardly had a chance as the first two Members to catch my eye have been the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). These are not matters for the Chair, but they may be matters for argument later.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the right hon. Gentleman now wish to avail himself of the opportunity of the start of the debate to make a statement on the information that has been circulated and be allowed to have questioning and discussion on it, would that not be—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot change the private Bill procedure to meet a particular point. Information has been provided, but that has nothing to do with the Chair. The Chair's responsibility in these circumstances is to follow the order of business before us and that is what I now propose to do.