I thank the Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. The intervention of the Attorney-General in Coram's affairs has presented major problems for Coram and the many other charities that have been endowed with works of art. The issues are cross-party, and I will be as brief as I can, as I understand that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) also wish to speak in support of Coram.

I am a great admirer of the excellent child care work that Coram undertakes and a common-sense supporter of the Charity Commission and the solution that it worked out with Coram for the proper care and maintenance of Coram's unique collection of 18th-century pictures, which have been given to the foundation by trustees and supporters. If I may, I will first address the historic background and then the legal issues and arguments that the matter has raised.

Coram was established in the early 18th century as the Foundling hospital. It has discharged its charitable objects, which are directed towards children, with great success, particularly in recent years. That was illustrated by the Prime Minister's launch of the national surestart initiative at Coram in 1998 and the launch of the adoption White Paper there last December. Coram has also had substantial collaboration with the Departments of Health and Education and Employment and the Home Office in recent years.

The child care work, which covers 15 London boroughs in total, is still conducted from the original Holborn site. Every day, Coram works with more than 1,000 children and young people in the care system and some 600 families with young children. It runs 29 projects in six main areas: adoption of children with complex needs; specialist fostering contact services for children who have been separated from their parents; services for young people leaving care; family support; parenting education; and multi-agency services providing a one-stop shop for local families. In short, Coram is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful and effective child care charities.

In the 18th century, when both Hogarth and Handel were trustees, they and other beneficiaries gave the foundation paintings and other works of art for the benefit and education of the children and to attract interest in the charity and donations from people who visited those art treasures. The most important pictures are by Hogarth, but the collection includes works by Hayman, Copley, Gainsborough, Ramsay, Reynolds, Wilson and many others, and sculptures by Rysbrack and Roubiliac. The value of that unique collection of 150 pictures held at Coram's premises in Brunswick square is at least £17 million. However, Coram is unable to preserve the collection adequately and cannot open it to the public for security reasons.

Eight years ago, the governors of Coram began considering the feasible options open to them with regard to the disposition of the collection, in compliance with the foundation's charitable objects, the wishes of the original donors to the collection and common sense. The options included selling the collection intact to a major museum or gallery, selling it intact in situ—the collection is housed in the original 18th-century courtroom, which was reconstructed within the 1930s building in Brunswick square—selling the collection piecemeal, maintaining the status quo or following the scheme advised by the Charity Commission.

In August 1998, on legal advice and after much work by Coram and the Charity Commission, the commission issued an order under section 26 of the Charities Act 1993, under which Coram established a separate new charity, the Foundling museum, with the dual objects of supporting Coram's work and looking after the collection. The central aspect of the section 26 order and the scheme is that the collection should be managed by the Foundling museum trust for a period of 25 years, which is long enough for national heritage memorial funding and short enough for the Charity Commission to accept the arrangements as lawful.

The agreement was conditional on the new Foundling museum obtaining a grant of £2 million from the heritage lottery fund and the museum raising another £3 million. The offer of a grant from the heritage lottery fund was received, but the funding has been superseded by a heritage memorial fund grant of £3 million. The new charity has already raised £2 million, and a further £1 million is close to being raised. A fundamental condition of the scheme is that the Foundling museum is there to procure donors to Coram who will purchase pictures in the collection. Coram will therefore receive substantial on-going funding from realising the collection, which should be easier to do as it will be open to the public. It will also achieve the object of keeping the collection together and in situ. The Charity Commission has not asked Coram for any further information to satisfy it that the scheme is appropriate and lawful.

On 7 March this year, Coram received a further opinion from the Attorney-General, rejecting Coram's response to the particulars of claim and putting pressure on it to sell the unique collection of pictures. Clearly, that has considerable implications not only for Coram, but for many other charities in analogous situations. Given the self-evident larger picture, the recent opinion that was sent by Treasury solicitors, which focused, surprisingly, on minutiae, was not up to the main issue. The Coram scheme has the support not only of the Charity Commission, but of the national heritage memorial fund and many leading individuals in the heritage sector. The essence of the Attorney-General's legal objection appears to be the requirement of national heritage memorial funding that the pictures be lent to the Foundling museum for 25 years and the assumption that Coram could not therefore realise those assets for 25 years if it needed the funds for its child care objects.

First, I think that there has been a misunderstanding of the scheme, whereby Coram would expect to realise most of the collection at best prices in a far shorter period and will in the meantime obtain an annual rent at the equivalent of market value on its building. Secondly, the Charity Commission was satisfied on the issue and that the scheme was lawful. A charity may invest its assets in any authorised investment and may also take action that incidentally confers benefit on another purpose that falls outside its strict objects. Surely the Attorney-General is out of order in, effectively, directing the governors to sell the collection now. The trustees have the factors before them. The Attorney-General's recent opinion appears not to realise that £2.25 million worth of the collection is fixtures in the building at Brunswick square that cannot be sold apart from the building. Coram's enforced retention of that part of the collection if it sold the rest as directed by the Attorney-General would mean the expense and administration costs of maintaining those assets.

The suggestion of a hasty sale seems to indicate that the Attorney-General has not considered the matter in the context of a charity that has existed for 300 years and will continue to last for ever. The opinion pays no regard to the fact that the collection was originally given specifically for the decoration of the Foundling hospital premises and to help to raise funds for the charity as well as for the children's benefit. I ask whether the Attorney-General would therefore take the view that other charities with objects such as education that have been endowed with valuable works of art over the years that are not applied directly in achieving their objectives should likewise sell their collections.

The issue arose when one of the 25 governors disagreed with the scheme and raised it with someone known to him in the Attorney-General's office. Is that individual—the acting master of Jesus college, Cambridge—now proposing that. given the recent funding cuts to Oxbridge colleges, that college should sell its art treasures forthwith to apply the proceeds to funding higher education?

The common ground for all parties is that the valuable collection of paintings should be realised, in whole or in part, for the benefit of children, which is the charity's objective. It is not legally, morally or practically right for the Attorney-General in an authoritarian fashion to substitute for the trustees' views his view of the best way to achieve that. They formed their views following deliberations over many years and using leading legal advice and a scheme worked out for them by the Charity Commission. What is the point of having the Charity Commission, which is supposed to work out such schemes, if Attorney-Generals can reinvent law on a whim and overturn its initiatives?

The trustees have concluded that the scheme continues to offer the best solution to all the various concerns. It will get the best possible prices for the collection and the individual pieces in it, and enable Coram to continue to use the collection to attract support and to raise money as the original donors intended. Even if the collection were sold, it would obtain for the charity a return that could be calculated in financial terms while the arrangements were being set up. There is no established legal reason why Coram should not be allowed to do that.

The latest counsel's opinion received from the Attorney-General focuses on legal niceties and detail, but in some matters it gets that detail wrong. For example, the grant made by the national heritage memorial fund was from the heritage memorial, not the heritage lottery, fund and takes the form of an endowment. Only income from the endowment can be used to make up the shortfall of running costs, and the endowment would he returned if, at any time, the collection were withdrawn from the museum.

The counsel's opinion has lost the perspective of the big picture and failed to address the real issues. The Attorney-General seems to have chosen to make a case study from Coram for the overturning of established precedents, in this case of a scheme drawn up and approved by the Charity Commission. The particular wickedness is that Coram has already incurred substantial expenditure—some £100,000 of legal expenses that should have gone to child care—and that the Attorney-General has consistently declined even to meet Coram to work out a sensible solution. It is surprising that he has disregarded his Prime Minister's public support of the charity and the consistent support of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the scheme.

The Attorney-General has a moral duty to co-operate with Coram to find a positive solution. He should be a solver, not a cause, of a major and unjustified problem for Coram and, potentially, for other similar charities. If the Attorney-General's authoritarian direction stands, it will, among other things, seriously threaten the gifting of works of art to charities with the intent of their retention. By the stroke of a pen, Government could instruct a charity to dispose of such assets to use their cash value for other objectives. Many charities are in analogous situations. I ask the Attorney-General and his officers to reconsider their stand and to sit down with Coram to work out a positive solution to what is a complex problem, but one for which the Charity Commission has proposed a solution, as was its brief.

I will attempt not to repeat too many of the excellent points that were made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight).

Coram Family, formerly the Thomas Coram Foundation, is possibly the oldest children's charity in Britain that does not run a school. However, I emphasise that it does not live in the past. It has always tried not just to keep up with the times, but to lead the way in developing new methods of helping impoverished children and young people, particularly those growing up without the help of one or both parents. Today, the charity has around 130 professional staff and more than 100 foster carers and volunteers. It works with more than 1,000 children and young people in our care system and with around 600 deprived families in the locality. It runs 29 special projects, including one that deals with the adoption of children with complex needs, specialist fostering services and contact services for children separated from their parents. One scheme especially dear to my heart is that for children leaving care, who have been neglected for far too long. Generally, the charity provides family support and education.

For decades, the foundation pioneered improved ways of helping children, which have been adopted nationwide. It has been a continuing source of innovation. Never in its history has that been more true than in the past few years: with the assistance of Government grants from the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Lord. Chancellor's Department, it has funded new developments, including the adoption concurrent planning project, which has the support of the judiciary and the legal professions, the early excellence centre, a special project for black young men in care and a pilot project for helping teenage parents cope.

Coram Family is not an old-fashioned, establishment charity that is more concerned with paintings than children, resting on its laurels and musing on its past days of glory. It is up to date and leads the way in its field, which is no doubt why, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment chose it as the location for the national launch of the surestart initiative, why the Prime Minister recently launched the adoption White Paper there and why, even more recently, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment launched the national children's fund there. It has perhaps partly been chosen as a venue because the shadow Cabinet held several successful meetings in the courtroom at 40 Brunswick square in the months running up to the previous general election. It is a way of putting funds into the pockets of Corams Fields while providing excellent premises.

The headquarters of Coram Family are located in King's Cross in my constituency. Like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I am proud to be a patron of Coram Family, although, like him, I am not one of its governors. I chair the separate charity, the Corams Fields and Harmsworth Memorial Playground, which is responsible for providing play facilities for local children on an adjacent seven-acre site. Both organisations take the name "Coram" from Captain Thomas Coram, the pioneer of child welfare who in 1739 established the Foundling hospital, the buildings and grounds of which covered the sites today occupied by Coram Family and Corams Fields.

It is partly because of that long-standing history that the debate is taking place today. From the outset, the Foundling hospital attracted the support of artists and musicians, none more famous than Hogarth and Handel. The collection of British art that grew up as a result included Hogarth's portrait of Thomas Coram, two of his other paintings and works by Gainsborough, Ramsay and Reynolds. The collection also comprised memorabilia relating to the generations of children who, for more than 200 years, had found shelter under the roof of the Foundling hospital. An organ and musical score were given to the hospital by Handel, who is said to have conducted the first London performance of "The Messiah" in its chapel.

After the Foundling hospital was demolished in the 1920s, the collection was moved to 40 Brunswick square, a building specially built to house the collection and to provide headquarters offices for the charity, which then became the Thomas Coram Foundation. The courtroom from the 18th-century Foundling hospital building was transferred to 40 Brunswick square piece by piece, including the plasterwork, murals, fireplace and doorways. The future of the collection and buildings with its intimate links with Coram Family—I cannot overemphasise the intimacy of those links—is now at stake. The governors of the foundation have found it increasingly difficult in recent years to ensure that the collection is looked after properly without imposing too much expense, in terms of both money and management time, on the funds of the charity, which must rightly and by law be devoted to the care of children.

Recently, the headquarters offices were moved out of 40 Brunswick square to a more suitable building nearby. The governors intended to take that opportunity to improve the care, display and security of the collection at 40 Brunswick square and to use the lower ground floor as an education centre for children, with particular emphasis on art and music. The governors considered a number of alternative ways of discharging their duty to devote the assets of the charity to the needs of child care, while at the same time keeping together the valuable collection with its close relationship with Coram Family. In 1998, they formulated a proposal for a separate trust, to be called the Foundling museum, to which Coram Family would lend the collection for 25 years. The proposal was to house it in Brunswick square, but better and more securely than in recent years. That would keep the collection together on its present site in King's Cross, where some of the items have now been located for more than 250 years.

During the 25 years, the Foundling museum and its premises would be used to help to raise funds for the children's charity. The governors hoped to realise the value of the collection, estimated at around £7 million, by selling individual items, subject to the condition that they remained at 40 Brunswick square. The capital thus released would be devoted to the child care objectives of the foundation. Acting in good faith, and, rightly, wishing to comply with both the letter and spirit of charity law, the governors sought the agreement of the Charity Commissioners to the proposal for a separate subsidiary Foundling museum trust. That they obtained, subject to a deadline of March 2000 for completing the necessary fundraising. They set about raising from outside sources the £6 million needed for the project.

To date, the governors have been pledged £5 million, including a £3 million grant from the national heritage memorial fund. In early 2000, they sought the Charity Commissioners' agreement to extend the fundraising deadline from March 2000 to April 2001. That appeal commanded the support of every governor except one—Peter Glazebrook, a law professor. He objected to the Attorney-General. Then, as I understand it, without seeking any information from Coram Family on behalf of the rest of the governors, the Law Officers wrote to tell Coram Family that the museum project fell outside its charitable objects and was therefore unlawful.

I do not know whether it is customary for the Law Officers to give an opinion in that way without first hearing both sides of the story. Such a procedure might be not only acceptable, but necessary in cases involving serious criminality such as fraud or misappropriation of funds, but it seems unfair, unreasonable and completely over the top in relation to the public actions of a long-established and reputable charity, acting in good faith and with the prior knowledge and consent of the Charity Commissioners. Such practice by the Law Officers may be hallowed by time, but that does not make it right. Sadly, subsequent dealings between Coram Family's lawyers and the Law Officers' lawyers have been adversarial—a development to the advantage of none, other than those receiving legal fees.

When I was told of that unexpected, unwelcome and expensive development, I wrote to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and made no pretence of possessing any knowledge of charity law: I have none. I am prepared to concede that the governors' proposal may be wrong in law: I simply do not know. The procedures may be wrong in law, but again I do not know. What I do know is that it must be possible for sensible people of good will on both sides of the argument to resolve a shared problem by working together. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that that is the basic point that I have made to him repeatedly—by letter, telephone and face to face.

I was surprised and disappointed when my hon. and learned Friend indicated earlier this month that, should the foundation apply to the Charity Commissioners for an order to proceed further with the proposal, he would—I use the technical expression—"invite" the Charity Commissioners not to decide themselves, but to tell the governors to go to court. I shall spell out the possible evil consequences of such a court action in a moment. However, if instead of taking the current proposal back to the Charity Commissioners, Coram Family were to approach my hon. and learned Friend, spelling out the dilemma that it was trying to resolve and seeking his collaboration, would he be willing to help? Would he authorise his lawyers to get together with Coram Family's lawyers to work out a solution that met both the needs of their practical problems and his legitimate need to be satisfied with the lawfulness of what is proposed?

Throughout my dealings with him, my hon. and learned Friend has emphasised that it is not a political matter, but a matter of law, and that it is his duty as a Law Officer to ensure that the legal requirements are met. He is right to take that duty seriously, but an open-minded effort to establish common ground with the foundation could meet all his requirements. Surely a conciliatory rather than an adversarial approach is more likely to clear up the problem more quickly and less expensively.

I can do no better than pray in aid the support of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine. He made his views clear in his keynote address to the millennium conference of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He reiterated the point already made in the White Paper "Modernising Justice" that effective solutions proportionate to the issues at stake were required. He added:

"While these proportionate solutions may include going to court, for most people most of the time litigation should be the method of dispute resolution of last resort."

I share that view.

If the Lord Chancellor's wise words are not taken seriously, I shall fear for the child care work of Coram Family and for the historic collection. Adversarial attitudes and court actions cannot benefit the children who are supposed to benefit from the charity; they will benefit only those receiving the legal fees. It will be a bonanza for lawyers and a bonanza for art dealers may follow. I freely admit that neither of those comes high on my list of deserving causes.

I fear a bonanza for art dealers because the starting point for Professor Glazebrook and for the Law Officers appears to be that the best and only possible lawful solution would be for Coram Family to sell the collection now on the open market. That cannot be right, even from the standpoint of the fiduciary duty of the governors. It would not automatically raise more money than the disposal procedure contemplated by the governors. Lawful disposal of the listed courtroom would be difficult in practice and separate disposal of all the courtroom paintings would be impossible, as the paintings of other hospitals Oil the roundels on the wall are an integral part of the plasterwork. An enforced sale could result in reduced prices being secured by the charity; to sell the collection now could lose money.

That is not my main reason for objecting to the sale. I believe that it is right and proper to keep this unique and valuable collection of British art together and on display at 40 Brunswick square. if the advisers to the Law Officers say that that is unlawful, they must answer the fundamental question, "Since when has it become unlawful?" Was it unlawful for the Foundling hospital to keep Hogarth's paintings when they could have been auctioned when the paint was scarcely dry? Was it unlawful in the 1930s to build, at the charity's expense, 40 Brunswick square to house the collection? If it was not unlawful then, since when did it become unlawful and why?

Surely, it cannot have become unlawful just because Professor Glazebrook took it into his head to write to the Law Officers. Such a doctrine would surely have wider application. Are all charities, other than art charities, which hold valuable paintings and spend money on their preservation and security, held to be acting unlawfully? Does that doctrine apply to schools, colleges, universities and—perish the thought—even the Inns of Court? Surely the Law Officers do not mean to apply the doctrine to every charity, and if it does not apply to every charity, why does it apply to Coram Family? It would be a scandal if Coram Family were forced to spend precious funds on legal advice, jousts with the Law Officers and court actions. It would be an even bigger scandal if Coram Family's valuable and irreplaceable collection of British art were broken up and disposed of. How could this generation of decision makers justify such a thing in this time of unparalleled prosperity? No previous generation, even in times of war and upheaval, recession or slump contemplated forcing the Thomas Coram Foundation to sell its portrait of Captain Coram, which was painted by Hogarth, who presented it to the foundation. We should not consider it now.

I understand and accept that we are discussing a matter of law, not of politics. To break up and to sell the Coram collection would be an act not of political but of legalistic vandalism, and I cannot believe that the Law Officers would seriously contemplate such a thing. At present, the governors are maintaining the collection inadequately and at the expense of the charity, which benefits neither the collection nor the children whom the charity exists to serve. The governors are seeking a way of benefiting the children, while ensuring that the collection is displayed to best advantage and made more accessible to the public. If the Solicitor-General believes that what is proposed will not achieve those ends within the law, I urge him, having listened to the debate, to meet representatives of Coram Family for the first time, so that all concerned can work together to come up with a scheme that will. It cannot be beyond the wit of the finest lawyers in the land to devise a lawful scheme that benefits the children and retains the family collection. Nothing less will do.

I, too, am glad to take part in the debate. That it is not a party political matter was admirably shown by the excellent speeches, which I endorse, of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). They put the finger firmly on the problem that we must try to solve today.

It is plain that a crisis has developed in the affairs of this ancient and marvellous charity, and it is important that it be thoroughly considered and resolved in public. It is not a party political matter, but in the wider sense it affects the governing of this country. It involves the Charity Commissioners, about whom I have no criticism, and the Law Officers in their role as protectors of charity advising the sovereign as parens patriae—the parent of the country, one of Her Majesty's roles.

I am glad that the Solicitor-General is to respond to the debate. Having heard such strong feelings expressed about the foundation and having been properly appraised of the breadth of the matter, I hope that he will, in collaboration with the Attorney-General and the Charity Commissioners, steer it towards a satisfactory outcome, which meets the needs of Coram Family, Britain's most ancient and one of the most deeply respected child care charities. The charity has possessed from its earliest days—271) years ago—some of the most important heritage assets of English art and music. I support the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I am confident that there is a way ahead that can square the circle, if only the good will and close attention of all those involved can be brought to bear on the matter.

I do not apologise for going over the history of the charity because it sets the scene. The Foundling hospital was set up by royal charter in 1739 after 17 years of tireless and selfless work by Captain Thomas Coram, a retired sea captain and shipbuilder. He must have been one of the most remarkable personalities to arise from humble origins in the 18th century. He almost ranks alongside Wesley. It was the age of Hogarth and Daniel Defoe. Given the poverty of a rapidly growing London in those days, prospects for thousands of illegitimate children were terrible and usually ended in an early death.

For years, the taint of illegitimacy and the alleged fear of encouraging prostitution frustrated Thomas Coram's efforts. Eventually, following the French example of Les Dames de la Charite, Thomas Coram, having failed with the husbands, turned to their wives. They joined him to give the lead and the impetus. By 1739, the original royal charter contained on its lengthy roll at 40 Brunswick square the names of hundreds of supporters from the great and the good of the day. At the end of that list were the names of Thomas Coram himself, and the painter William Hogarth, who was to become one of the most significant painters in British art and the architect of the original Foundling hospital.

Moved by compassion and what Edmund Burke described as enlightened self-interest, Hogarth had the brilliant idea that, when the new Foundling hospital opened on 1 October 1745, British artists should give paintings to decorate the hospital and make it Britain's first public art gallery. Among those who contributed, apart from Hogarth, were the famous sculptor, John Michael Rysbrack, Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, Benjamin West and Richard Wilson. Many of those artists were governors of the hospital. They dined together in the courtroom once a year on St. Luke's day. It was at those dinners that the discussions took place that led to the eventual formation of the Royal Academy of Arts.

Hogarth was childless. He took an active part in the running of the Foundling hospital. Handel, who was also childless, provided the organ for the chapel. He gave an annual fundraising concert that regularly raised £1,000 for the charity. He wrote the Foundling hospital anthem, which was performed every Sunday. The great chapel of the Foundling hospital became one of the most fashionable places to worship on a Sunday. After the service, members of the congregation would visit the hospital, see the pictures and the foundlings, and donate money to the charity. The future of what Thomas Coram called his "darling project" was thereby assured.

I pay tribute to Sarah Richards for providing me with much of the historical background that I have outlined. She is the secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) who, with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, is a patron of the charity.

Over the next two and a half centuries, the charity changed and adapted. Originally, it cared for 600 foundlings from infancy until their teens, when they left for the world of work, often in the armed forces or in service. By the beginning of this century, the need for such residential care had diminished and the charity's objectives were altered to provide advice, guidance and help in the care and upbringing of children in their early years. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the charity has always moved with the times and is frequently ahead of the times.

In the 1920s, the great old Foundling hospital was pulled down. In its place were built the charity's current premises at 40 Brunswick square and, later, the adjoining premises at 49 Mecklenburgh square, where its principal child care work is today carried out. The Foundling hospital was magnificent but otherwise austere and impractical. When it was pulled down, everything in its central governing rooms, including the courtroom, was carefully removed. The articles that were removed, which included original fixtures, were transferred and built into the new premises at 40 Brunswick square, where they remain today. The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked whether that was illegal. I do not believe that it was.

The charity continued to develop. It does magnificent work. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in the past few years, the charity and its director, Gillian Pugh, have been one of the main sources of inspiration and guidance in the development of the Government's child care policies, including their surestart programme. That is absolutely as it should be. Those of us in opposition should do as we did when we were in opposition before and get alongside charities in the voluntary sector. We should think ahead as we prepare for our return to government in order to get the right policies for the future, just as Labour Members did when they were in opposition. That is how our country is governed. I pay tribute to any charity that plays such a role, whichever party it is helping. The charity has been visited by a succession of senior and middle-ranking Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards.

It is one of life's sad ironies that the wonderful collection of paintings, sculptures and other works of art, including Handel's original organ and other such Handeliana left to the charity by the composer, should have now become an object of dispute and disagreement. The dispute needs a fresh eye and good will, energy and imagination must be brought to bear. A lawful and constructive solution must be found. Above all, the problem, the charity and the future of this great collection must not be allowed to sink in a morass of pettifogging legalism that wastes charity funds on legal costs, which is what threatens to happen. It is to that noble end that the charity's 25 governors have been bending their minds and efforts for 10 years. Tragically, they have become bogged down in a legal dispute that I am convinced is capable of sensible solution, but which, without help, threatens to engulf the charity.

I was personally alerted to the problem less than four months ago and I have been doing my best behind the scenes, as has the right hon. Gentleman, to encourage a sensible solution. I salute him and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who made his views extremely plain to the Law Officers as long ago as 10 December 2000.

The charity's assets consist of its buildings, works of art and some £14 million-worth of financial investments. The works of art are insured for £29 million and are considered to have a value in the open market of between approximately £14 million—roughly the same amount as the financial investments—and £20 million. However, they are in serious need of preservation and conservation. The charity has always, rightly, concentrated its funds on child care work rather than heritage matters and it wishes to continue to do so. The expenditure on conservation over the past 100 years has been kept to a minimum of approximately £45,000 per year, which includes the funding of much of the operation of 40 Brunswick square itself. That building is now in deep need of refurbishment and the pictures need significant attention.

The charity's governors include the wife of a senior chancery division judge, as well as a Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Mathew Thorpe. Having originally taken legal advice from Mr. Edward Nugee QC, a most distinguished charity silk, the charity recognised that it could not expend significant moneys on its heritage as the matter was outside its objects and changing those objects would be inappropriate. The governors therefore devised a thoroughly sensible plan to set up a separate charity that would be known as the Foundling museum. That charity would raise money from the public and from public bodies, including money from the heritage lottery fund and the heritage memorial fund. The works of art would be not alienated but transferred on temporary loan to that charity, which would take responsibility for housing and conserving them.

The key point, which those advising the Law Officers have not adequately taken on board, is that, with the governors, the charity would try to find a benevolent purchaser or purchasers, who would buy the works of art at their full monetary value—thus releasing that monetary value for child care uses—but, as an act of heritage charity, redonate them to the Foundling museum, where they would remain close to the charity to which the artists gave them and, unlike now, would be available for the public to see daily. They would also be available for one of the uses for which the artists originally intended them—as a continuing aid for fundraising for the charity and, if appropriate, for the education of, among others, the children for whom it cares.

I am glad to say that that objective had the constructive support of the Charity Commissioners in exercising their new and enhanced function under the Charities Act 1993, which I piloted through the House when I was Attorney-General. I believe that the Charity Commissioners were right then and continue to be right to try to achieve that end. To cite a passage from section 26 of that Act that is much quoted by counsel advising the Law Officers, it is

"expedient in the interests of charity"

to take that approach.

Unfortunately, as we know, the matter has given rise to controversy, which no doubt started in the utmost good faith but is now getting out of hand. A technical question has arisen because of a dispute over the length of time for which the works of art should be loaned to the new charity—the 25-year loan—and the precise terms involved. It is also the result of the mistaken scepticism of one governor, Dr. Peter Glazebrook, acting master of Jesus college, Cambridge, and was encouraged, in good faith but mistakenly, by an over-narrow approach, which may have been based on inadequate instructions, by those including counsel entrusted by the Law Officers with handling the matter.

I do not want to demonise Dr. Glazebrook. All the governors are trying to do their best according to what they consider right, but he is only one of 25 distinguished people. The charity has taken careful legal advice and I am worried by the excessive weight placed on Dr. Glazebrook's views.

Is it right that Dr. Glazebrook used to run a children's charity, an adoption service at Cambridge, which experienced financial difficulties when he was chairman? Exactly the same thing is now happening to the Coram charity, of which he is a governor.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a deep knowledge of the matter and will, I hope, catch your eye, Dr. Clark. I do not want to speak for too long, but I understand that that is true. It would be a great pity if Coram Family, having picked up what I believe is called Anglia Adoption and helped it out of financial difficulties, should thereby be mistakenly steered into financial difficulties of its own.

Dr. Glazebrook referred the matter to the Attorney-General and the Charity Commissioners have been frightened off. Having been told by the Attorney-General's legal advisers that what they were planning to support was unlawful, they felt unable to remake the order under section 26 of the 1993 Act, which they had previously made, but which had expired with the passing of time, as it was intended to apply only for a limited period. The efforts of the charity to get alongside the Attorney-General and his officials and counsel in meetings formal and informal have so far been frustrated. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rightly emphasised that point. However, I am not sure how far either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General has been personally involved in detailed meetings on the matter. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us about that. I want to encourage, not to criticise him. I look to him to solve the problem.

In November 2000, the charity and Farrer and Company, its new solicitors, received a 37-page document, described as the third draft of particulars of claim in the name of the Attorney-General as claimant, purporting to claim that the governors' entire plan was unlawful. It is a long, highly tendentious and one-sided document, clearly based on detailed notes and instructions from Dr. Glazebrook—I can think of no other possible source. The delivery of it in draft was no doubt made with good intentions to follow the guidance of Lord Woolf, who is now the Lord Chief Justice, in the reforms of civil proceedings that bear his name. However, I doubt whether that is what Lord Woolf had in mind.

The charity, through its solicitors, has had to prepare a detailed point-by-point response that rightly puts the picture in a different light. It has thereby incurred to date some £100,000 worth of legal costs, with the prospect of far more. Those of us who have expressed our concerns and felt it right to raise the matter in the House are disappointed that the meeting between the Solicitor-General and the Charity Commissioners to discuss the subject constructively has been postponed. We understood that it was to take place soon.

The charity has now received a further opinion from counsel, of which I have been sent a copy. I am sorry to say that those advising the Law Officers still fail to see the matter properly in the round. In a number of key places, the document either mis-states or shows that they fail to understand the governors' true intentions. They do not appreciate the governors' genuine intention to facilitate the sale of those objects in the circumstances that I have described.

The document seems to set out to rubbish the governors' methodology, suggesting erroneously that they might have had it in mind to go ahead without a section 26 order. They certainly did not intend to do that. It ends by suggesting—it does not specifically state this—that the only available course, if maximum return is to be obtained for the charity, is to sell the pictures on the open market, even though the collection will thereby be dispersed. Thus the opportunity will be lost for ever to continue to benefit the charity by encouraging fundraising in the way in which Hogarth and others intended.

What should the charity do? Should it spend more money on legal costs? Unsurprisingly, the governors are frightened of that, faced with the unlimited financial might of Government, by whom key points are simply overlooked.

The key points that I ask the Attorney-General to take into account are as follows. For many years, the governors have sought a solution that would raise the full value of the collection for the child care charity, while keeping it together. They have sought, too, to maintain the close links between Coram Family and the museum, albeit through the Foundling museum, the new charity. The Charity Commissioners—provided that they are not frightened off by the AttorneyGeneral—have assisted the governors in finding a lessee for 40 Brunswick square, which is in desperate need of refurbishment. The lessee is prepared to refurbish that building at a cost of £2.5 million and a saving of £60,000 per annum on the maintenance of the collection. In addition, the national heritage memorial fund has offered an endowment of £3 million to run the museum. The pictures are to be loaned or leased to the museum for 25 years, but there is no intention for them to remain there. The clear intention—it has been expressed time and again to those acting for the Law Officers but it does not appear to have been accepted—is to find a charitable buyer of the pictures at a much earlier date, so that the full value of the collection can be released for child care purposes. Those suggestions, put together, must constitute the ideal solution.

Clearly, there is a risk that a charitable 'purchaser will not come forward and that the lease might therefore last the full 25 years. However, counsel seems to be simply writing off the attempt as speculative. That is too narrow a view. It is founded on the notion that a charity that owns substantial artistic assets that could be sold to provide funds for its charitable work and the preservation of which is not a direct part of its objectives, is under a direct obligation to sell them. That is a false notion. If it were correct, it would rightly cause an outcry.

Nor would outright sale be free from difficulty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, 40 Brunswick square is a listed building. Its fixtures are worth £2.5 million of the charity's heritage assets. They cannot be removed. As a result, the purposes for which the building can be used are severely restricted; for example, to strip it out and convert it to office use is not an option.

The pictures were donated by great artists to benefit the charity and the children in its care by enabling it to raise money. The charity has held the assets for 270 years. Its governors have proposed an imaginative scheme that attempts to implement that noble aim in 21st-century terms. It should be given a chance to work.

The Solicitor-General's suggestion that the charity should not be allowed to proceed without an application to the court freezes the blood, particularly if the attitude towards its sensible scheme continues to be as destructive as is suggested, sadly, by the legal documents to which I have referred. The cost of such protracted legal process could be horrifying. It has been hinted that the Attorney-General might be prepared to enter into an alternative dispute resolution. Even if that were pursued along strictly legal avenues, the costs would be likely to be little less alarming.

The right action would be to put the litigious approach on hold. Even if the full 25 years passed without a sale, little would be lost in terms of the charity's 270-year history. It is worth remembering that the last time that the charity was reconstructed, 56 acres of north London were sold, which, with hindsight, was a mistake. Judgment must be exercised in such matters, and the right people to exercise it are not the Law Officers but the governors, provided they are properly advised and act in accordance with law.

The Solicitor-General seems to be proposing to force the matter into court. That would be wrong. The scheme could, no doubt, be improved. It might be possible to shorten the overall time limit without some of the benefactors falling out. There is always room for compromise on details in such matters, but when an ultimate objective is noble, it is the duty of the protector of charity to facilitate rather than to impede. I look to the Law Officers to bend their energies to do so.

rose—

Order. The two hon. Members who are winding up the debate must be given the maximum time as the matter is complex. Only 12 minutes remain and three hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that they will bear it in mind that all hon. Members want to have enough time to get their points across.

I trust that I shall not speak for long, although, when lawyers or politicians say that, they should usually be disbelieved. I shall fit my remarks into the time available.

I shall try to call the hon. Gentleman to speak at 10.40 am. If he is brief, the Solicitor-General will have longer to wind up the debate on this complex matter.

I wish simply to associate myself with the arguments that have been advanced. That will allow my colleagues more time to participate.

I knew nothing about the matter until, by chance, my wife and I had an opportunity to view the collection last Thursday, as a result of a private invitation. I have not been nobbled by the trustees. I told their chairman that the cause was so good that I wanted to help and that I would attend this debate.

The situation cannot continue as it is. That, at least, is agreed by the Attorney-General and the Law Officers. The matter must be resolved. The dangers of the present situation are that, if prolonged litigation occurs, we will reach the 21st-century version of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce and dissipate the assets.

At the same time, there is potential for the collection to be damaged while everything is being sorted out, without means, opportunity or funds that can be drawn down for conservation. None of that would benefit Coram Family, the children's charity that is the trust's main objective. I emphasise that both conservative and heritage activities and child-based activities have legitimate charitable purposes.

I tell the Attorney-General that we must find a solution, either by agreement or adjudication. I could suggest a third route of, if necessary, introducing legislation to facilitate the matter, although that would not be without cost and difficulty. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General may know that the last time that affairs of the Foundling hospital attracted legislation was 1953. when the matter of birth certificates of foundlings was resolved. If we had to introduce such legislation, we would. Of course, we cannot ask Law Officers to whitewash the law or to remove its interpretation. We do not seek special favours from them.

My hon. Friends have made clear points about the law and, as a non-lawyer, I defer to them. However, I have experience of charity law and we all know that there are difficult cases. Once, as a trustee, I owned an alabaster altar, of which I had to dispose. At the time, I thanked God that I had neither the context nor setting to justify keeping it. It was duly disposed of, although it probably did not meet a good fate.

Such issues are difficult and we beg only for a constructive attitude that seeks to find a solution rather than to frustrate. As the newest boy on the block, that is all that I wish to say, albeit strongly, as the collection deserves a positive solution rather than an eon of legal wrangling.

I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been admirably and magisterially deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who was formerly Attorney-General, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I genuinely call him my right hon. Friend. I amicably share a constituency boundary with him and a patronage of the charity. The latter link derives not only from the changes and chances of personal and parliamentary friendship, but from my recent trusteeship of the Handel House Trust, which is in my constituency. We Handelians stand together.

I declare my interest as a patron of the charity that we are discussing. I also declare an interest as president of the British Antique Dealers Association and the British Art Market Federation. Although that is not necessarily relevant, one must be careful in such politically correct times.

I request that the Solicitor-General address the wider and consequential implications of this matter for museums, educational charities and other trusts, either in today's response or publicly following the debate. We all know about the controversial issues of inalienability of assets that are bequeathed to the National Trust, which is sometimes placed in the crunch of a separate public affairs crux. Dramas surround museums that choose to rid their cellars of works that are seldom shown, although they cannot be certain whether such works will reacquire relevance.

I am an old boy, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), of a school that heaped coals upon itself by selling Gainsborough's largest portrait, which was bequeathed to it while I was at the school. By chance, the school's old boys included directors of two national portrait galleries. In Coram's case, artists and musicians gave their genius and the products of that genius to the foundation but what of an Oxbridge college, or similar institution, which has always commissioned outstanding portrait painters to paint its masters or most famous alumni?

I still bear the scars of the row that arose when I was Secretary of State for National Heritage, as the post was called then, and Royal Holloway college sold abroad three great pictures derived from the larger collection of its founder, which still hung in the college, ironically just for the purpose of supporting the college's educational aims. Would that today's case were but a cloud no bigger than a man's hand. We are dealing instead with a potential typhoon, whose happy definition in the Royal Navy's handbook begins with the words:

"The first evidence of an approaching typhoon is a general sense on the part of the captain that all is not well."

The spirit of Captain Thomas Coram would concur with that definition.

I will endeavour to be as brief as I can because I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) want to hear from the organ, rather than the organ grinder.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. It has been an interesting and somewhat esoteric debate on charity law and, in particular, on how it affects the future of the old, but still active and valuable charity, the Coram Foundation. As a result of the Attorney-General's intervention, the charity has had to spend around £100,000 in legal costs. That is doubtless good for the lawyers, but whether it is good for the future of the charity is a matter of some dispute. Among the many interesting points made by my hon. Friend, I was struck by the fact, which was emphasised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), that at no stage has the Attorney-General or any of his representatives met directly with the charity. My hon. Friend was entirely right when he said that they must meet to work out a solution.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras candidly said that he had no knowledge of charity law, but asked that the Attorney-General invest a little common sense into the dispute. I have a confession to make to the right hon. Gentleman. have no knowledge of charity law either, but I recognise common sense, especially when it wears a beard and grabs me warmly around the throat. The Solicitor-General should pay particular attention to what has been said by the two patrons of the charity present in the Chamber this morning. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, as the constituency MP, knows the work of the charity not only in his constituency, but outside it at first hand, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) speaks as a former Secretary of State for National Heritage. There is a huge reservoir of knowledge here, both legal and personal, which the Solicitor-General would benefit from listening to. I have no doubt that he will do so.

I also am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the former Attorney-General and the longest serving Law Officer, for his speech. He gave us a brief history of the charity. The more one learns of the past and current work of the charity, the more one wonders whether the Attorney-General's intervention will prove useful. He described a situation that ran the risk of sinking into a morass of pettifogging legalism and a massive waste of charity funds on legal costs. Those were all strong and well made points, reinforced by the brief speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It was only due to his self-restraint that we did not hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) who has a personal interest in the matter.

I have been shown a letter from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Solicitor-General dated 12 December 2000 in which he complains of the emotive language used by the Law Officers' advisers in their approach to the matter. Apparently, he says that selling the collection is not a satisfactory answer to the problem and a practical way forward must be found.

Has the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General met the Secretary of State to discuss the matter? Have they or their senior representatives met either of the two patrons who are in the Room or any of the governors or their legal advisers—in person; I do not mean exchanging pleadings—to talk through the problem? It cannot be beyond the wit of the Attorney-General and Coram to reach agreement on the facts, the foundation's intentions and how best to exploit—I use that word in the neutral sense—the art collection for the benefit of the foundation's aims. It is time that the Law Officers came out of their entrenched position and condescended to discuss, at first hand and at close quarters, the issues that our interesting debate has revealed.

The implications of the Attorney-General's attitude are that the collection should be sold and dispersed. They go beyond that, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster made clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the problem has wider consequences for the charitable world as a whole, especially those charities that own valuable art collections or other chattels.

Traditionally, the Attorney-General does all he can to save and to preserve great collections. I fear that in this instance—I do not want to descend into discussing the merits of the case—unwittingly or not, he is losing sight of the real purpose of the charity and the best aims and interests of its beneficiaries.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned the remarks of the Lord Chancellor about the need for proportionality in legal disputes. That chimes well with the aims of the Woolf reforms of civil procedure. As I have said, until I am bored of saying it, although some cases will need a sharp injection of adversarial justice, that is not always the case. I am new to the issue, but it is an example of a case in which an adversarial approach is not best calculated to assist the progress of the foundation and its aims.

As a general rule, Law Officers do not publish advice to the Government or to others, but, in this case, at the very least, the Solicitor-General should tell us why he and the Attorney-General hold their present legal opinion. The Law Officers should use the opportunity provided by the debate to act as facilitators of a mutually satisfactory and economically sensible solution, not promoters of another Jarndyce case.

I know from family experience what happens when cases get stuck in chancery; my family had a case that began shortly after the second world war and was completed only when I was called to the Bar in 1976. It killed off two chancery judges and went to the House of Lords twice. As far as I can tell, no one much benefited from it—certainly not I.

Let us move out of the chancery fog described in the opening paragraphs of "Bleak House" to somewhere more beneficial, where the atmosphere of discussion is more conducive to the provision of a sensible solution, and hear from a Law Officer whose legal expertise is greatly respected in academia and in Government. Let us see whether he can persuade us that the attitude of the Law Officers is now more constructive than it has been.

There is no question but that the charity does valuable work. It is known in this country and abroad for its innovative work. It might help hon. Members to understand the concerns that I have and that other hon. Members and hon. Friends have properly raised if I begin with two preliminary points.

The first relates to the role of the Attorney-General in charity matters. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said. that role, which is carried out on behalf of the Crown, is as a protector of charities—I undertake it on the Attorney-General's behalf. He represents the public interest in ensuring that charities are properly administered. A charitable trust has no beneficiaries in the sense that a private trust does, and the Attorney-General therefore represents the beneficial interest.

It is important to note that that role as protector of charities is carried out independently of the Attorney-General's role as a Minister. It is one of the many cases in which Law Officers do not act as members of the Government, but represent the public interest. The Lord Chief Justice recently emphasised what he regarded as the important constitutional position of the Law Officers. Our position in relation to charity matters, individual criminal cases and other matters falls within that category. It is fundamental to the integrity of that position that we discharge those public interest functions in accordance with the law, irrespective of political advantage. expediency or personal popularity.

The second preliminary point is on the role of the Charity Commission, a role which, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, is set out in the Charities Act 1993. I do not answer for the actions of the Charity Commissioners and I do not superintend them in the performance of their functions. Indeed, part of the Attorney-General's role can be to review decisions taken by the Charity Commissioners.

Having made those background points, I turn to the history of the Attorney-General's involvement in the matter. In April 2000, Dr. Peter Glazebrook—whom, I should point out to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), I do not know personally—a member of the court of governors and of the general committee of the Thomas Coram Foundation, wrote to the Attorney-General. Dr. Glazebrook expressed concern about the legality of the proposal that the Coram Foundation should loan to the new charity of the Foundling museum, gratuitously and for a period of 25 years, its picture collection and premises in Brunswick square.

In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), I say that I believe that Dr. Glazebrook acted with absolute propriety in carrying out his function of trustee of the charity. Dr. Glazebrook was concerned that the proposed transaction fell outside the objects of the charity, a defect that he considered could not be remedied by an order under section 26 of the Charities Act 1993.

As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, that section gives the Charity Commissioners the power to authorise dealing with charity property where it is in the interests of the charity to do so, whether or not that would otherwise be within the powers exercisable by the charity trustees. However, section 26(5) of the Act provides that the Charity Commissioners can make no order under that section that would extend or alter the purposes of the charity. As has been said, the Charity Commissioners reached the view that an order under section 26 would be appropriate. The charity entered into heads of agreement that were purportedly approved by the Charity Commissioners in August 1998.

On receipt of Dr. Glazebrook's letter, I considered the matter with standing counsel to the Attorney-General on charity matters and with legal advisers in the Government Legal Service. I reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the material available at that time, the proposal fell out side the objects of Coram and that the Charity Commissioners did not have the power under section 26 to authorise the proposal. On my instructions, the Treasury solicitors department raised my concerns with the solicitors acting for Coram in July 2000.

In my view, the objection to the proposed scheme can be simply put: if the scheme goes ahead, for 25 years, the Coram Foundation will be diverting some £13 million to £18 million of assets—I do not know the exact value—from child care to arts and heritages purposes. I emphasise that those latter purposes are worthwhile. Right hon. and hon. Members have set out the charity's history and drawn attention to the importance of those works of art. However, arts and heritage are not the purposes for which those assets should be applied. The objects of Coram are, broadly, the support and maintenance of poor children—objects that stem from the royal charter in 1739, as amended by subsequent legislation, most recently the Foundling Hospital Act 1936.

Acting on behalf of the Attorney-General as protector of charity, it is my duty to ensure that charities act in accordance with their objects. The position in respect of the collection would be different if there were evidence that the individual paintings were held on special trusts, or subject to a requirement that they be retained unsold. I have seen no such evidence. Indeed, Edward Nugee, QC advised the Coram Foundation in 1997 that the pictures were not held on special trusts.

In those circumstances, Coram holds the collection in the same way as any other charity holds any asset. That is what distinguishes the collection from pictures which may be held on special trusts by, for example, colleges and Inns of Court. I therefore see no read-across from Coram to other charities that hold art collections on special trusts. In those cases, the works of art hold a clear functional value for the charity—evident in the educational value for colleges and Inns of Court. It is also possible for charities to keep works of art as an investment. As I said, there is no necessary read-across from other cases to this one, an issue that was raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).

I should add that the governors of Coram were not unaware of the legal problems when they were developing the proposals. Indeed, in 1997, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a charity law expert, made it clear that the proposed scheme was outside the charity's purposes. In 1997, a small panel of representatives of the governors interviewed several solicitors with a view to their possible retainer. At interview, Lord Phillips informed the panel that it simply could not do what it proposed by way of setting up the museum and laming the collection to it. He later reiterated that point forcefully in writing. Let me quote a passage from his letter:

"The fundamental issue is whether or not the way in which the pictures have been dealt with is within the purposes of the Foundation, and whether or not the way in which you intend to deal with them is within the purposes. I have seen and heard nothing to believe that this is the case."

He went on to emphasise that point. I should mention that his firm was not retained to do the work.

I am aware that some of the governors of the foundation regard the art collection as fundamental to its aims. I have seen comments from governors to the effect that, without the collection, Coram would be just another child care charity and would never move out of the second division. Such views tend to suggest that the proposed scheme was not aimed primarily at advancing the objects of Coram, but was calculated to further the ulterior purpose—I use "ulterior purpose" in the legal sense—of advancing heritage or museum objects.

Before the h on. and learned Gentleman concludes, will he address the fact that the governors made it perfectly clear that their aim in lending the pictures and undertaking proper conservation work was to facilitate a sale, so that money could be raised and used for child care purposes, none the less retaining the link? Why is that not expedient for the interests of the charity?

It might be. I will discuss the way forward at the end of my remarks.

Hon. Members raised the point—it relates in part to the intervention—that we are putting pressure on the charity to sell the collection. That is not the case. In fact, Coram has accepted that it will sell the collection to the museum. It is not as though we are pushing Coram in a direction in which it has not already decided to go. I believe that I, and those acting on my behalf, have acted constructively throughout the discussions. We drew up the draft particulars of claim, setting out our concerns in considerable detail. Those particulars were sent to the Charity Commission and to the solicitors then acting for Coram. I hoped that, by setting out our stall and asking Coram to come back with proposals, we would be able to move the matter forward.

It was our understanding that Farrer and Company. who has now been instructed on behalf of Coram, was to come forward with new proposals after reconsidering the matter from first principles. Indeed, Coram has come forward with further material since the start of the year. In the light of the seriousness of the matter and in view of the strong representations made by right hon. and hon. Members, I decided to seek further advice. I received a joint opinion from Peter Crampin, QC and William Henderson last week. In the spirit of cooperation, I have made that opinion available to Farrer and Company, and I am arranging to place a copy in the Library, in response to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

Will my hon. and learned Friend seek an opinion from learned counsel about a lawful way forward that would meet the requirements of the charity?

There are three possible ways to move forward. The first, that the objects of the charity might be changed, was raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). That would be a long-term project, but it is a possibility.

The second way forward is for the matter to be considered by a court. That is undesirable but, given the stand-off, it might be the only way forward. I have set out my reasoning, but I might be wrong. If I am wrong, costs will be ordered against the Attorney-General. I would not wish to appeal if the court held against me.

The third way forward is for Coram to do more fundamental thinking about what it should do. One possibility—it is only a possibility; it has been raised this morning—is a sale on a deferred payment basis. The original 1997 scheme proposed a sale to the museum over three years. We have said that we could live with a three or perhaps five-year period, so a deferred payment scheme to the museum over that length of time might be acceptable.

I have every sympathy with the concerns that have been expressed during the debate. I do not want to be inflexible or awkward, but I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I have specific obligations to the charity that I cannot ignore. To do so would mean compromising the integrity of the role of the Law Officers. If—

Order. I am sorry, Minister, but we have come to the end of the debate. If you have been unable to say all that you wanted, perhaps you would like to write to the hon. Members present. We now move to the next debate.

I am pleased to be able to raise this important issue in this Chamber today. The Government should be congratulated on the recent White Paper, which allows the profile and importance of community media in general and community radio specifically to be raised in the House. Community media include community radio, television and internet networks.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) played a central role in establishing the new all-party community media group. I was honoured to be elected its founding chairman. The group was established to support community radio and other forms of community media. It is working closely with the Community Media Association, which set out many relevant issues in its recently published commedia manifesto and groups together community-based radio, television and internet projects from throughout the United Kingdom.

I shall talk mainly about community radio, its relevance nationally and its importance for my constituency of Eccles in the city of Salford. Unfortunately, we hear all too often in this House about elderly citizens and other members of communities who are afraid to go out of their homes after dark and rarely have an opportunity to talk to one another. I want to highlight the fact that that is especially true in areas of high social deprivation. I shall talk about what community radio is; its relevance to people who live in alienating circumstances; the role that it can play in, for example, area regeneration strategies and the development of local democracy; and, most important, how real people in local communities and interest groups can use it as .t tool for social dialogue and much needed fun.

What is community radio? It is community-owned, grass-roots broadcasting. It is not for profit and is derived from the community's needs. It is also about real people from real communities making radio, communicating with one another and gaining all the benefits and skills involved in that interaction. It is clear that existing public service and commercial radio have a community element. I welcome that and believe that it should be maintained. Why, then, do we need community radio?

When I explained the idea behind it to residents of Eccles last weekend, I started by asking them, "What, if anything, does radio say about your place?" The response was gloomy to say the least. They told me that they never heard anything about their constituency, which includes the towns of Eccles, Swinton, Pendlebury, Cadishe ad and Irlam. On the rare occasion that they hear anything about their city, the news is generally about drup, crime and stolen cars, which are problems across the UK.

How can community radio help a place to address its self-image and recreate the social glue that was lost in the destruction of some of the most important informal social networks—the workplace and family? Those are big issues but, in my experience, it i:. rare that we get an in-depth dialogue in the mainstream media to enable local people to address those and other important issues in a balanced way. Nor has adequate time been given to develop continuing community involvement in the resolution of such serious issues. In addition, there has clearly not been enough emphasis in the media on the positive developments in our communities. Community radio could help put that social glue back in place and facilitate a dialogue on issues Mat affect people's everyday lives by putting local people on air and addressing local issues, while giving them the opportunity to entertain themselves.

The big commercial radio stations in the large conurbations do not and, in my opinion, cannot adequately address local issues. They might have a news service, but it is mainly sensation-driven and certainly does not cover enough good news. We must applaud the success and quality of our mair stream public and commercial radio stations, but we must also recognise their inherent limitations. We need to give local people the tools to rebalance the local agenda and enable communities to rebuild some self-esteem. Community radio has an important role to play in that process by developing local solidarity and enabling people to realise that their concerns are shared.

Radio Regen is a unique community development charity that uses radio to boost the capacity of disadvantaged communities to help themselves. It works with residents from client areas to give them the skills that they need to establish and run community radio stations. Radio Regen is supported and funded by Manchester city council. The funds come mainly from the European social fund, with additional money from the single regeneration budget and the further education sector. It employs 12 people and has become in its own right a significant small to medium-sized enterprise in the cultural sector. To date, it has helped to develop four fledgling community radio stations in the Manchester area and to train young and not-so-young people to gain a level of confidence in communicating with others that was previously believed to be impossible.

Phil Korbel, a former BBC producer, runs Radio Regen and he says that it is now in the business of helping people to transform themselves. Phil believes that there is no better affordable or accessible interactive medium that enables and encourages personal development. It is clear that community radio has the capacity to be an important medium for such transformation and development To put it another way, involvement in community radio helps to transform people. If people are transformed, communities are transformed, too. That is why community radio needs a higher profile and level of support.

My city, Salford, has a well-established community strategy, which has anticipated the Local Government Act 2000 requirement for decision making to be carried out at the most local level possible. The city has established nine community committees that administer small, devolved budgets. An integral part of the Salford community strategy is the establishment of an exciting scheme for public access to informing, communicating and enabling technologies, through the city's on-line portal. Salford aims to deliver the Government's targets for electronic government two years earlier than the national timetable.

The community-enabling philosophy has a clear synergy with the work of Radio Regen. As part of Salford city's community strategy, Radio Regen is about to launch a three-year city-wide project funded under Salford's single regeneration budget 5 programme to engage the city's nine community service areas in community radio. A sensitising approach will be adopted; there will be weekend broadcasting in each area to get the ball rolling. Salford will be ready with a pool of skilled people, which will enable a bid for long community radio licences when they become available.

The programme will involve three or four months of workshop activity on the ground in each area. It will not be institutionalised or institution-based. Regen trainers will work with groups who wish to make programmes on the streets, in the back rooms of pubs and even in the front rooms of people's houses. People who with just a laptop computer and a minidisc recorder will be able to make any programme live and on the spot. The choice of subject for any programme—whether it is tiddlywinks, how to combat heroin addiction on an estate or the celebration of the oldest resident's life story—will be a decision for local people.

The city of Salford's youth consultative committee has recognised that the Radio Regen model lends itself to joined-up work between complementary projects. In Salford, the health action zone, led by Edna Robinson, has established an innovative project to train young people to become mentors for their peers. Those in the Salford health action zone are convinced of the contribution that community radio makes to the wellbeing of a place. That is a health issue; if people feel better about the place in which they live, they will feel better about themselves. That will reflect on their health and impact on their confidence in applying for jobs or accessing services.

Salford health action zone is putting its money into the solution. It has funded some of the development work carried out by Radio Regen, including an enormously successful awareness-raising reception at the House of Commons that was attended by many hon. Members, peers and my hon. Friend the Minister. That reception generated my interest in the establishment of the parliamentary group of which I am the chairman.

In terms of resources, it is vital that the access radio fund in the White Paper does not merely provide seedcorn funding for buying a mixing desk for a station. It must provide sustained funding for the running of a station and its broad activities. The running costs of a station are not great, but there must be sustained resources. Community radio and television should be supported by a substantial community media fund. The fund should draw on new money, and not just money already accessed by community media from current funding sources.

Will the Minister consider allocating the revenue that has accrued to the Treasury from the cash bids and qualifying revenue paid by radio and television licensees? Alternatively, a small proportion of the money that has come to the Treasury from the sale of mobile phone licences could be allocated. Whichever mechanism of funding is used, however, editorial independence must be ensured.

The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East is normally portrayed in the media as having the largest council estate in Europe, the No. 1 ward in the UK deprivation list and, of course, all the resultant social problems. My hon. Friend was keen to participate in this debate, but, unfortunately, he has urgent business elsewhere in the House. I also know that he wanted to stress his strongly held belief that Wythenshawe FM community radio is helping people to change the place in which they live. In turn, that changes the public's perception of Wythenshawe. I am also aware that my hon. Friend has written to the Minister declaring his support for Wythenshawe FM to be considered as one of the pilot stations for long licence.

Wythenshawe FM is supported by local businesses such as Manchester international airport, Willow Park housing trust and the local Co-op. In its proposals for access radio, the Radio Authority has said that it would endorse support from business in the form of sponsorship. However, the authority suggests that community radio should not be allowed to carry advertisements. That is unduly restrictive. Some people in the world of commercial radio are worried about unfair competition, but I can find no evidence that there would be any adverse impact. In fact, in the past 10 years, more than 2,500 short-term restricted service licences have been issued that allow advertising, while commercial radio revenues have been the fastest-growing advertising medium in the United Kingdom. The all-party group will no doubt wish to consider that issue in the future.

What is the demand for community radio on the ground? We know that, when they get the bug, there is demand from the public. A straw poll found 65 per cent. brand recognition for Radio Moston FM, the first commercial radio station established by Radio Regen. Also, regeneration agencies are crying out for effective communication of their initiatives because they find that they are unable successively to communicate what they are doing to the public. "No one tells us," say the residents. The agencies would welcome the opportunity to explain their work on air.

I would like the Minister to name the first pilots and to make available funding from central Government. She must be politically brave and choose a programme that has a diverse mix of target communities, so that we can examine models for a multi-ethnic community, a large council estate, a hill farming community, a former coalfield community and even one for Northern Ireland, should the communities there so wish.

In determining the pilots, transparent benchmarks should be established that might include track record, both in production and project management. The pilots should also be able to demonstrate an active relationship with a broad range of partners and meet all the criteria in the community media charter drawn up by the Community Media Association.

I hope that, in the not too distant future, we will see the establishment of Eccles Energi FM as part of the city of Salford's project. However, my main interest is in how community radio can help to further individuals' confidence and self-esteem and transform local people into local heroes who change their communities for good. My good friend the hon. Member for Manchester, Central has been deeply involved in the work of Radio Regen. I am sure that he will tell us the story of the real local heroes who are a testament to Radio Regen's work and the benefits of community radio.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and securing the debate. I am a last-minute substitute, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who was supposed to be speaking today, is unable to attend.

I wish to put the issue into context. We must examine digital broadcasting in its broadest sense. The majority of people are still using four to five terrestrial television channels and, to many of them, nothing much seems to have changed. However, it has, because one in five households now have access to digital television. In recent years, the number of channels has multiplied massively and while many households still have the option of only four or five channels, a significant number can choose from hundreds of television channels that fit into many different genres, such as films, documentaries, news, music and children's television, to name but a handful. There are also local television channels on many cable networks.

We are facing an enormous challenge. There is also a big opportunity for the BBC and long-standing commercial broadcasters. They will be in on the game and we must find ways in which to protect the little guys, so that they have a chance to become involved. Digital technology will bring three key benefits. First, the spectrum will be freed up, thus making space for extra channels and services. Secondly, digital signals carry a higher quality of picture and sound than analogue signals, which have been around since the 1930s. Thirdly, as digital signal uses the spectrum more efficiently, it enables the number and range of services to be increased significantly. That holds out the possibility of allowing individuals to receive regional programmes that are specific to their region where that is currently not the case. That is a step in the right direction.

The Government are ambitious for digital television. Between 2006 and 2010, they want to switch off the analogue transmitters, which send signals to non-digital television. However. before that can be done, some goals must be met; 99.4 per cent. of households must be able to receive the digital signal and 95 per cent. of households must haN e signed up to digital, which must be affordable to all. I have been approached by pensioners who are worried about the matter. We broadly support the Government's approach, but we want to ensure that people are not disadvantaged.

Radio is sharing in the revolution. Digital technology offers radio listeners the prospect of the same interference-free reception that digital television viewers are experiencing. The pace of technological change is fast and accelerating. Viewers can now buy machines that suggest programmes to watch based on their favourite television programmes. It would be interesting if that could happen with radio programmes. Research shows that viewers are happy to have programmes suggested to them, although I think that that is a terrible idea.

Television and radio are essential components of modern democracy and a modern civilised society. They are key methods by which we can all be educated, entertained and informed. The big plus of community-based radio is that the elderly, the housebound, the unemployed and the sick have a vital link to the outside world. It is also said that the best pictures are available on radio. The broadcasting of quality material adds colour to life.

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that the all-party group discusses the area to which she refers—particularly from the point of view of whether analogue should be completely removed—in relation to the potential for pay-per-listen on digital radio?

Yes. We need a framework by which we can encourage television and radio to flourish. We want to facilitate new entrants into the marketplace, cultivate independent production and encourage diversity.

I turn now to how the Liberal Democrat party sees the way forward for community radio. The radio regulator must issue local radio licences according to particular criteria. The first of those is the resources available to the broadcaster to invest in programming, and the second is the extent of demand in the local area for the proposed services. A fine balancing act must be achieved. Demand may be small for output that is highly important to a small, isolated group of people, and the criteria used to decide whether to issue a community-based licence must take into account factors such as social deprivation. Small, isolated groups have the greatest need and will benefit the most from community radio.

Given the continuing scarcity of spectrum, criteria must be applied to judge aspiring radio stations against existing radio stations that want to reapply for a licence. Although we must encourage diversity, we need to protect the airwaves from organisations of questionable public benefit.

To take a slightly different tack, I should like to discuss religious broadcasting. Many church groups would like to listen to output that supports and encourages their faith. As someone who does not belong to a church group, I find it shameful that they are discriminated against, especially as those with a porn empire can happily access any licences that they choose. The position of religious broadcasting should be considered, especially in a local context. Churches often work with people who are disadvantaged or who cannot always get out and about, and such people would benefit greatly from access to such organisations.

A case can be made for a small amount to be set aside from a variety of non-tax sources such as the national lottery to establish a fund for radio which could be used to cover the start-up costs of radio stations or some non-recurrent costs. It was suggested earlier that continuing costs should be included. Setting people on the road is fine, but we must consider the cost of advertising, and advertising funding may not be available. If broadcasting stations were allowed to advertise, they would not need to apply to the public purse to cover continuing costs.

In some cases, a small group of people may be serviced by community-based radio, and the benefits to that small group, which may include handicapped people or members of an ethnic minority, may be far outweighed by the ability to attract advertising. Such groups should be encouraged and considered sympathetically.

In some cases, spectrum is available to small geographical areas. The fund for radio would help to establish a service for such an area. In time, it might also be used to start up internet or cable-based services for more geographically dispersed communities. Liberal Democrats want broadcasting in all forms to flourish and to encourage diversity, while retaining the ethos and practice of public service broadcasting that served us so well in the 20th century.

Although the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) about community television are important, I shall discuss community radio, simply because we as a society and the Government are considering the issue of such licences on a pilot basis.

I spent a couple of hours at the weekend at a community radio station in my constituency. That gave me the opportunity to communicate with my constituents—not many weeks, perhaps, before a general election. It was tremendously exciting for me as a politician to see the dynamism that my constituents brought to their community, and the way in which their work was received. Nobody knows the listening figures, but the response from phone-ins was encouraging. There is something there, and the service has come into its own.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who recently announced on Wythenshawe community radio in Manchester that the Government will go ahead with pilot schemes throughout the country. Part of the debate's purpose is to examine exactly what that means, so that the Minister can place Government thinking on record and show how it will help local communities.

The starting point was some 30 years ago. Sadly, I am old enough to remember pirate stations such as Radio Caroline. Ageing may be unfortunate but it brings experience with it. A driving force behind those pirate radio stations was the utter incompetence of the BBC at that time, and its failure to enthuse the younger generation. The pirate stations represented a serious challenge to the status quo. A consequence was the independent radio revolution. There were lots of arguments at that time, as my colleagues in the Labour party will remember, about whether it was legitimate for independent radio to carry advertising. However, we achieved a fundamental shift in radio broadcasting.

Most of us would have said that those early years were tremendously exciting, as a huge number of radio stations appeared as part of the BBC at local level and in the private independent sector. A sad reality is that, a generation or more on from the days of Radio Caroline, my younger constituents often complain about the irrelevance of radio networks to their needs. They are highly critical of local commercial radio, because it dumbs matters down to a level of blandness and fails to include a lot of potential listeners.

I am not sure that I should tell the following story publicly. However, three or four years ago, I visited a pirate station in Moss Side in my constituency. It was run by a group of young black people who were driven by the need to broadcast the type of music to which people wanted to listen. They displayed enormous enthusiasm and achieved high listening figures in that immediate region. The problem was that, by using a pirate station, those people blocked out the signals from elsewhere, which used to be given as a reason why we could not create more stations. That is a legitimate and understandable objection. However, even in that unofficial, illegal community experiment, young people were able to show that mainstream stations had failed to include an existing audience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) told me yesterday that, having secured this debate, he was inundated with letters from independent radio stations. As parliamentarians, we are used to that. When the time came for renewal of licences, broadcasters would suddenly begin to take Members of Parliament seriously, told us how much they valued our contribution and how much they wanted to involve themselves in the community. That lasted until the new licences were issued, when, once again, we heard little from them, and they returned to their straight-laced ways that result in dumbing down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles mentioned that radio stations in Greater Manchester have many achievements to their credit. My criticisms will be slightly fairer than others that have been made; the stations attract large audiences and provide a product. However, they are incapable of addressing issues of highly localised communities. An area such as Greater Manchester, which has a population of 2 million to 3 million people, inevitably has a small level of interest in local events. That forces regional and sub-regional broadcasters to import national news from organisations such as Independent Radio News, rather than covering local news. Such regional broadcasters make a small contribution to local debate. They fulfil a role, but cannot claim that they intend to reflect or have reflected the local communities in the area over which they broadcast. We must examine the basis on which we allow broadcasting to occur.

I was introduced to the present demand for community radio by one of my constituents, an inestimable woman named Marie Chapman, who participated in the Radio Moston experiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to local heroes; she may prefer to be called a local heroine. Marie Chapman would say that having access to training on local radio transformed the way in which she viewed herself. She left school with relatively few qualifications, brought up a family and lived in Miles Platting, which is one of the most difficult areas of Manchester. She did not feel that she had a great deal to offer outside the confines of her family. She was wrong about that, as she has started to discover. Community radio has transformed the way in which she relates to the local community and she has accessed skills that allow her to take a larger role. She is now engaged in a number of other activities as a result of her growing confidence.

If community radio were about an educational programme for only one or two individuals, it would not matter. However, when community radio is done well—as it has in Manchester over recent years—it is at the forefront of giving individuals the opportunity to up-skill, allowing them to encapsulate the mood and attitudes of our local communities.

I shall be slightly parochial and discuss my constituency. It is one of the poorest areas in the country but, because it is an inner-city area, it does not have the community focus that other communities in other parts of the country, such as those in rural areas, can maintain. There is a lack of differentiation in the city. However, while one area easily transforms into another, the problems that one area may experience are vastly different from those of its close and neighbouring districts.

A couple of miles from Manchester city centre, where properties worth £2 million are being sold, is east Manchester, one of the poorest and hardest-hit parts of the city. It was abandoned following the collapse of manufacturing industry in the 1980s and community structures have, to an extent, broken down. Crime, social dislocation, drugs, young people who are not enthused by events in the immediate area and the failure of social structures have hit home with a vengeance. Until recently, that led to the depopulation of the area. The concept of community in that area is being rebuilt because of the money that the Government are spending on the new deal for communities project.

Despite the massive problems in the area, there is still a strong sense of community, especially among the older people. They still remember a time when there were secure jobs and front doors could be left open; such times are unlikely to return in the near future. However, they also want to maintain the east Manchester identity, which is different from the ethos associated with £2 million flat developments in the city centre and from that of adjoining areas such as Newton Heath, a distinctive community isolated by the Clayton Vale river valley.

When community radio started operating in the area, people were able for the first time to talk to each other on a mass basis about their community, which they understand and to which they relate. No local newspapers are circulated in the area, except the Manchester Evening News and the East Manchester Reporter, neither of which is a large-circulation operation in that part of the city. I have a complaint to make about those newspapers; my fellow Manchester Members of Parliament are often featured in them, but I do not receive equal coverage. I am motivated to mention that not by personal regret, but by resentment, because it suggests that my constituents are by-passed. It is important that the area has a community radio station to reflect what it believes about the issues that affect it.

As I mentioned, at the weekend I spent a couple of hours with the people who run East Manchester FM. They have made an enormous contribution to their community. My good friend Mark is now known as the Beswick assassin bemuse of his appearances on the station, and I advise the Minister not to go near East Manchester FM when Mark is present. Also involved are Dave and Sam and a young man named Ryan. He was recruited from a local youth club to do a short session and became so enthused that he ended up staying for three or four days. His contribution was enormous because he was also a part of the process of enthusing other young people in the area about what the local community can do for them.

Young musicians turned up to play for the station. Their talent was extraordinary, especially as they came from a community that is usually by-passed; perhaps it is not so surprising that there should be such talent in east Manchester, as the city has been the source of most of the recent innovations in pop music. However, their talent would not usually be recognised or given a platform. The musicians who performed on the radio were the kind of young people who would often be dismissed as ruffians who frequent the street or described in a similarly pejorative way.

Ryan told me that, for him, the alternative to participating in community radio was to hang around on street corners. Community radio has much to offer in terms of binding the wounds and bringing people together, particularly for a generation that has seen little investment in its community in recent years.

I am already enthusiastic about the achievements of community radio in that area. The station is an experiment that has lasted only a week. It cannot claim to have transformed the community, but it is popular, and in areas where the Government are investing in the new deal process, community radio helps to re-solder the spirit of the community and to bolster its reinvention of itself. That could be crucial in certain areas.

I apologise for being parochial, but I believe that what I have been saying so passionately about east Manchester could be said about the communities that are represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles and for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and about other communities throughout the country. I know urban communities best, but what I have said applies to rural communities, to hill farmers and to Northern Ireland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles mentioned. We must consider how we, as a society, build our structures and maintain our local communities. Community radio is an important part of such considerations.

As I said, I strongly welcome the Minister's statement in Wythenshawe two weeks ago, which gave a signal of her intentions on the matter. It is a different attitude from that of previous Governments, and, until now, of this Government. However, difficult issues are involved. I hope that the Minister will say how the various pilot schemes will be rolled out.

In my city, the four separate community radio experiments have worked well, but we do not know what would happen if the project lasted for more than one week. It is legitimate to want to see what happens when the pilots run for a longer period, and whether local broadcasters can maintain the same enthusiasm. It must not be only a narrow clique of locals who have access to the airwaves and keep everyone else out. What we want, and have had, is a group of people who enthuse their neighbours to join in. Pilot schemes will consider such matters, and I welcome that.

All the areas where there was a community radio experiment will want to be part of the pilot schemes, and I expect the Minister to be inundated with applications. I shall certainly stake a claim for areas in my constituency to take part. Phil Korbel, a professional broadcaster of many years standing, is the guru of

Radio Regen in Manchester, the training scheme that resulted in many of the community radio projects coming into operation. Phil Korbel worked in the BBC at different levels and enthused those who worked with him. I agree with his view that pilot schemes, which have mostly been geographical, should have different themes—social themes, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to several different themes, and I hope that the Minister will give us her view on the subject.

In Manchester, ethnic community themes have been very successful. For many years, Irish community radio has broadcast around the time of St. Patrick's day, and there has been Asian community radio, both of which are important locally. The demand for community radio will be extraordinary and we must consider funding. I am less sanguine than some; in a perfect world, I would prefer community radio to broadcast without advertising, as small companies with marginal economic resources could face editorial pressure and control and all the related problems. We must consider whether Government funding, or funding by regional or local government, should be sought, or whether to look to the private sector for such funding.

My hon. Friend used the term "unfair competition". I do not regard bringing more competition into broadcasting as unfair. The licence to print money that the current broadcasters take for granted is outrageous.

I remind my hon. Friend that my comments were made as a result of the lobbying I received from the commercial radio organisations over the past week or so.

Thereby hangs a tale. The existing commercial operators have their position to maintain. Why should they have an automatic right to cream off the best of the advertising? If the public want to listen to other stations, the rules of normal competition should apply in broadcasting as elsewhere. My appearances on Key 103 and Galaxy will diminish further until we get community radio, when my stock will rise once again. That is the nature of these matters. I hope that broadcasters will work properly and constructively in the spirit of the development of community radio to ensure that communities are served as they have not been in the past.

My hon. Friend referred to the Salford health action zone. Those of us in Manchester and Trafford regard it as our health action zone, too. For the sake of correctness, even though my father was a Salfordian, we have moved on from very narrow parochialism, except in this matter. My hon. Friend is right about that. People in Greater Manchester do not think of their community as Greater Manchester, or even Salford. They relate to Eccles, Moss Side, Openshaw and Wythenshawe: names that are strange to many hon. Members. I know that you could reel off lists of communities in your constituency, Dr. Clark, where the need to maintain and protect or to rebuild communities is fundamental. Community radio will give us something, the like of which we have not had in recent times. It will be part of the social cement that will rebind our society.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate, and on enabling us to discuss an important part of the future of radio in this country. We tend to ignore radio when we have more widely focused debates on broadcasting and media issues. I am a strong supporter of radio, and I get the impression that most Members of Parliament more often listen to the radio than watch television. I spent about eight hours in my car yesterday touring parts of Lancashire and I listened to radio the whole time. Although I try to listen to good music, there was so much going on that it was important to be kept up to date with the news. Also, traffic information cut into broadcasts helps one to avoid traffic jams.

The time that we spend listening to the radio is on the increase, as the Radio Authority constantly reminds us. The Broadcasting Act 1990 opened up a number of opportunities for radio, such as the three new national stations, but especially the many local commercial radio stations which provide a good local service. The BBC also has a huge radio audience across its five main national channels, but it is equally important to remember the local radio stations that it operates. Those give us an insight into the opportunities that exist for community radio.

Local listeners value the community announcements and community news that the BBC carries on local radio stations. I am thinking in particular of the two floods that we have had in my constituency in the past couple of years. Last weekend was the second anniversary of the first lot. Radio York's audience virtually doubled because everyone tuned in to find out which roads were closed, what areas were being flooded, where sandbags could be obtained and so forth. It provided a tremendously valuable service to local communities that cannot be catered for on a national or even regional basis. That shows how expanded use of the radio spectrum for community purposes would greatly benefit local people. Public announcements on incidents that have occurred in a locality and news on whether sports fixtures and events are taking place in various village halls, for example, are valuable to local communities. I support the view that there is considerable scope to do more.

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but his examples are of a one-way flow of news and information. Does he accept that community radio has the potential to be an interactive medium, through which people can talk to each other across the airwaves?

Yes, I do. Many people phone in to local radio stations to express their views, so there is an undoubted opportunity for interaction. With an election in the air, there is no better way for a Member of Parliament to find out what local people think than to listen to a two-hour morning phone-in on Radio York. It is easy to discover that although people are sometimes worried about the price of petrol or problems stemming from foot and mouth disease, their worries often have nothing to do with politics.

It is now much clearer than it was 10 years ago that local spectrum is available, particularly on FM wavelengths. Provided that there are adequate safeguards on interference with other services, there is great potential to allocate spectrum to local purposes. In the longer term—it will be perhaps 10 years down the line before use is universal—many further opportunities may arise through the digital spectrum.

Important questions remain to be addressed before we can proceed with publicly encouraged—and partly publicly funded—expansion of community radio in accordance with the White Paper. The key question is what type of licence is envisaged. There are about 400 restricted service licences in operation for a year and about 90 long-term licences. Based on a suggestion initially made by the Radio Authority, the White Paper suggests that future growth is likely to be in the new category of access radio. However, Parliament will have to ask questions about the most appropriate legislative framework for setting up these new radio stations.

The most crucial question is who will award the licences. The White Paper deals with the format of the new super-regulator, Ofcom, which must include a specialist radio division. The Radio Authority has awarded licences with great competence over the past 10 years. I was a great advocate at the time and it has allowed radio to flourish. I stress to the Minister that Ofcom must have a specialist operator to deal with licences.

How will access radio stations be funded? It has become clear from our debate that several options are being canvassed, but they all appear to draw the conclusion that some form of public funding through an access fund may berequired, perhaps with the counterbalancing proviso that not-for-profit organisations should receive the funds. That does not seem to be a particular problem. We may also wish to encourage donations from some stations.

Some hon. Members raised the question of competition with local commercial radio and the extent to which local radio stations might be permitted to take advertising. I listened with care to what the hon. Members for Eccles and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said. We have to be careful about the issue of unfair competition. Some commercial radio stations do not make huge amounts of money and are very dependent on local advertising revenue. Many of them have bid and paid for spectrum. There is an argument for some of the funding from that to be used to encourage access radio.

Sponsoring some community radio stations may be a preferable way of encouraging the funding of inter-community radio from the private sector. However, local commercial radio has given local businesses an opportunity for advertising that they would not otherwise have had, even on stations with a regional licence. Some advertising streams may have a much lower cost than that of even the local commercial radio stations; even down to letting people know where they can get a plumber or an electrician. An example of that is our local village magazine. When I was church treasurer, I introduced the practice of inserting into the magazine every month blocks of adverts from local tradesmen and organisations that could not advertise in any other way. They pay for the magazine. Something along those lines might be possible.

There was a huge explosion of independent radio companies in the early days, but we have subsequently seen massive concentration. Some small, marginal operators are still faithful to the original charters but many stations are run by national groups that take on a local identity. They cannot complain about unfair competition. Advertising is advertising. The hon. Gentleman is on to something interesting when he talks about local and sub-local advertising, although that creates competition with local newspapers.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We are exploring an issue to which we have not previously given much thought. I used the comparator of other means of distributing information to local people paid for through an advertising stream. Given that we are talking about relatively small areas—the radio stations in my part of north Yorkshire cover a large area—we are looking at much smaller and more concentrated connections in terms of community or access radio. We are talking about truly sub-local radio stations. Those matters should be addressed in detail. I simply make the point that we need to be imaginative and have vision in our support and encouragement of community radio. That is presumably why the hon. Member for Eccles introduced the debate.

We come to the question of who will run the stations. The hon. Members for Eccles and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) were careful to point out that largely local people run them. A framework is necessary to ensure caution and impartiality. It will also ensure that the people involved are fit and proper, that proper standards of content apply, that there is no party-political involvement—I have another bee in my bonnet about that—and that the information given is accurate. If we use community radio as a genuine means of giving people information, it must be accurate and up to date. Some monitoring will be required, but I hope that it can be undertaken with a relatively light touch. As a party, we strongly believe in active citizenship and the voluntary sector. Community radio could prove extremely important to groups in those fields.

All those issues are being considered by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in its review of the White Paper. We welcome the Radio Authority's submission to the Committee, whit h has helped us all to prepare our thoughts for this debate. We await the Committee's report with interest.

The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned another aspect of community radio: community religious broadcasting. I well remember the debates that we had on the issue in the Standing Committee that considered the Broadcasting Act 1990. It disqualified groups whose objectives were wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial national radio licence issued by the Radio Authority. The thinking behind that was not to be discriminatory against religious groups, but much more to focus on the requitement that the three new national licences should offer real diversity and not subscribe to a single format. As a result, contrary to popular belief, the disqualification does not extend to local radio satellite or cable licences in respect of religious bodies.

The debate has, of course, moved on. We certainly believe that freedom of expression without discrimination, regardless of race. sex or faith, should inform our thinking in this area and that it is now probably time to end the legal discrimination against religious broadcasters and allow more equal access to future competitions for various service licences. There is no doubt in my mind that community radio offers opportunities for religious broadcasts, which almost certainly need not be exclusively Christian. Of course, there will have to be safeguards to ensure that fit and proper people are involved and that there is responsible, non-exploitative content. I am sure that Parliament is capable of providing a proper framework, particularly if we approach it with the open-mindedness and cooperative spirit that contributors to this debate have displayed. The conditions to ensure that fit and proper people are involved and to ensure content will need to apply to the development of community radio generally.

There are real opportunities with the White Paper and the legislation that will follow, whoever wins the election. I think that both we and the Government are committed to an early Bill to deregulate the communications industry. The priority of the legislation will be to free up media ownership and ensure that we have a dynamic communications industry. The community radio issue is an important counter-balance. It will encourage local people to become involved with community radio stations and add a different dimension to their quality of life. It will extend choice and diversity in broadcasting, which we have not experienced before, and allow listeners and those who make the programmes to benefit greatly from the opportunities available.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and contratulating him on securing this timely debate and on the establishment of the all-party community media group. As he said, it was established by him, as chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and has provided a timely addition to this important debate. Community radio is an idea whose time has come, and the hon. Members who have spoken have shown what an important issue it is.

The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) talked about the opportunities presented by digital television and, in the longer term, by radio. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to religious broadcasting, which was mentioned in the White Paper on communications. We are at present considering responses to the consultation.

At the moment, religious organisations are precluded from national analogue licences but not from local ones. The White Paper makes it clear that the proposed legislation will also remove the anomaly that prevents them owning local digital stations, but the question is whether we will allow them to apply for a national analogue licence. It is a matter that we are considering in the light of responses to the consultation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, described graphically how local community radio can help to regenerate communities and to provide training opportunities. He referred to East Manchester FM and the contribution of Mark, Dave, Sam, Ryan and other young people who gained so much from being involved with the station. The concept has a great deal of support.

I shall try to answer the many important questions that have been asked. The White Paper on communications published in December responds to the communications revolution, which gathers pace daily. There is digital media, multi-channel television and internet access; the potential of technology to transform our everyday lives by extending choice, enriching entertainment and enabling learning is a well rehearsed theme. However, as technology develops, we must ensure not only that we use it to promote and to extend understanding on a global scale, but that we harness its potential to strengthen local ties.

The White Paper sets its sights on the local and the virtual communities, and makes it clear that the objectives to strengthen both are complementary. It proposes access radio as a potential component of the broadcasting landscape in the 21st century. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, that was originally the Radio Authority's proposal. We use the term access radio instead of community radio because radio services that meet the needs of the community are already provided by good independent commercial stations and by BBC local radio. Access radio suggests the broadening of such broadcasting to give local communities the chance to establish their own stations, as contributions to the debate reflect, and they would complement the existing services.

We invited comments on the merits of the proposal to support the development of such stations, and I am pleased to report a positive response. Following an initial analysis, I was delighted to announce on 2 March the Government's agreement to the Radio Authority's proposal to launch pilot schemes to explore how access radio might be established and funded.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, I recently visited Wythenshawe FM, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, where I saw at first hand the benefits of providing a community with a popular, accessible forum in which views, experiences and advice can be exchanged. Wythenshawe FM operated for eight days at the end of last month through a restricted service licence provided by the Radio Authority. The station is one of a number broadcasting under the banner of Radio Regen, which is run with enormous enthusiasm and great success by Phil Korbel and his team.

Radio Regen's aims are simple: to use radio as a tool to empower and excite local communities by involving local people in the setting up and running of their own community radio stations. Local groups are invited to get involved in producing material for broadcast, and there is a series of major community arts projects in which professional artists work with local people to produce new pieces of creative work. The radio stations are then used as a platform for such work, which could be anything from a group inventing its own slang for the area to a mass radio-controlled percussion event. The opportunities are limitless.

Each community involved in Radio Regen decides exactly which issues are aired, but programmes generally include news of local events and sporting activities, a profile of a particular local personality or group, a look at the history of the area, coverage of a local pub quiz league or a spotlight on the activities of a local school. Them are phone-ins and debates—as the hon. Member for Ryedale said, phone-ins are a good way for Members of Parliament to gauge the views and opinions of their constituents—as well as reports and music, all with a local flavour and presented by both professional DJs and local people.

I was impressed by the level of community involvement that I saw at Wythenshawe, which I am sure is replicated wherever such community radio projects take place. People passing by the box office at the Forum leisure centre could see exactly what was going on and join in. Local schoolchildren arrived during the lunch hour to take the many phone calls from listeners, generally just down the road, who wanted to make a request or say their piece. The team was quite clear that the benefits of the project long outlasted the temporary licence, particularly in terms of self-esteem and skills learned. Such local broadcasting can clearly have a great impact on social inclusion, particularly in speaking to and engaging young people.

As well as promoting social inclusion, access radio stations can demystify the process of broadcasting and promote wider participation in the business of making and producing radio programmes. Marshall McLuhan, that herald of the multimedia age, said that

"Gutenberg made everyone a reader. Xerox makes everybody a publisher."

We want to encourage the same transformation in radio and help more listeners become broadcasters. The opportunity to become a radio presenter might hold particular attractions for young people; the next Zoe Ball or Jamie Theakston might earn their spurs through involvement in an access radio station.

Wythenshawe FM demonstrates that there is a place for access radio stations, and the many benefits of such stations. We are now considering how the concept might best be developed. As I have mentioned, we have already given the green light to the Radio Authority to go ahead with pilots. Those experimental stations will help to inform our thinking but, at the same time, we are carefully considering three difficult issues: the funding mechanisms for access radio; the platforms on which it will operate; and the administration arrangements. Those areas were explored at the Radio Authority's seminar on access radio last month, which provided useful food for thought. I wish to sketch out briefly other issues that need to be addressed.

Funding for the stations could come from public or commercial sources, or a mixture of both. We have heard a number of differing views on that this morning. The Radio Authority suggested in its recent submission to my Department that a radio fund might be established to channel public sources of funding, such as central or local government funds or European funds. Alternatively, access radio stations might be given the ability to compete in the commercial market and carry advertising, or be sponsored, as the hon. Member for Ryedale suggested. Clearly, any demands for increased public expenditure must be scrutinised carefully, and no commitments can be given at this stage. We must also ensure that the commercial radio sector is not unfairly put at a disadvantage. We will certainly bear the interests of independent stations in mind.

There seems to be a consensus that there should be scope to establish some FM access radio stations in urban areas and perhaps more in peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles made several suggestions and while I cannot today announce where the pilots will be—that is principally a matter for the Radio Authority—I am sure that his point, that they should reflect a wide range of different communities and be spread throughout the country, will be taken into account. Together with the available AM resources, we can make a promising start. In time, I hope that the internet will also offer a suitable platform for access radio.

We need to consider carefully how the current licensing regime may need revisiting, as well as the criteria for the awarding of licences and the distribution of funding. We have begun to explore such matters. There are some thorny points, however, and we must ensure that, if access radio can be built into the new framework, it is introduced sensitively alongside the existing tiers of radio services.

I want hon. Members to be in no doubt about the Government's commitment to press ahead with the matter. I wish to place on the record that my officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are meeting officials from the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions this week to discuss the Radio Authority's paper on access radio and to consider licensing, funding and administration. The Radio Authority is sending a team to oversee the pilot process at which my Department will be represented. It will meet for the first time later this month. The debate has certainly helped our thinking on the way ahead. I am sure that the Radio Authority will take note of such deliberations. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

Order. As the Minister has not arrived for the next debate, the sitting will be suspended until 12.30 pm.

I am delighted to have secured this debate, as I know that it is pertinent to many hon. Members throughout the country, especially those whose constituencies contain acute hospitals in remote areas and peninsulas. Given the welcome and continual improvements in clinical standards, specialist medicine and surgery, the purpose of the debate is to examine how small acute hospitals in areas with specific geographic, demographic and resource challenges can maintain and develop services. In view of the fact that this is a half-hour debate, I shall concentrate on West Cornwall hospital in Penzance.

I should declare an interest because my wife is a staff nurse at that hospital. My oldest brother, Mark, aged 45, who has been living with us for a short time, has had a lifetime of illness with Fallot's tetralogy, and has related medical and surgical problems. He was taken into the hospital as an emergency admission on Sunday, and is currently under observation and treatment. When he was admitted, only two medical beds were available at West Cornwall hospital, and none at Treliske, which is the main site for the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust. That is a story in itself.

West Cornwall is one of three acute hospitals in the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust. It has 81 beds, 56 of which are for medicine, for a population of about 150,000 people, depending on where the eastern boundary between the hospital and Treliske is drawn. Of course, that figure is doubled during the summer months. The main site for the trust is at Treliske, just outside Truro, which has 847 acute beds serving a population of more than 300,000 people. The Royal College of Physicians recommends that 400,000 is an ideal population for a fully staffed and equipped district general hospital. Almost all specialties are covered at Treliske, with the exception of certain conditions—for cardiothoracic surgery and neurosurgery, patients are usually referred to regional centres such as Derriford hospital in Plymouth. The third hospital is St. Michael's at Hayle in my constituency, which is largely for planned, elective surgery. There are also 12 cottage hospitals in the trust.

A small acute hospital such as West Cornwall, which has four consultant physicians, three consultant surgeons and limited facilities, faces several challenges. First, the Royal College of Physicians advises that there should be at least two consultants from each of the four main specialties—cardiology, gastroenterology, diabetes and respiratory medicine—and two geriatricians, so as to achieve 24-hour emergency cover. Secondly, there should be adequate anaesthetic cover, which West Cornwall does not have. In those circumstances, senior medical staff should expect to be on call one night in five. Related services such as radiotherapy and accident and emergency should also be in place, which West Cornwall has but only at night time on a nurse-led basis, with specialist anaesthetists, surgical sub-specialists and so on. Some, but not all, of those services are in place.

The third area of concern is the continual pressure since 1997 of what are undoubtedly welcome improvements in clinical governance. The chief executive of the hospital trust is accountable for risk assessment, and pressure is put on hospitals, especially small hospitals such as West Cornwall, on which the continual risk assessment is focused.

Fourthly, financial considerations must be taken into account. Centralising forces require the use of high-cost investigative equipment and treatment to be maximised to give resident on-duty medical staff the facilities that they require. From my conversations with the Royal College of Physicians and others, I am aware of the nationwide concern that the drive towards increasing centralisation of services as clinical standards change and improve will inevitably result in fewer and fewer acute general hospitals, and that those that remain will be highly centralised.

Fifthly, the training requirements of the hospital are provided by senior house officers. Their training posts are maintained, and the deanery has no objection to them. In fact, the hospital would fold without them. However, doctors' hours will come under much closer scrutiny as a result of the new deal and, possibly, the working time directive. Those measures will put some pressure on the system, as will the fact that only a small range of experience is available at a small acute hospital. In a short period, however, doctors see a greater range than they would if they specialised in a larger hospital. There is also a limitation on the training that West Cornwall hospital can provide for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.

Further challenges affect the review to which I shall refer in a moment. Treliske was on red alert when my brother went in, as it often is. West Cornwall often receives emergency admissions diverted from Treliske, so it is questionable whether Treliske would be able to cope if emergency admissions were suddenly not dealt with by West Cornwall. In the cold light of day, most people recognise that it could not cope, even though West Cornwall is only a small hospital.

Two weeks ago the Cornwall NHS executive forum, which is the purchaser and provider of services in Cornwall, launched a review of west Cornwall hospital services, which it intends to complete by January 2002. The primary aim is to secure the best possible emergency services for the population of the West of Cornwall primary care group within accepted national standards and costs, and to provide additional services at West Cornwall hospital so as better to serve the needs of the local population.

The key objectives are to carry out a clinical risk assessment, which is happening at the moment, and devise and complete a full option appraisal to identify the full costs and consequences of three options. The first option is to develop and invest in West Cornwall hospital to meet national standards for an unspecified emergency take. The second is to have a selected emergency take, and the third to transfer all emergency admissions to Royal Cornwall hospital at Treliske.

It is timely that I raise this debate now, in view of that review, which has political and resource dimensions. Its considerations have implications, on which I look forward to the Minister's comments.

West Cornwall Healthwatch produced a document that I sent to the Minister's Department entitled "The People's Option on the Future of West Cornwall Hospital". I hope that she has received it by now. The document shows that the issue was keenly contested and debated in west Cornwall, and describes a different approach in north Devon. Barnstaple hospital, which serves a population only slightly larger than that of west Cornwall, has 423 beds rather than the 81 in West Cornwall hospital. Past investment in services at Barnstaple hospital must have been significantly different from that in Treliske.

In the wider community, much concern has been expressed about what has been going on and the likely outcome of the review. Paediatric and obstetric cover at West Cornwall hospital has been removed, and accident and emergency services are nurse-led at night. Although the hospital has a good record, I accept that there is no room for sentimentality when assessing such services—otherwise the grim reaper would have a field day.

Formula funding does not take account of the geographical challenges of areas such as Cornwall. We would hit water if w e went to Land's End, the Lizard and the Isles of Scilly—the north, the west and the south of my constituency Appeals for emergency services cannot be made from any of those places. That is not taken into account in the funding formula: nor is the fact that we have a significantly older population than elsewhere, and our population doubles in the summer because of tourism. Such factors need to be taken into account if we are to have the resources to fund the hospital properly.

As for bed blocking, a consultant told me that an emergency admission to the hospital does not require a financial decision, but such a decision is often needed and difficult to obtain when a patient wants to leave hospital and go into a nursing home bed. Many nursing home proprietors have drawn to my attention significant problems in that regard.

The relationship between West Cornwall hospital and Treliske hospital is not as co-operative or mutually supportive as it could be. Sometimes, medical staff at Treliske are professionally dismissive of the work undertaken at West Cornwall hospital in difficult circumstances. The implication is that some consultants do not want to come to West Cornwall hospital from Treliske because it will take them too far away from their private patients at a neighbouring hospital. Relations are not good. In 1998, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Surgeons in their report entitled "Provision of Acute General Hospital Services" said:

"District General Hospitals situated in areas of the country where it is not practical to amalgamate with others, will need to continue for the foreseeable future. The smaller the acute unit, the greater should be the co-operation with adjacent acute hospital units, both professionally and contractually, in order to provide sustainable high quality specialist care for patients."

In a press release in 1999, the Association of Community Health Councils stated:

"Patients in rural areas may die because hospitals are too far to reach in an emergency… Many small acute general hospitals are currently under threat because of the strict interpretation of Royal College guidelines which specify the number of acute hospital services required to meet the needs of a certain number of people."

The Government said in the rural White Paper:

"We are committed to the provision of comprehensive, high quality health care for all those who need it, regardless of ability to pay or where they live, and to ensuring greater consistency of access across the country."

In reply to my written question about the assessment of ability of health services to meet national clinical standards in remote areas, the Minister said:

"Advances in healthcare and changes to the practice of medicine, particularly the increasing sub specialisation of doctors, results in changes to the way healthcare is delivered to patients. The Government are keen to see that patients have access to services at as local a level as possible but against this desire must be balanced the need to ensure that patients receive the highest levels of clinical care, wherever that care is provided." —[Official Report, 21 November 2000: Vol. 357, c. 160W.]

The Minister said that it is up to local providers to make that balanced choice. That choice will depend on funding. Resources will have an effect on the current review of hospital services in west Cornwall. My questions for the Minister concern her Department's review of the current funding formula for local health authorities. I believe that the formula does not adequately represent areas such as mine, as I said as long ago as November 1997, when I introduced a private Member's Bill. At that stage, I heard no contrary arguments, and I understood that the Department would examine the issue. Bed blocking will have implications for the future configur ation of services.

In areas with demographic and geographic challenges, such as west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, what is the minimum level of acute emergency support that a local population should expect? Given the welcome improvements in national clinical standards, what assistance or advice would the Minister offer if the range and level of consultant cover did not match the advice and guidance of the royal colleges? In hospitals such as West Cornwall, where senior house officers cannot do their jobs and meet the requirement of the new deal on working time by August, can training posts be protected?

What discussions has the Minister had with the royal colleges about the challenges faced by isolated hospitals? Does the Minister accept that cardiologists may have to act as general physicians in order to provide full cardiology cover in remote peninsular settings? What should the commissioning bodies do when purchasing acute services if the main acute hospital at Treliske is unable to cope with changes to emergency admissions?

The choice for West Cornwall hospital is clear—either it receives significant investment to improve clinical standards or it withers on the vine. The local community wants the investment model, but we require the advice of the Minister to take the issue forward.

I should like to thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) for raising this issue and creating an opportunity for this important debate. On a more specific note, I was sorry to hear about his brother's experience. I hope that he is well on the road to recovery.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that people living in remote rural areas are entitled to the same standard of high-quality care, focused on their needs, as national health service patients anywhere else in the country. For starters, that means more beds, not fewer, and providing treatment as close to where people live as is practical in hospitals that serve local communities and are focused on their needs.

We must also ensure that people in rural areas, as elsewhere, get care that is safe, appropriate and of the highest standard. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, there must be a balance between the convenience of local services and the requirement to concentrate expertise for reasons of safety and quality. That can be achieved by delivering care through networks of skilled providers who work together, not in isolation. The strategy must be based on local solutions within the national framework. Different patient needs call for different responses.

To illustrate the difficulty of the balancing act, I offer an example of a patient with heart disease, because the hon. Gentleman mentioned cardiologists. The NHS must be flexible to service the needs of such patients. Specialist services require a critical mass so that staff can gain experience of a variety of related problems. For example, the Royal College of Surgeons recommends that surgeons should perform 50 bypass operations a year, and cardiac surgical units should perform at least 400 bypasses a year. Having many similar patients means that error rates are reduced and junior staff get the guidance that they need. Specialised equipment such as cardiac ultrasound machines are found only in larger centres, because extra training is required to ensure their safe use and to achieve the best results.

There are two extremes: highly specialised diagnosis and treatment, and close-to-home convenience in the primary care setting. Many other interventions fall between the two. The person who suffers cardiac arrest and collapses in the street obviously needs an immediate response. In such a case, effective arrangements for speedy transfer and the availability of trained ambulance staff are what counts. Clinical evidence proves conclusively that early defibrillation and resuscitation save lives, so we have put defibrillators in public places. We must strike a balance between specialist care and immediate response.

That is one reason why the Government give the highest priority to the public receiving a 999 emergency response as quickly as possible. NHS ambulance services are at the forefront of the Government's modernisation programme. In March 2000, the Government invested an extra £21 million in the ambulance services to support delivery of the 75 per cent. category-A eight-minute target.

On thrombolysing myocardial infarctions, does the Minister accept that in stabilising such patients it helps to have at least a basic acute general hospital with emergency admission provision? Even if on-call cardiologists are not available there, at least the hospital can stabilise the patient and transfer him to an acute general hospital elsewhere.

At first sight, that might seem logical, but digging a bit deeper, what matters is the drugs that paramedics in ambulances are allowed to administer. Stabilisation can safely occur further away. Although I am not happy that the west country ambulance service has not yet reached the 75 per cent. target that the Government have set, I am delighted that it has made considerable improvements in its response times. Its starting figure was just under 40 per cent., and I understand that, as of February, it achieved more than 50 per cent. That is an increase, although we recognise that the service still has some way to go. I am not suggesting that the circumstances are perfect, but we must strike a balance that is right and can be sustained.

The hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety about the future of the West Cornwall hospital, whose services the local primary care group is reviewing. I am aware of the royal college's discussions and report. I understand that the royal college involved the hon. Gentleman and made the report available to him.

The aim of that review is to achieve the best clinical care for patients. Even if difficulties are experienced in trusts working together, we expect local difficulties to be resolved locally, and we have made it clear that it is for local health economies to make the right decisions. I am assured, however, that the group does not intend to close West Cornwall hospital or its casualty service.

The review is examining the provision of more, albeit different, services locally. I understand that the review is being carried out as openly and transparently as possible, with full public involvement.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the minimum level of acute emergency support that a local population can expect. Everyone should expect to receive the best possible treatment in the most appropriate clinical setting. Local health authorities, working in partnership with primary care groups and trusts and other local stakeholders, are responsible for determining how best to use their funds to achieve that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about health authority allocation. Allocation is based on relative needs, and the matter is currently under review. However, an interim measure has been introduced. As a first step, for 200102, we have introduced an interim health inequalities adjustment of £130 million. Some rural health authorities qualified for that, including Cornwall, which received £3.585 million.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned bed blocking. His area has not experienced the severe problems experienced in some other areas. The money allocated this winter to deal with the problem in his area was about £125,000. We made it clear that health and social services must pool their funding so that patients are discharged.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that consultant cover in his area was insufficient. That is one reason why the NHS plan set a target for major expansion in the number of consultants. We are investing more in specialist registrars, which is the main feeder grade for consultants. The intention is to invest in new trainees and to target the specialties that are key to delivering the NHS plan and the national service framework targets, which include cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery. We will closely monitor the application of the plan and the placing of new consultants.

The hon. Gentleman was right to be concerned about the implications of certain measures for a reduction in the working hours of junior doctors and the effect on training posts in west Cornwall hospitals. Currently, junior doctors are excluded from the Working Time Regulations 1998, although such regulations apply to all career-grade doctors However, by August 2003, junior doctors should not contractually be working more than 56 hours a week. We were involved in negotiations about how much time the European Union would give us to implement that directive. It is right to reduce junior doctors' working hours because it is not safe for a person to be on duty for 80-odd hours. The phasing process will create a safe working environment for doctors and patients. The working time directive is due to come into effect in 2004, and discussions will be held with the British Medical Association, the royal colleges and other NHS employees to make the transition possible.

Local health sere ices face many challenges to provide acute medical and surgical cover in isolated hospitals. The NHS plan mentions the possibility of ending single-handed working by consultants by raising staff numbers over the next three ) ears. I emphasise that working in isolation is not good for consultants' professional development, and is often not good for patients. We should not underestimate the opportunities afforded by information technology, which enables the exchange of patient records. Telemedicine allows highly specialised consultation to take place over large areas. That is not a cheap option. Often there may only be a few consultants who can deal with specialist conditions. We are pursuing such technology with great urgency.

We are committed to what used to be called community hospitals or cottage hospitals. They have a right and proper role, and the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), stopped the closure of many such hospitals. They are vital service providers, and allow local health care to be delivered, extend intermediate care, and give patients a choice between home and hospital. Such services are more important in rural areas and require careful thought. However, they are also important in urban areas, although I accept that solutions reached by local health authorities will be different in each case.

Does the Minister think that it is acceptable for areas with a low population, such as west Cornwall and other peninsulas around the UK, to have a relatively high pro-rata number of consultants available to provide such a level of service?

The royal colleges and others suggest that smaller hospitals should reconfigure to provide a selection of services for the community, such as elective surgery, maternity provisions, paediatric cover and major out-patient services. Proper consultant staffing should be decided when the services have been decided. The number of consultants should not determine local service provision. Which services should be provided should be decided first, and then a determination should be made of what constitutes safe cover.

The review indicates that there is local good will and a consensus to find a solution. The royal colleges want to be as supportive as possible in finding a solution. We should not underestimate the importance of networks, such as cancer networks. I know that benefits are being gained in some areas near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. For example, the Devon and Cornwall cancer network has decided to install at least one linear accelerator in Truro, which will reduce by 100 miles the distance that a patient from Penzance must travel for radiotherapy. Elsewhere, the Royal Devon and Exeter trust and Barnstaple district general hospital have joint appointments for oncologists.

It is important to recognise that there is no single model of service. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about there being isolated areas with limited support, but I hope that I have reassured him that we are doing everything possible to provide a framework for good local health service delivery that will serve his constituents as effectively as it serves people living in more urban areas.

I join the Minister in wishing the brother of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) a speedy recovery, and hope that he is home with him soon.

I am pleased to have the chance to debate what is an important subject in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. My constituency has a great mining tradition and was well known for its pits, including Cardowan. Bedley and Auchengeich. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is visiting Scotland on Friday to meet retired miners, their families and friends, particularly at the Auchengeich miners club.

It is poignant that the Minister will visit Auchengeich, where, in 1959, there was a tragic accident in which 47 men died. My father had worked there and, having died at the comparatively early age of 53 from pneumoconiosis, he was buried two days before the disaster. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be touched by the memorial in front of the miners club.

I know that my constituents are looking forward to the Minister's visit. Like me, they will want to congratulate him on his new job and on the proactive way in which he has conducted himself since the appointment was made. We welcome the energy that he is investing in the serious matter of compensation for retired miners.

We realise that there are two important distinctions to make in the debate. Payments are generally made to those suffering from respiratory problems such as emphysema and bronchitis. However, we must also remember those suffering with vibration white finger, although if my constituency is a reflection of the wider picture. that is less of a problem than the other illnesses. Many of the problems in Scotland are common to the rest of the United Kingdom, and I understand that the Minister will reply to another debate concerning Wales either today or tomorrow, depending on parliamentary progress.

On 23 January 1998, Mr. Justice Turner decided at the High Court that British Coal, formerly the National Coal Board, was negligent and that miners were eligible to claim compensation for industrial injuries. To their great credit, the Labour Government fully accepted the judge's decision without contest, and declared that between £2 billion and £3 billion would be immediately available to compensate miners as early as possible.

That declaration represented a complete change of approach. By contrast with 18 years of non-action, the principle of fair compensation was accepted quickly and honourably. Ministers made it known that the money was available. The only issue was the implementation and administration of that decision to ensure that compensation reaches those who deserve it. That remains a priority, and our urgent task is to ensure that formers miners, who have given their lives to the industry and deserve that compensation, have their entitlement recognised as quickly as possible.

In Scotland, a total of 9,665 people with respiratory diseases have made claims: 5,963 are still alive, and 3,972 are deceased. In fairness, it must be said that some of those claims go back as far as the 1940s. It is worrying that of the 9,665 claimants, only 649 have received full and final payments, which is only a 6 per cent. success rate. More sadly, 656 people have died since making claims. I know that the Minister is impatient about that. Like me, he knows that we are not simply talking about statistics, but about people. I sense his feeling of urgency about getting these matters right, and I welcome that. He is aware from his own constituency of the continuing concerns that people have expressed.

Many very ill people have sought to persuade me, without much difficulty, of their right to obtain that compensation to ameliorate their life style, which obviously left a great deal to be desired. The representations that they have made at my surgeries over the years have been compelling. I have been at meetings of my local branch of retired miners. The Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), met my local branch in the Auchengeich club early last year. Officials from the Department were also present and were able to make their own assessment of the problems that are still unresolved. I share people's frustration, because the Government's policy on these important matters has not yet been implemented.

I called another meeting in Auchengeich on 9 February. One of the most telling contributions was made by a woman from the nearby village of Auchenloch. Her father, William Robertson, had worked in Lamloch pit for 27 years, all of the time underground. He died the week before the meeting at the age of 73. This was to be her parents' golden wedding year. Three years ago he was considered 100 per cent. disabled as a result of industrial disease, and after that he underwent several medical assessments. Obviously, he did not get any better and Mrs. Robertson and others, myself included, asked whether those additional assessments were necessary. We want to avoid that in future. Mr. Roberston was on oxygen for the last seven or eight years of his life—both day and night for the last three years. The meeting was told that the offer that had been made to Mr. Robertson just before he died had been withdrawn. His daughter explained her mother's fears that she will have to start from scratch and perhaps wait for another three or four years.

I sponsored that meeting jointly with the National Union of Mineworkers Scotland. We heard from the secretary Nicky Wilson. I should like to put on record my thanks for the work of the NUM Scotland, and Mr. Wilson in particular, in bringing these issues to the public's attention, and for their remarkable efforts to ensure that every case is given the attention that it deserves.

I was also grateful to hear the representatives from Healthcall, Richard Castle, Alastair Sutherland and Dick Palmer. I thank them not just for their contribution to the meeting, but for their patience in dealing with individual cases. They stayed long after the meeting had finished to interview different people, and to make it clear to my constituents that they were committed to making progress. I thank them for taking the trouble to come and explain the urgency of what they are trying to do.

Mr. Lawrence Lumsden is a solicitor from Thompsons, which advises the NUM and individual miners in Scotland. The Scottish system of using the services of only one firm of solicitors is different from the procedure used in England and Wales, and I find it helpful. Lawrence Lumsden made a valuable contribution to the meeting. He stressed that DSS benefit recovery was

"a problem which should be addressed as quickly as possible."

He was concerned that even when people had been through the assessments, had had medical examinations and had had their cases confirmed, they lost out on benefits. That has been a traumatic experience for some people, and I hope that due time and reasonable discussion will resolve the problem.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's suggestions on how best to make progress. I offer a few thoughts and ideas, and invite his response. Does he intend to promote wider opportunities and special incentives? Recent initiatives have been taken as part of an urgent recruitment drive for teachers. It is clear from the evidence of Healthcall and others that there are not enough specialists to address these problems.

Would the Minister consider making payments to men whose conditions have been confirmed as the result of working in the pits and who are already receiving industrial injuries benefit? Would that not remove the need for further medical examinations? Would he consider prioritising payments to the oldest claimants, those who are most ill and widows? That would ease the considerable backlog which we all want to attack.

I recognise that this could be a legal minefield, but perhaps the problem should not be resolved solely through recourse to the law: it should also be based on assessment of human needs and requirements. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would share that view.

I was encouraged to raise this matter today by my constituents who are genuinely concerned about getting these problems sorted out as soon as possible. There are so many people suffering, and we are genuinely seeking practical solutions to clearly identified problems. People should not be playing politics with these issues. My hon. Friend has experience of Plaid Cymru in Wales, but I would not say the same of Scottish Nationalist party activities. However, we also have the Scottish Socialist party. During the long period in which we were putting forward case after case and fighting for the principle to be accepted—as it eventually was by this Government—I do not recall any pal ticipation by the Scottish Socialist party. Because we live in a pluralist society, I welcome its support, but suspect that the Minister and I and others will still be fighting for the cause long after that particular fringe political interest has disappeared.

Labour in government has established the principle of compensation, and I welcome that ungrudgingly. I do not wish to dilute what is an extremely important and welcome decision. I believe that the Government will continue to get it right. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us further examples of the Government's practical achievements, such as the new medical centre at Stirling, which I also welcome. I thank the Minister in advance of his speech and his visit. I know of his concern and compassion. He believes, as I do, that in this case, as in so many others, justice delayed is justice denied.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for securing the debate and for his kind remarks. It gives me the opportunity to acknowledge his diligence and energy in securing justice for many of the former miners in his constituency. We are all sorry and disturbed about the tragic case of Mr. Robinson. It is part of my job to ensure that such a case does not happen again. If my right hon. Friend wishes to draw to my attention specific aspects of the case, I will happily take them up.

We will look into the other positive and constructive suggestions that my right hon. Friend made, based on his experience. We are trying to recruit, partly by advertising more widely, a large number of additional respiratory consultants because there is a national shortage. I undertake to look at his other proposals, although I am bound by a court judgment, which has been both an opportunity and a frustration. We would not have started from this position. When the Labour Government of the 1970s granted compensation for pneumoconiosis, they were not constrained and straitjacketed, as they are now.

I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for his invitation to visit his constituency later this week. I look forward to learning at first hand the views of his constituents on this important issue in Auchengeich on Friday, not least because of the close ties of solidarity between former mining communities such as mine in Neath in south Wales and his in Scotland.

I have been in post for some six weeks. I acknowledge fully the work of our Scottish colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), my predecessor. When I took over from her this mammoth task—we must not forget that it is the biggest personal injury claim ever made in the UK and possibly the world—I committed myself to ensuring that every claimant received his full entitlement as quickly and fairly as possible. Miners are a special case and that is why the issue is a top priority foi my Department and for me. I welcome the opportunity to tackle it. Bringing justice to miners and to their widows is my mission and I shall do everything I can in that aim, working with all those who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, share it. I have met the solicitors representing the claimants, the mining union representatives and the Department's own contractors but, most importantly, I have also travelled throughout the country meeting the claimants themselves. They gave me the message that things have started to improve, but that much more needs to be done. I agree.

I stress again that we would not have started from this position, but we are committed to the legal process that we inherited from the previous Government and to a scheme bound by complex legal proceedings. I have spent the past six weeks questioning and re-examining previous decisions and proposals and I was delighted when on 2 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we were extending fast-track and interim offers to more than 6,000 claimants. That means that £30 million of compensation will be offered quickly to widows and to claimants likely to develop asthma; indeed, more than £2.5 million was offered to the asthma group yesterday. That is in addition to the 33,000 payments that have already been made, the cost of which has been more than £125 million. More than £360 million has been paid in compensation for vibration white finger, which is significantly more than the recent coal subsidy and the regeneration money provided by the previous Conservative Government in response to the 1992 pit closures.

The two major schemes are already receiving £1 million a day, but that is not all. I am continuing to explore how to extend interim payments still further.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this excellent debate and on ably expressing the views of people in his constituency, in my constituency and throughout the country.

I welcome the Minister's recent announcement and the news that he will visit Fife on Friday. Will he be able to assure his and my constituents, and those of my right hon. Friend, that the majority of cases will have been fully and finally settled in a year's time?

That was verging on a speech, but I will allow it on this occasion.

The Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) are pursuing the same course of justice. I acknowledge her close pursuit of it. We are making massive progress and we will be accelerating rapidly over the coming months, so that tens of thousands of cases will have been settled by this time next year and the claimants will have received the justice that they deserve.

In the past two weeks, the Government and the miners' solicitors have agreed how compensation for loss of pension will be handled. We have made £400 million available for compensation for loss of pensions. That is the last piece of the jigsaw. Over the next few months, full and final offers of compensation will be made in tens of thousands of cases. That will answer, at least in part, the significant concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston about the importance of final settlements and claimants who are still in the system.

On 24 September 1999, the Government and the solicitors acting for miners in England and Wales finalised and signed the handling agreement, which set out the procedures for settling respiratory disease claims. Prior to the signing, the Government commenced discussions with Scottish solicitors representing the 9,700 Scottish claimants to adapt the agreement to take into consideration the differences between English and Welsh law and Scottish law.

The Scottish agreement was signed in June last year. There are about 5,700 live claimants in Scotland. Healthcall, which is carrying out the spirometry programme for my Department, has contacted almost all of them and more than 4,500 of them have already undergone tests.

In October 1999, Healthcall was awarded the contract to deliver the full medical assessment process, which is, for many claimants, the next stage after the screening spirometry. Since full medical assessments commenced in Scotland in February last year, more than 1,500 claimants have been assessed at centres in Ayr, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Lochore and Stirling, and a further 150 appointments have been booked. In addition, 1,470 Scottish estate claims have been assessed, or referred to respiratory consultants. So far, 30 per cent. of Scottish claimants have been assessed. They will soon be returned to the claims handlers for compensation to be calculated and settled, so that the cheques can be rolled out.

It is vital to get the compensation offers right, so that a thorough quality check is built into the system. However, as the process has speeded up and more medicals have been completed, that check has started to slow the system down. That bottleneck was identified as a priority by a regular review of progress and the contractor has now engaged extra resources. That will result in twice as many claims being processed to clear up the backlog, which amounts to 1,000 a week for the next 12 weeks. It means that more victims and their families will receive their money sooner.

Once the backlog has been dealt with, the Government should be in a position to process an average of about 600 medical assessment procedures per week, but I want to aim higher. Subject to the availability of lung specialists, with all the other resources that we have put in place, we will be able to handle up to 1,000 cases each week. As previously promised, wherever I find problems in the process, I will work with all those involved to implement speedy solutions.

I give just one example. Because of the special nature of claims in Scotland, IRISC, the Department's claims handling agents, opened an Edinburgh-based office, which has allowed Scottish solicitors to have more direct contact with the settlement process. In addition, the Scottish sub-group of the monitoring group, established by my predecessor to assess progress on the claims, meets monthly. Miners' interests are represented by the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, solicitors and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), to whom I pay tribute for his work.

From the spirometry results, we have so far identified more than 1,200 potential offers of full and final payments in Scotland. Of those, 650 have been accepted and paid, totalling more than £2.8 million. We have continued to make interim payments to ex-Scottish miners and their families wherever possible, which in Scotland have totalled more than £6.8 million. A total of £9.6 million has so far been paid in Scotland for lung disease alone. Compensation can, of course, never be released quickly enough when people are suffering, as so many miners are. We also need to bear in mind the fact that, with fresh claims coming in all the time, there could be well over 150,000 claims to settle. About 1,000 a week are still being received. We shall continue to seek every means that we can of reducing further delays. That will require the co-operation of all parties. For my part, I shall ensure that the elderly and most injured are seen first, which had not been happening. We are also prioritising widows who are claiming on behalf of their late husbands.

Progress on vibration white finger continues to be good. To date, we have settled almost 21,500 claims, 2,000 of which were in Scotland, and made a further 25,350 interim payments, 1,680 of which were in Scotland. In total, we have paid more than £235 million in compensation for vibration white finger, of which £15 million has been paid in Scotland. I am delighted that claimants will see further progress in the next few months, which they have a right to expect.

It has been a long and difficult road to get this far after years of obstruction and an abject failure to honour the justice of the miners' case for compensation by the previous Conservative Government. We can now see the light of justice burning at the end of the tunnel. Claimants have so far shown exceptional patience, far beyond what could reasonably have been expected of them. I pledge the Government's commitment to deliver for them. We have the machinery in place to do the work that would have taken the courts more than 15 years to clear, and significant sums of money are starting to flow.

As I said, a particular anxiety of mine is that younger, fitter men have been seen ahead of older, sicker men, because both the solicitors and the contractors, Healthcall, were simply booking people in on a first come, first served basis. Frankly, that is unacceptable. I have now insisted that Healthcall and the solicitors reprioritise those still in the system with appointments over the coming months. Even if that means younger, fitter miners having their appointments put back a little—which is less of a problem in Scotland than in areas such as south Wales and the north-east—I am sure that they will understand that the cases of older, sicker miners need to be dealt with first. Tragically, some have died, because of their illness in part, before they received justice and compensation will now go to their widows.

I, too, have visited many retired miners in their homes and seen the tragic circumstances in which they live. They are frequently trapped on the ground floor, unable to climb the stairs arid almost unable to make the short journey from living room to bathroom without having to pause to catch their breath and to recover from a walk that the rest of us would not even notice. For them, it is a journey of miles. I pay tribute to those miners. We shall deliver justice. I also pay tribute to their wives, who care for them in the most difficult circumstances. This is about justice and dignity. It is about redeeming the debt that we owe to miners—and to their families—who sacrificed their most precious asset, their health, to work underground, so that we can live in comfort.

A little while ago, a constituent of mine, Mrs. Muriel Briggs, came to see me at a constituency surgery. Prior to that meeting, she had written to me to set out her specific concern. She wrote:

"My youngest daughter, Rachel, 31 years, has learning disabilities through Down's syndrome and has respite care…I am extremely grateful for this break of a total of five nights spread over four- weekly periods, and for which we pay the required sum.

It was not until 17 May 2000 that I received the enclosed notice showing that after a total of 28 days' respite had been reached there must be a break of 29 days without any respite care. I did not know about this and have had many, many months' concern and correspondence about Rachel's DLA benefits."

A recurring point in the various representations that I have had is that the 28-day limit ca uses much concern to many carers and results in a great deal of correspondence about disability living allowance benefits. Mrs. Briggs went on to ask:

"How can a disabled person who needs respite care in their own right as well as for their carer suddenly not need it for 29 days? To me it is a wrong rule of law by the DSS and I would hope you could possibly bring this to the notice of those in responsible positions to change the system. It would also appear to me that if an assessment has been made and agreement reached that such a person needs care, then that should be available without discrimination at any time, without losing benefits."

The notice that Mrs. Briggs drew to my attention was from Oxfordshire county council social services, headed:

"Disability living allowance care component (DLA)/attendance allowance (AA)".

The notice states:

"Respite care stays affect the entitlement of DLA/AA. Claimants are responsible for informing, the Benefits Agency of any changes in their circumstances and can be subject to large overpayment bills if the Benefits Agency have not been informed.

After 28 days in respite care, the claimants' entitlement to DLA/ AA ceases while in care.

A note should be kept of all days spent in respite care, the day of admission does not count and is treated as a day at home. The day of discharge, however, does count is a respite day. Once a total of 28 days has been reached then there must be a break of 29 days without any care admissions before DLA/AA can be reinstated for the next 28 day period."

I genuinely did not understand that. It seemed extraordinary that Rachel should receive respite care on average once a week for 28 weeks and then suddenly not be entitled to any respite care at all for an arbitrary period of 29 days. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley):

"My constituent's daughter has a total of five nights respite care spread over a four weekly period, for which they pay a sum required by Oxfordshire County Council. It works out at approximately a day a week—invaluable for aged parents looking after a young woman with learning difficulties.

I enclose a copy of a notice sent to my constituents by Oxfordshire County Council which says that once a person has received 28 days of respite care (and as Car as I can see that is 28 spread out over whatever period) there then has to be a period of 29 days without any respite care whatsoever, i.e. every so often my constituent, somewhat arbitrarily, has to go for a whole month without the benefit of any respite care al all. What is the point of this?

If a person is assessed as being in need of respite care, surely it is in their and their carers' interest that that respite care is provided instantly. What is the possible point, other than simple cost saving, of arbitrarily withdrawing respite care from time to time?"

On 26 February, the Minister replied:

"It may help to explain that DLA continues for 28 days after a person has been admitted to residential care, whether permanently or temporarily. For the purpose of calculating that period of 28 days, separate periods in care are linked and treated as a continuous spell if a person is readmitted within 28 days of discharge. This means that people who spend longer than 28 days away from the care home will be able to receive benefit for 28 days the next time they are admitted. However, people who spend fewer than 28 days away from the care home will either receive no benefit on re-admission or only the difference between 28 days and the time they previously spent in residential care. So people can only receive benefit for 28 days in total unless the relevant periods of residential care are separated by longer than 28 days."

Having studied that paragraph several times, I think that I understand what the Minister is trying to say, but I have the benefit of a lifetime as a barrister spent trying to construe documents and regulations. I suspect that the Minister's explanation is rather difficult for claimants to understand.

For those of us who do not involve ourselves daily in the minutiae of social security regulations, they can seem like a secret garden. In order better to understand the matter, I approached Oxfordshire Welfare Rights, an extremely good organisation which is based in Oxford and is partially funded by, among others, the county council. It sent me its benefit bulletin, which states:

"Going into Respite Care (RC) can seriously effect the benefits of both the carer and person needing care. People needing regular periods of RC need to plan carefully to avoid the loss of Disability Living Allowance—care component (DLA[cc]) or Attendance Allowance (AA), Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) and the disability premium payable with means tested benefits.

AA or DLA [cc] cease to be paid once a person has been continuously in 'special accommodation' for 28 days."

I shall say something about the definition of "special accommodation" in a moment. The bulletin continues:

"Special Accommodation includes NHS Hospitals, Private and Local Authority Residential Care and Nursing Homes etc. Two periods in special accommodation separated by less than 28 days are linked together and count towards the 28 day 'cut-off- period."

Oxfordshire Welfare Rights also sent me a briefing, which states:

"Different spells in hospital or 'similar institution' will be linked together and treated as one continuous period if the person has been re-admitted after less than 28 days…Without a 28 day break the person is treated as if they are spending a continuous period in hospital, even if they spent the majority of the period at home. The need to have 28 days at home can have particular consequences where the person is required to enter hospital at regular intervals for treatment or requires regular respite care…

An illustration of the practical effect of the linking rule is on the organisation of respite care packages by Social Services. A typical package might involve the disabled person being in hospital or residential care for 1 week in every 4. Under the linking rule, after 4 periods of respite care, the person will be treated as having been in hospital for 28 days as the periods at home are less than 28 days…

The need to organise a change in an established pattern of respite care is difficult for the disabled person, their carer and the care provider to arrange. It is difficult for the disabled person and their carers to understand these rules and to make careful record of the dates involved. It is also difficult for care providers to arrange such breaks when they are catering for the needs of a large number of regular users.

Oxfordshire Welfare Rights are regularly consulted by social services, Oxon Carer's Centre and other agencies about the effect of the 28 day linking rule. We have represented claimants at appeal hearings in cases where they have been overpaid benefit. The cause of the overpayment can be because: they have not understood the effect of the linking rule and have not informed the Benefits Agency of all periods in hospital; the Benefits Agency have given wrong advice on the effect on all benefits they are receiving; or the agency providing care has provided inaccurate information in reply to a Benefits Agency inquiry. The underlying cause has been the complexity of the rules."

Oxfordshire Welfare Rights recommends that the 28-day linking rule should be abolished for all benefits.

I have begun to understand that regulations have not kept up with changes in practice. In some cases the regulations go back to 1975, which was before the introduction of care in the community. Furthermore, the regulations tend to repeat themselves. For example, the Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 1975 were drafted before care in the community, when people went either to hospital or—to use the phrase in the legislation—"a similar institution" for long periods. If someone goes into hospital for a long period, it is fair and proper that after 28 days they cannot continue to draw benefits that they may previously have received. However, the legislation was drafted before it was anticipated that people would increasingly live in the community and enter respite care for short periods of time.

I pray in aid the discussion in the 1975 regulations of "prescribed accommodation" where people reside as patients or inmates. Clearly, the legislation was drafted when people spent a long time in hospitals, sanatoriums or other institutions. It was not drafted for a time when care packages increasingly meet the needs of both carers and those for whom they care in a commendably flexible and appropriate way.

I ask the Minister not to explain again how the rules work because I now understand that. Having heard representations not only from Oxfordshire Welfare Rights, but the Disability Alliance and the Carers National Association, which I shall mention in a moment, I hope that he will feel it is worth examining the 1975 regulations to see whether they can be brought up to date to take account of modern practice, which includes care in the community.

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. He acknowledged that someone who spends a long period in hospital at public expense should not simultaneously receive a welfare benefit that provides him or her with money that can be used to purchase care. I agree with him that in the case of a short stay in hospital of perhaps a week it would be unrealistic to cut off a benefit. Surely he agrees that there must be a dividing line between long stay arrangements—

Order. You are stretching into your contribution, Minister. If you are making an intervention you must draw it to a close.

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Hancock. I am trying to debate the issue and search for a solution with the hon. Gentleman. Where would he draw the line if not at the present point?

The line is not currently drawn between long and short periods of time. My constituent sometimes goes into respite care for a single night to give her mother some respite—it is respite care for both of them. However, after respite care for 28 nights—the number is arbitrary—over 28 weeks, my constituent is not entitled to any more.

I want to correct one point which the hon. Gentleman has made several times. The regulations do not, in any way, prevent respite care after 28 days. They withdraw, the benefit that is provided to a person to purchase care for those days on which respite care is taken. The issue is whether benefit should be withdrawn, not whether someone should receive respite care.

Whether the issue is the denial of respite care or the benefit with h which to purchase respite care is a quibble. The effect on most people will be the same.

The Disability Alliance recommends that the simplest solution is not to count days in hospital or respite care cumulatively, but to count only lengthy periods taken at one time. Regulations could be drafted to make that distinction, so that someone who goes into hospital for a month or more would lose benefit after the first 28 days, but someone who regularly goes into hospital for respite care for a few days at a time would not lose benefit. I hope that the Minister will explain the logic of denying my constituent disability living allowance benefit with which to purchase respite care. She is not a young woman who spends long periods in hospital or any other institution.

I am not being quirky about the matter, as there is broad consensus that something must be done about the regulations. The Disability Alliance stated that

"the greatest hardship is caused where the disabled person's pattern of hospital admission"—

I believe that the alliance also means respite care admission—

"consists of a few days every month. This is enough for them to start to lose benefit but rarely does it result in reduced costs. Many of the additional disability related costs remain. For example. someone still has to be paid to wash the windows, clean the house and cut the grass. Special equipment cannot be sent back for a few days every month, nor can specially made clothing or shoes, extra insurance on equipment still has to be paid, the cost of home adaptations is no less.

For the carer little changes, other than a drop in household income. They still have to clean and do laundry for the disabled person, and time spent casing becomes time spent hospital visiting.

The administrative cost of stopping and starting two benefits is high. Even more so for a disabled person who is also on income support and/or housing benefit and/or council tax benefit since all of these are affected by receipt of DLA and are also reduced after a period in hospital.

The definition of 'special accommodation' is extremely complex as it is dependent on how the accommodation is funded rather than what is provided. This means that mistakes are made by the Benefits Agency and benefit is stopped when it should not be. It also makes it very difficult for disabled people and their carers to work out what the effect on their benefit entitlement is likely to be."

Finally, the Carers National Association made an almost identical point and stated:

"The 28 day linking rule can leave carers in poverty and extremely confused about the benefits system. Carers and professionals find the different rules very hard to understand. It is not uncommon for carers to be pursued for overpayment of Invalid Care Allowance… because they have failed to notify the ICA Unit of changes to their situation. Many carers are unaware that the few regular days spent by the person they look after in respite care, could mean the person's disability benefits and the carer's ICA could be affected."

The association concluded:

"The possible solution would be to make the qualification for ICA reliant on providing 35 hours care to someone entitled to DLA or AA rather than someone actually paid one of these two disability benefits."

It continued:

"Consideration could also be given to removing the disparity between the treatment of breaks due to hospitalisation and breaks caused by admission into temporary residential care/nursing care. CA would like to see the extra 8 week break afforded carers where there is a hospitalisation extended to situations where the break is due to a temporary admission to care."

It is clear from everything that has been said that the existing regulations do not meet existing needs under care in the community. They cause much distress, and throw up anomalies and difficulties. Lines have to be drawn, but surely it is possible to consult on improving the regulations. Will the Minister consider consulting organisations such as the Disability Alliance and the Carers National Association about whether it is possible to bring the regulations up to date to meet the needs of carers and others, but in a way that does not fall foul of the needs of the Treasury to ensure that benefits are not abused or that people are not receiving double benefit? I do not believe that those who go into respite care receive double benefit. Such an anomaly needs to be examined.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on securing a debate on this important issue. He has put his case clearly, and the Government will examine it. I hope that he and those to whom he has been speaking will also consider why such arrangements are in place. The hon. Gentleman said that the simple solution would be to pay disability living allowance to people who have periods of respite care of less than 28 days. That would be the simplest solution, but it would also be costly, which is why it did not commend itself to his party when it was in power and why it does not commend itself to the Labour party.

As a Government, we are keen to improve support both through the amount of respite care that is provided and through financial support to carers. We want to enable those who care for someone with a serious disability to receive the respite care that they and that person need. We must make choices about what that money can best be spent on to give the greatest possible support to the disabled person and to the carer. Respite care, as the hon. Gentleman said, is essential for many carers and disabled people. It provides a much needed break for carers who are often elderly and unwell themselves. It can be a lifeline in an emergency when a carer suddenly needs to be away from home and from the person for whom they care. It also provides a valuable change of scenery for disabled people.

Carers as a group tend to experience higher levels of stress than others. Short-term breaks can have a significant impact by reducing stress and helping carers to continue to care. In that way, respite care can help disabled people to stay in their own homes or, in the case of disabled younger people, to remain in their parents' home for longer. People generally want to live in their own homes if they can. For some, going into long-term residential care can significantly impair their quality of life, and can lower their self-confidence. It can lead to a decline in activity and to a loss of independence. The Government are keen to promote independence by encouraging the provision of high-quality domiciliary and other community-based services, including respite care services and support for carers.

Disabled people and carers are all different, so their needs for respite care will be different. When we draw up regulations governing social security benefits, we have to do so on the same basis for everyone. We therefore face a conflict, which we have tried to resolve by a mix of regulations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when a disabled person goes into a care home for a short period of respite care, which has been arranged by a local authority, we continue to pay the care component of the disability living allowance for 28 days. For that period, we disregard the fact that the cost of care is being subsidised by the local authority, even though the person or his or her family may pay a fee for the respite care break. We disregard the local authority contribution because people have on-going care costs at home, which need to be met. It can also be disrupting for benefit to cease for what may be a short period.

However, resources for benefits are not unlimited. It has long been a principle that when someone receives care in accommodation that is supported wholly or partly from public funds, he should not generally receive benefits in respect of care needs at the same time. That is the reason for the rules that have applied since the introduction of the national insurance scheme more than 50 years ago.

The great majority of people who go into respite care have that care arranged for them by their local authority, as in the case that provoked the hon. Gentleman's interest in the issue. It is therefore right that people going into settings other than hospitals—such as residential care homes—should have the same rule applied to them. We are aware, of course, that when people are being cared for in a family setting, as in the case that the hon. Member drew to my attention, the operation of the linking rule is difficult. As a result, we modified the rule last year to reduce the period for which people are disqualified from receiving benefit. Since last year, neither the day of admission to care nor the day of discharge from care—or hospital—counts as days in care in relation to loss of benefit. That assists 50,000 people a year.

The Government's commitment to improve services for carers was set out in our national carers strategy, which was launched by the Prime Minister in February 1999. Breaks for carers were seen as a key part of that strategy. We provided an additional £140 million for respite care breaks over a three-year period starting in 1999. Since then additional funding has been provided to cover the years up to 2004. The carers special grant will fund three times as many breaks for carers in 2001 as it did in 1999–2000. The money available will rise to £100 million a year by 2003–04. That initiative will enable up to 75,000 more carers to receive a break.

As part of the national carers strategy, we agreed to review the financial support provided to carers through the benefits system, which is the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of last year, we announced a package of improvements to disability and carer benefits worth £750 million over the next three years. In addition to the package for carers, we will extend the higher rate mobility component of DLA to severely disabled children aged three and four from April. That will provide extra help of £38.65 a week. This year, we will also increase the disabled child premium in income-related benefits to £30 a week, which is £7.40 a week more than normal uprating. The disability income guarantee will be introduced in April, which will help 130,000 of the poorest and most severely disabled people aged under 60, and ensure an income of at least £142 a week for a sing le person and £186.80 for a couple. The measure will also benefit 30,000 families with severely disabled children.

For carers, the carer premium in income-related benefits will be increased by £10 a week more than the normal uprating front April. We are targeting resources on low-income households in which long-term care is being provided. At the same time, we will raise the earnings limit in invalid care allowance from £50 a week to the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions of £72 a week. Those benefits have been widely welcomed by many organisations. Diane Whitworth, the chief executive of the Carers National Association, said:

"I am writing with great pleasure, to welcome the announcement last week which will boost carers' benefits…this is the first major series of changes to the benefit for 15 years. The measures provide a sensible balance"—