This is a welcome but rare opportunity to talk about agriculture. Since the election, farming and agriculture seem to have been almost obliterated from the parliamentary vocabulary. It is a good opportunity for those of us who represent rural Britain to put a few thoughts on to the record about the current state of the dairy industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no full debate on agriculture in Government time since the Queen's speech and that on one of the days the debate was not about agriculture per se? Should that not he put right?

Absolutely. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that observation. I am doing my bit to put it right by initiating the debate.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

It may be over the top to give way before I have finished my opening remarks.

It is still desperately important for many of our constituents that we discuss the farming industry. We could be talking about almost any sector in the agricultural industry, as they are all facing difficulties. The arable sector is suffering especially at the moment, as I know from my constituents who are involved in various aspects of it. I want to concentrate on dairying, simply because in Somerset we have the finest dairy land in the country and therefore in the world. Views may differ from Cheshire and elsewhere, but I believe that Somerset wears the crown of the dairy industry.

We are engaged not only in farming. Processing is a key part of the local economy, and there are retailers throughout the country. It is important that we consider the industry in the round, as those sectors are interrelated. The key to the success of any part of the industry is the vitality of the whole, which I want to explore today.

I understand from the Minister's replies that he believes that dairy farmers' income is increasing—indeed, has doubled—and that the industry has a rosy future. The industry does not share that view. His belief is belied by the experience of almost everyone who is trying to make a living from dairy farming. In recent months, we have seen yet another reduction in the farmgate price of milk. That is having a devastating effect on the profitability of many farms. The price is now well below 22p per litre, which is a reasonable assessment of the cost of production. Seven authorities would reduce or increase that sum by a few pence.

The industry is still suffering the after-effects of BSE and last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The outlook is extremely bleak. The key is the producer price of milk. Unless we can achieve a sustainable farmgate price for milk, there will be a lack of investment in the industry and, sadly, many more people will decide that they can no longer continue the unequal struggle to maintain their living through dairying. There will be many losses in the industry.

The average producer price, which the National Farmers Union and others currently estimate at about 16.5p per litre, is simply unsustainable. We were saying that the price was unsustainable when it was higher. During the past year there have been attempts to do something about it, but they have not worked. With the seasonal fluctuations, we are in danger of approaching the all-time low of 14.6p per litre—the price in May 2000. If that happens, it will spell bad news for many producers.

Does not the hon. Gentleman find it supremely ironic that the farmer-producer milk price is dropping so significantly at a time when supermarket profits have risen so much? Tesco posted a £1.2 billion profit only recently. Will he take this opportunity to condemn the use of milk as a loss leader by supermarkets and urge the Government to address the problem, as the Prime Minister promised during one meeting with farmers when he said that the supermarkets had the farmers by the throats?

As the hon. Gentleman may have suspected, that is the underlying script of my speech. We must address the problem at the point of retail.

Some would argue that the processors have a case to answer too, but their position is much more complicated. They also operate in a competitive sector and are under price pressure from buyers. Although there has been some criticism of processors who have achieved volume sales at the expense of price, and that has had a knock-on effect on the primary producers, they are nevertheless working in an extremely competitive field. There is a variety of uses for raw milk, and the producers are competing with each other. The net result is an unsustainably low milk price at the farm gate.

My hon. Friend has painted a vivid picture of an industry that is facing catastrophe. What is his prognosis for the dairy industry now that we have details about future pricing? Will he also comment on the fact that the spot price of milk was about 11p per litre at Christmas and is about 7p per litre now?

My hon. Friend is right. The problem is that there is no light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Producers cannot see how the situation will improve within a time scale that would allow for sensible financial planning. The difficulties with downward competitive pressures on milk pricing are exacerbated by the bizarre fact that the sector is overproducing, particularly in the organic sector. Indeed, the organic sector has possibly suffered most, because the premium has almost completely disappeared as a result of a flow of milk into the sector. Some producers have put in sterling efforts. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) mentioned Yeo Valley recently. His remarks were perhaps misinterpreted, because Yeo Valley has done a sterling job in protecting the organic milk producers, as has the Organic Milk Suppliers Cooperative, OMSCO. However, despite those efforts, it is clear that that is not the solution to the problems faced by many milk producers.

We need a clearly negotiated and policed, sustainable and stable price for milk. The Government will have to play their part and, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, the Prime Minister promised as much when it was politically expedient for him to do so. He promised to take an active interest in the matter, but there is less evidence that that has happened.

With regard to the way in which the supermarkets appear as a bloc, I simply do not accept that milk is a sensible loss leader. In fact, I do not believe that the consumer buys milk on a price basis. I have talked to a great many of my constituents about this subject, and I do not believe that people go into supermarkets, look at the price of milk and decide that they will go to Sainsbury's this week rather than Tesco down the road on the basis of a penny more or less. People do not buy milk in that way, so why do we allow the dairy industry to be crucified by the way in which retailers structure their market? I believe that it achieves no tangible results in retailing, processing or primary production. That nonsense needs to be addressed.

Coupled with that, we need to be much more active in our marketing of locally produced milk and milk products, such as cheese and yoghurt, because those products happen to be superior to those available from elsewhere. I have always maintained that we are bad at marketing the brand—in our case, the west country and Somerset—for wholesome produce. There should be a clear duty in this respect on retailers and those who advise them. That brand should be much more visible.

Another problem that the Government need to address is the structure of the market, which is very complicated. Unsustainable assumptions are made about the internal monopoly in this country. In fact, we are competing not only with other European countries, but in the wider world market. It is a mistake to consider Britain in isolation, to put up barriers to the vertical integration in the industry that we wish to see, and not to encourage the co-operative ventures that should play a big part in the industry.

Why is there a lack of recognition of the fact that we work in an international market and that, currently, intervention is not beneficial to the United Kingdom industry? It benefits the shareholders rather than the producers. The Curry report recognises that self-evident fact in the dairy industry. Why are we not building on its recommendations?

My next question is about agrimonetary compensation—this is a well worn track. We saw the end of the traditional agrimonetary compensation system as of the end of 2001. However, the Government claimed £79 million for the dairy industry in 2001, and they have until the end of the month to make a subsequent claim, which may be worth about £51 million.

I understand the Government's problems with agrimonetary compensation in its current form and the difficulties occasioned by the Fontainebleau rebate. It has acted to the enormous detriment of the agricultural industry ever since it was signed. Whatever its merits in other respects, it has done a poor job of encouraging Government support for the agricultural industry. However, I ask the Minister to be clear about whether his Department intends to apply for that pull-down of European funds, because it comes at a time when the dairy industry desperately needs it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that today offers a good opportunity for the Government to explain their approach to agrimonetary compensation, given that they have made payments and draw-downs of agrimonetary compensation in the past? Does he agree that this is a good opportunity for the Minister to explain the logic behind individual decisions? As we shall meet later today to hear the Chancellor's Budget, in which he is expected to announce a surplus for the current financial year on the Government's accounts, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a particularly good time to make a claim for agrimonetary compensation as it appears that the money is there in the UK's own accounts?

I agree with my hon. Friend on all those counts. It is not a huge amount of money in global terms, and I do not pretend that it would make a huge difference even to the industry, but it would provide some support at a time when the industry desperately needs it. For that reason alone it is worth claiming. I see no reason why the Government should not wish to use European funds, to which they have already contributed, to provide support for our industry in a way that other countries would have no compunction in doing.

A constituent told me that agrimonetary compensation made up 50 per cent. of his profit for the whole year. While the hon. Gentleman was modest about what he felt it would achieve for dairy farmers, does he not agree that it is a tremendously important support to the people concerned in that industry?

It is important, but the fact that it represents 50 per cent. of the profits is testament to the poor profitability of the dairy industry. The amount of money involved is modest. Perhaps the Minister can tell me—although if he does it will break a pattern set by all the previous Ministers I have questioned on this subject—whether the Government have at any time tried to set up a replacement scheme within the UK for agrimonetary compensation. The reasons why we have an agrimonetary compensation scheme persist. Britain still has a currency that floats free of the euro. Although a green currency is no longer necessary for those countries within the eurozone and it is arguably not necessary for Sweden and Denmark, given that their currencies are effectively pinned to the euro, it is necessary for British agriculture which has to contend with more extreme currency fluctuations.

At this point it is perhaps appropriate to talk about the exchange rate because the exchange rate between the pound and the euro is a problem for the whole of British agriculture. That problem besets the entire manufacturing industry. There are things that the Government could and should do. As many hon. Members know, I am not a great advocate of joining the euro, but I believe that there is a need to do something about the valuation between the pound and the euro to make our manufacturing industries, including agriculture, more competitive. The Government have neglected that issue over the last year or so and it needs to be addressed now if we are to have any hope of retaining a competitive aspect to our major industries.

While we are talking about overseas markets, we still have a great way to go to redevelop our overseas markets, including our European markets, which are important traditionally. There is a strong connection between our meat exports and the dairy industry. They are not divorced from one another. While we see the blatant protectionism that goes on in France, against any scientific or legal advice that the French Government could or should have been given, it is legitimate to ask whether the rules of the European Union do anything to ensure the free passage of trade and goods that the entire structure of the European Union was designed to promote. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

Other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and so I will try to make the remainder of my remarks brief. I mention in passing the difficulties that the industry in my part of the country is still experiencing from bovine tuberculosis. It is becoming a problem for many farms in the west country because of the threat of tuberculosis as a disease and because of its knock-on effect on the mobility of stock, its effect on markets and the difficulties of regulation. Those are the inevitable results of a recurrence of the disease in Somerset and the west country.

I am anxious that there is still no experimental evidence to connect bovine tuberculosis and badgers. The Krebs experiments were put on hold; they are no nearer to completion now than they were a year or so ago. As a result, we do not know whether the connection is substantiated. It is desperately important to have that evidence so that appropriate measures can be taken. Many farmers in my constituency urgently need to do something to eliminate tuberculosis, or they will continue to have great difficulties.

I have to strike a pessimistic, if not apocalyptic, note. I have never been more concerned about the future of farming in my county. There is little cause for optimism in most sectors, including the dairy sector, in the immediate future. Small and medium farms throughout the country, especially in my constituency, will continue to be lost. What have traditionally been called small farms are moving up. Figures for disposal sales show that it is not herds of up to 100 cattle that are being disposed of; herds of 200 or 300 are under the auctioneer's hammer. Profitability and investment are lacking, so people say, "Why are we sitting on this realisable asset when we are in a difficult job requiring great dedication, which does not provide any reward for us?" More and more people are fleeing the industry.

I am most anxious about the tenant farmers who have no capital, and no way out. The Government are remiss in not tackling the issue with retirement schemes that will allow people to leave the industry with dignity, to find a new role. People will continue to leave the industry simply because they do not have the opportunities that they would wish for. That begs the question about the structure of the rural economy and of land use. There is a limit to how many rich people from London can come down, buy farmhouses and keep a few ponies in the paddock. Something must happen to the land between those farmhouses, which is the most productive in the country, but I do not know how that will come about unless the Government and the industry deal with the matter urgently.

Huge changes are on the way; the common agricultural policy must be reformed and we are only at the beginning of the process. I was hoping for more progress, particularly in the dairy sector. However, what the agriculture Ministers could agree, the Heads of Government were able to shelve at an early opportunity. They need to return to the negotiating table to achieve much faster progress on the issue.

There must be a greater focus on farming, the dairy industry, the needs of farmers as primary producers, the processors and even the retailers—I am prepared to bring them in from the cold. Unless there is a structured approach to the entire industry to make it profitable again, primary producers will be lost, processors will have supply difficulties and retailers will have to rely on overseas imports. That will not be in the interests of our constituents, the national economy, or the retailers themselves.

I start by criticising the Office of Fair Trading report on supermarkets. I recognise that supermarkets compete with one other, but the report does not recognise the power of the purchasing tail and its effect on the price of milk.

Will the Minister look further into the intervention price? I was informed that it stands at 16.3p per litre, but that the UK does not have enough processing power to turn the milk into milk powder, which would allow us to be intervened upon. I also draw the Minister's attention to the cost to the dairy farmer of the nitrate vulnerable zones, which the Ministry has seriously underestimated. I support the plea of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for the second tranche of agrimonetary compensation, on which dairy farmers in my constituency depend. As I said in my intervention, although it makes up 50 per cent. of their income, it remains extremely low. I was informed that £8,000 is more accurate than the Government estimate of £32,000 as the average dairy farmer's annual earnings. The Government figure clearly does not apply in Herefordshire.

I shall refer to bovine tuberculosis, as Herefordshire is one of the test areas. Although the number of restricted herds is falling, the number awaiting tests has risen dramatically and the backlog continues to grow. The total is a horrendous figure, with about 27,000 herds awaiting testing. This year alone, the Ministry is slaughtering up to 1,000 cattle a month, although last year the figures appeared to dip because of the foot and mouth crisis. Between 1 January and 28 February, 2,077 cattle were reported to have been slaughtered.

It might help the hon. Gentleman if I explained that as part of dealing with the backlog, we targeted the highest risk "hot spot" areas. It is not unusual to see a higher rate of incidence because the targeting is distorting the figures. I am not complacent and would not say that TB is not increasing, but I caution Members about drawing conclusions from the current figures, which do not provide a clear picture.

I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but we must also bear in mind the number of cattle slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak, some of which may well have been TB reactors. I accept that the Minister would not know about that, but will he talk in his response about research into bovine tuberculosis? With herds being closed across the country because of foot and mouth, the disease may be spreading through wildlife. If wildlife is carrying it, we must face up to it. Badgers are a particular favourite of the Minister and are the most protected animals by law in the whole country, possibly even the world. However, we must face up to what is happening. As soon as a cow reacts, the farms are closed and cannot trade. They can continue to produce milk, but not buy or sell calves. That problem must be confronted because the number of farms being closed is rising dramatically. Some arguments suggest that it would be possible to continue to buy and sell calves that had not reacted.

TB costs about £7 million a year in direct compensation alone. The research bill is more than £21 million. The livelihoods of 27,000 farmers awaiting results are at stake. I hope that the Government's statistics, which prove that TB is threatening to snowball and that at least three herds a day are succumbing to the disease as hitherto free areas become infected, will persuade the Government to address the problem more effectively. There was no testing for bovine tuberculosis in 2001, but as the backlog of farms is growing, an injection of cash should be considered. This may be a great day to call for money to be spent on increasing the speed and number of tests. It adds insult to injury that a farmer, after his morning milking, is expected to test all day without extra support and then do his evening milking. The number of cows that need testing has now grown to such an extent that it is not feasible to expect a farmer to undertake testing by himself. I draw attention to a lovely quote from Eisenhower that was also used in Don Curry's report:

"Farming seems mighty easy when your plough is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the cornfield."

Given the statistics on bovine tuberculosis, that seems to be the case. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind.

People are also at risk. There are about 40 cases a year of mycobacterium bovis—the bovine TB—in human beings. Obviously, most tuberculosis is caused by the other bacterium—mycobacterium tuberculosis. Bovine TB cases are rare and are usually found in people who have caught it abroad or in elderly people who had probably caught it from drinking unpasturised milk. Some cases may have occurred in people who work closely with infected animals. At this stage, however, there is no direct evidence that people have caught the disease in that way, but the risk to farmers and others in frequent close contact with cattle is well recognised.

The Krebs report said that the best prospect for the control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine. The focus for finding a decent, long-term solution must be in a vaccine that will not only prevent it from being caught by cattle, but prevent badgers—the prime suspects—from carrying it. When a virus appears in a closed herd, the badgers in their setts on that farm are not tested. They need to be tested quickly and effectively because the number of badgers that we see in Herefordshire by the side of the road is growing every day. Those badgers are diseased, too. If the Minister has a passion for those animals—I believe that he does—he owes it to them as much as to cattle to find a cure for the disease. Any increase in funding and research that will lead us to a vaccine would be more than welcome. It is essential that a vaccine is found.

The closed herd at Ode Court in my constituency has recently suffered a bovine TB outbreak. The herd were home-grown fed and had no contact with other cattle. My constituent, Matthew Oliver, was left to watch and weep as his suckler cows were shot as tuberculosis reactors. Recently, Mr. Oliver told Farmers Weekly:

"I am definitely not anti-badger, but if cattle are not to disappear from some areas, we simply cannot afford to wait for the results of the badger trial … On farms where there are reactors, sample animals from badger setts must be trapped and tested. All animals in infected setts should be culled … Animal rights people will object, but they were not standing on the yard as my cows, six of them in late pregnancy, were destroyed."

That clear message should not be ignored. Mr. Oliver continued:

"We cannot go on taking knock after knock. My family has been here since 1880. I am the fourth generation and I have never wanted to do anything else but farm. But if we keep getting reactors I might decide to sell the land in small blocks to people from the cities … It is time for the Government to listen to cattle farmers and veterinary surgeons and have the courage to do whatever is necessary to halt the spread of a disease"

The problem has caused so much debate in Herefordshire that a former president of the British Veterinary Association, Francis Anthony, said:

"In Herefordshire we have cases of bovine tuberculosis coming out of our ears … It goes against every principle of disease control to cull one species and do nothing about a proven feral pool infection."

Reactors are now found on 70 per cent. of farms tested in Herefordshire. We cannot continue waiting for the results of the badger tests, yet have measures such as the Minister's Bill on animal health. There is a gross imbalance. If we are to take an aggressive and draconian approach to a future foot and mouth outbreak, as the Minister proposed, we should take the same approach to bovine tuberculosis, and deal especially with badgers. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions and perhaps pledge, after today's Budget, to invest more for research on this extremely serious disease.

I call Mr. David Drew.

On a point of order, Mr. Beard. I know that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has a genuine and sincere interest in these matters and that he will make a valuable contribution. However, he was five or six minutes late for the debate. As I am well known in my constituency for my lateness, I would appreciate a ruling on whether that is in order.

I shall take that into account.

I apologise for my lateness. I was stuck on a train because I had an engagement in my constituency yesterday—I am sure that that has happened to us all. I apologise profusely to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who introduced the debate. He gave us an invaluable lesson on why we should discuss such issues in this Chamber. As I am the only Government Back Bencher present and it is important that we hear from such quarters, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who quite rightly picked me up for my lateness, will give me the chance to speak. I shall keep my remarks brief to allow him the chance to contribute to the debate.

I share many of the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although I missed his initial comments. The picture that he paints is gloomy, and no Labour Member would pretend otherwise. We face the double bind of pressure on prices and over-production. That has other consequences such as lower returns to farmers, and there is a clear indication that processors are not doing well either.

I declare an interest because I am about to achieve the biggest dairy in the country at Severnside, with which I am in regular contact. I have represented its point of view before and when it is seen as the bad guys—it is certainly not always the good guys—it argues that its price pressures are considerable because retailers force prices down. The supermarkets are regularly put in the frame. I shall not be an apologist for them because their recent performance before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs left more questions unanswered than not about the way in which they saw the future of food and farming, although we gave them a hard time. We must be realistic. Milk and milk products are up against many other products, and the real price of food is at its lowest level for a generation. However, after taking subsidies into account, I argue that the price of food is not as low as some people would have us believe.

The future for organic milk is especially sad. As the Minister knows, I was able to act as a conduit to allow OMSCO—the Organic Milk Suppliers Cooperative—to talk to the Government. It is unacceptable that organic milk is pumped into the mainstream supply. Something is wrong with the structures of both the organic milk market and the overall milk market while that occurs.

I take a slightly different position on where we should go from here. A debate is needed, although this Chamber is not the only place in which it will be heard. Like the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), I visited New Zealand with the Select Committee as part of our current major investigation on food and farming. One is struck by the contrast between our methods and those of the people of New Zealand in the 1980s. I shall not draw simplistic conclusions or pre-empt our report, but several points are worth making. New Zealand has chosen a different route from ours by using a pasture-led approach. If the proof is in the eating, that has merit. Although there is an argument that our climate and countryside is not as suitable as New Zealand's, it is fair to say that people who regularly visit our shores and give us advice are querulous about the degree to which we have gone along the subsidy-based, high-input and intensive farming route that we have used for dairying. They urge an alternative route, which the Select Committee will examine carefully.

I have alluded to subsidies. There are questions about not just the subsidy approach but the way in which it has become integral to the operation of the CAP. I am not saying that we can cut subsidies overnight. Everyone talks about getting rid of measures such as the milk quota, which is, in a sense, a form of control based on subsidy, but I am worried that the only answer that we come up with is more subsidy. Although the World Trade Organisation is calling for all countries to consider a different approach, we are, in all our negotiations about the CAP, loading ourselves with more of the same. We must break away from that system.

I am not a free marketer but a good old Labourite who will consider intervention when it is necessary and appropriate. However, the industry has been wrecked by the subsidy constraints that have been put upon it. That is true not just of this country but of the rest of Europe.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic thesis, but does he agree that some of the countries that act as the great apostles of free trade and non-subsidy, such as the United States, subsidise their dairy industries to the eyeballs? That is particularly so in states such as Vermont, where farmers receive a great deal of money in state aid.

Those countries not only cheat covertly and overtly, but their farmers do some horrible things to their animals. Scientific understanding would shed some light on and expose some of the acts at which this country quite rightly takes umbrage, such as including bovine somatrophin in milk and hormones in beef. They are highly questionable practices. We should move towards a more subsidy-free regime, if that is not a contradiction in terms, but one which also demands high standards of hygiene and welfare.

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points on the future of the industry. Does he agree that the role of the supermarkets will be vital in moving towards what he calls a less subsidy-dependent future, and in avoiding a knee-jerk injection of crisis funds into the dairy industry? He mentioned organic milk. Surely it is foolishness to pump organic milk into mainstream milk when we are importing organic milk in significant quantities from countries such as Denmark. The Government must tackle the supermarkets and the market itself in order to move towards a less subsidy-dependent future.

I largely concur with the hon. Gentleman. I am a great believer in intervening in markets, but we must have consumers on our side. One problem is that, for various reasons, consumers are not buying enough fresh organic milk. We must consider how to market it, and how to bolster consumer demand.

We must restructure our interests. New Zealand did not lose as many farmers as was thought when it claimed to cut away subsidies. There is a question about the degree to which it did so, but from the evidence that we obtained it seems that it is as near to a subsidy-free regime as it can get. We must understand that loss of subsidy will imperil smaller farmers in the short term. We must consider how to restructure the industry fairly and reasonably. We cannot go on the way we are, and I think that that is what the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Ceredigion were saying. We must consider the costs of undertaking a major reform. We must also take other parties—both in the European Union and the rest of the world—with us, and that will not be easy. Some countries make noises about market liberalism but do not necessarily practise it.

Undoubtedly there is market failure, and that causes its own problems when structures are palpably wrong. That is shown most clearly by the debacle of the way in which we restructured intervention arrangements by moving from the milk marketing board to Milk Marque and then to individual successor co-operatives, which now want to combine. We all knew what was wrong, but there was a failure to come up with suitable policies to deal with the problem.

As a member of a co-operative, I believe that we must learn from the successes of other countries and build a genuine co-operative arrangement between producers and processors, even if that means changing the monopoly arrangements. Supermarkets are virtually monopoly suppliers, yet people who contribute to the food chain are subject to pressures within not only this country, but the rest of Europe. We must re-examine those structures and ensure that we get the benefits of economies of scale, research and so forth, which can be achieved only by building new arrangements. That would do a lot of good because it would overcome some of the bitterness—there is no other way to describe it— between producers and processors, which has done immeasurable harm to the way in which the industry operates.

There is no parallel sector in which virtually every six months, processors go out to producers and try to persuade them that a price cut would be beneficial. The industry operates in that way. To pre-empt the eventual pricing, people are encouraged to take a price cut that is based on crazy currency arrangements and the fact that there is over-production at present, which is not always the case.

We must also protect smaller farmers and recognise that that can be achieved only by building new arrangements. As someone who has already had two Adjournment debates on the future of county farm estates that have the most vulnerable tenant farmers of all, I take no lessons on why they are the most vulnerable group. We must persuade tenant farmers of the benefits of new co-operative ways of working—sharing machinery, milking and input costs, which will require representatives and colleagues of those people asking them to look at new methods. That is hard, because the independence of the tenant farmer is probably stronger than that of any other group of farmer. They pride themselves on their independence, but that must be mitigated by all the reasons why smaller farmers will not survive, such as capital costs and the cost of land, stock and so forth. We must ensure that we get those people to work together to overcome some of the problems.

The debate can no longer be avoided. It must be taken forward on the back of the Curry commission, although it is separate and more urgent because dairy farmers are in an extremely vulnerable position. There is something special about milk and the way in which the sector operates that means we must do something radical and urgent. We must persuade people that the common agricultural policy is not working.

Bovine tuberculosis affects my constituency, as it does the constituencies of the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). Too many farms are closed. However, we cannot pretend that there are easy solutions. There is no scientific explanation for bovine tuberculosis, although it is subject to huge dollops of research money and a great deal of research is going on. The accusing finger is pointed at the wildlife vector, but let us not be fooled—other contributory factors have yet to be excluded, such as husbandry techniques, the genetic disposition of the herds affected and the locations involved.

The hon. Member for Leominster shakes his head, but if he were to talk to anyone who knows anything about the subject, they would share with him the problems. That is also true of the international scene. The hon. Gentleman calls for a cattle vaccine, as I have done many times, but it would involve the same problems as the foot and mouth vaccine. People question the practicalities and ethics of using vaccine. The best way forward would be to breed out tuberculosis, whether in cattle or in wildlife, which would not be easy. That would be the ultimate, and anything that we can do to achieve that is important.

This vital debate is all about how we rebuild an industry under enormous pressure. I urge everyone not to accept the same old compromises. We must be much more radical and ensure that the industry survives.

rose—

Order. We have approximately 15 minutes before the winding-up speeches and four hon. Members wish to speak, so if they limit their remarks, they will all have an opportunity to speak.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for securing the debate. It is taking place at a critical time for the dairy industry. On a bright and beautiful spring morning such as this one, dairy farmers should be on top form and looking forward to the summer, with their cows about to be turned out to grass. However, the mood in the dairy industry is one of despondency and despair.

I wish to reflect on the state of the dairy industry in Wales—and, in particular, in my constituency. Brecon and Radnorshire is the largest constituency in England and Wales and therefore, as one would expect, it is also the most agricultural. Unfortunately however, the number of dairy farmers in the area has declined to such an extent that the situation is now almost terminal. At the last count, there were fewer than 10 dairy farmers in Brecon, and probably only five or six in Radnorshire. At one time, there were many dairy farms in the Usk and Wye valleys and in the Radnor area, but almost all of them have now given up milk production. That has contributed to another problem: when such farmers give up milk production, they go into beef and sheepmeat production, and that puts even more pressure on those sectors, which are also always struggling.

I wish to mention the last person in my area who came to me to say that he was giving up milk production. Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), he went into milk production through the county council smallholding scheme, which enables people to enter farming with limited capital. However, with great determination, skill and commitment, people such as him could make a living. He raised a family, and sent his three children to college. He was able to do that because he had great skill in grassland management and the breeding of stock, and, more importantly, because he was prepared to put a huge amount of work and commitment into the business. However, he has now decided that he gets no return for that commitment and skill—and no return on his capital. Therefore, like so many other dairy farmers, especially tenant dairy farmers, who have little capital behind them, he is taking the opportunity to disperse his stock to farmers who have been taken out in the foot and mouth epidemic: he is cashing in his only capital asset to ensure that at least he has some money for his retirement.

Between 1989 and 1999, the number of dairy farms in Powys fell by 30 per cent. That trend has accelerated, due to the problem of pricing. We have already heard that the average price for milk this year is likely to be 16.5p per litre, when the break-even price is about 21p per litre—and 24p per litre, if one wishes to ensure that re-investment takes place. Evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee showed that the code of conduct that four out of the five major supermarkets signed up to has been toothless, with regard to ensuring that a fair price is given to producers. That problem must be looked at again.

The problem with the pricing of milk can be traced back to the abolition of the milk marketing board and, subsequently, the dissolution of Milk Marque. Farmers are now trying to put back into place some of the co-operative aspects of the organisation of their industry that Milk Marque established. The Welsh Affairs Committee has also heard evidence that the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission have been much harder on indigenous co-operatives than on foreign ones. Milk First gave us evidence that, when it purchased a cheesemaking plant in Aberaeron, it had to go through a rigorous regulatory process that cost it a lot in professional fees, whereas co-operatives based outside the country, such as on the continent, or in New Zealand, are able to operate in the United Kingdom without having to pay for and implement the same regulatory processes. That is, therefore, a real problem.

I turn finally to the agrimonetary compensatory allowance for which the Government can apply before 30 April. The Government have an opportunity to show that they understand the dairy industry's problems and can make a commitment to it. I understand that the average dairy farm, with about 80 cows producing 480,000 litres of milk, would receive about £1,700. In terms of the size and scale of the business, that is not a lot of money, as we have heard, but it is a lot in terms of the profit being made at the moment. It may be the difference between a business surviving and it going to the wall, and we call on the Government to act immediately.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) secured the debate. As he rightly points out, it heightens the problems in Somerset, four of whose five Members of Parliament are present. The fifth is on his way back from other duties.

The hon. Member kindly alluded to organic farming in my constituency. In many ways, organic farming was seen as the great white hope. It was going to be the thing that boosted farming so that we could be more eco-friendly and eco-adjustable. However, in the past few months we have witnessed the wholesale collapse of the organic milk price, which has gone from 30p to 24p, and may go even lower. I suspect that the Minister will discuss how to foster an organic industry.

Yeo Valley Organic works throughout Somerset, in all our constituencies—Somerton and Frome, Taunton and Wells. It is this country's prime and biggest producer of organic yoghurt and cream. It is honouring its contracts. It still pays 33p a litre and subsidises organic producers with whom it has contracts. It does so for two reasons. First, it has contracts and wants to honour them. Secondly, it wants to maintain the quality and purity of the organic milk that it buys. It cannot afford not to be able to buy high-quality organics as that is its market.

The company is part of the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative, which it helped set up in 1994. It knew about the possibility of over-supply because of the experience with wild boar, ostriches and the many other diversifications that crashed. It wanted to ensure the possibility of holding the market together and that the market did not collapse to that extent. The farmgate price in 1996, when OMSCO started, was 29.5p. It is now down to 24p. The company's contracts run for five years. It has extended them for a further two. Its commitment to its producers is total.

The other problem that we face is that the average dairy income is now £9,500. The agrimoney would work out at £1,700 per farmer. The problem is, therefore, on both sides. Organic producers such as Yeo Valley are trying to increase their coverage and buying power—indeed, they are trying to sell to this place, too; I notice that we do not have many organics here—in order to be able to put forward the case specifically for organics for the longer term.

Farmers are leaving organic farming because they can no longer afford it. They cannot afford the milk or the income that they receive from organic produce. Where, then, will we get the organic milk and, if I may go slightly further—I realise that we are discussing the dairy industry—the strawberries, for example, to put in the yoghurt?

Unless organisations such as Yeo Valley are specifically helped, the economics involved mean that they will be unable to continue to support farmers in the way that they do. They will do so if they can, but they will need direct help—organic subsidies or money from bodies such as the Environment Agency or the Countryside Agency.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Countryside Agency. Is he aware of the report "Rural Proofing in 2001–02", which has just come out? Rural proofing is intended to ensure that the Government think rural. Is my hon. Friend aware that DEFRA has the worst record of all 11 Departments on the implementation of rural proofing? Although it has widely circulated a checklist, established a contact point and liaises regularly with the agency, it has not embedded rural proofing in its policy-making procedures, promotes neither proofing nor the checklist, has established no rural targets for monitoring and has not enhanced rural awareness.

I am not surprised in the slightest. I am interested to note that the Cabinet Office has managed to do better than DEFRA. One wonders how many gardens and farms there are in 10 Downing street.

Yeo Valley and other organisations are not cutting their prices; they are trying to stay where they are. I ask the Minister to see what he can do. Yeo Valley is a shining example of excellent practice in the dairy industry, and such organisations are going out on a limb to support the dairy industry. People such as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and I depend on such organisations to hold the farming industry together in counties such as Somerset.

I am pleased to be called, given the extensive dairy industry in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate. It is very timely, given that the National Farmers Union in Wales calculates that the industry there is in danger of losing up to £45 million due to the current price cuts. That danger was confirmed to me in recent discussions with dairy farmers in my constituency. One told me bluntly and briefly that milk production was high early in the season, price competition was fierce, prices were low and unstable, planning was difficult, investment was threatened and dairy farming incomes were under grave threat. He said that many local dairy farmers were considering their futures.

The pound and imports are high. I was told yesterday that last year 40 per cent. of our butter came from abroad. Some 385.000 tonnes of cheese were made in the United Kingdom, but 273,000 tonnes were imported. The industry faces competition from all parts of the world, and the liquid milk flows in.

I have discussed with local dairy farmers what options they have. Advised by successive Governments, they have invested and modernised, and herds are now larger and yields have increased beyond all recognition. Can dairy farms in my constituency grow bigger? A constituent recently told me that he had just about been able to bring up his family in the 1960s and 1970s with a herd of fewer than 30 animals, but that he could not do so now.

Can dairy farms in my constituency grow their way out of the present crisis? The industry in my constituency faces the pressure of increased prices when buying and renting land. Indeed, it seems that local prices often reflect not the economic value of the land, but its amenity value to people who are not solely or even mainly engaged in agriculture. That clearly limits the possibility of expansion for smaller holdings and any possible gains from economies of scale.

We have heard about the organic option, but if everyone turns organic, any price advantage will be lost. I recently bought some organic milk. The packaging said that it was organic in very large letters, but that it was produced in Denmark in rather smaller letters.

It is not only producers who are feeling the pressure. A successful farmer-owned co-operative in my constituency, Hufenfa De Arfon—South Caernarfon Creameries—has worked hard to carve out a niche at the quality end of the market, and it has had considerable success. It produces butter and liquid milk, and it supplies a well known, high-quality retail chain. It makes a very popular, high-quality cheese, Hen Sir, which is as good as one will get, but perhaps I am biased. It also makes Monterey Jack, a cheese made to an American recipe, and even succeeds in exporting it to America, along with its other products. This year, it won an export award. Hufenfa De Arfon has always been very good in paying its producers—among the top 25 per cent. and sometimes much better. However, even that highly successful and forward-looking venture feels pressure to reduce the price that it pays to its members, thereby reducing the vital money that it pumps into the local economy. If companies such as Hufenfa De Arfon, the very best, are feeling the pressure, what hope is there for the rest?

Dairy farmers in my constituency are well aware of price instability and the pressure on their industry. They know all about uncertainty and falling incomes, and many are considering their future. They know that they need a higher price for their milk. The National Farmers Union called for 22p per litre just to cover costs and 24p per litre to have a viable industry. Dairy farmers deserve a better, more secure future, and Welsh rural life cannot afford to lose them.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on initiating the debate. As many hon. Members have suggested, there has been much debate on the issue in our constituencies but not in the House. Our farmers have been constantly contacting us with their tales of woe, which have been amply expressed by several Members this morning. I shall not repeat what they said but add just a few more comments.

On the strength of sterling, whatever the arguments for going into or staying out of the euro, sectors of our industry will be permanently disadvantaged if we stay out. As the principal reason for not going in is likely to be the exchange rate, it will have an effect. If the Government are never going to apply for what is left of our agrimonetary compensation or introduce their own scheme, we need to know. Farmers need to know whether they will ever receive compensatory payment for the clear problem of the exchange risk, so that they can plan their businesses accordingly. Pleading on each individual occasion—I add my voice to the plea that the Government make application—is not the way that an essentially long-term industry wants to plan its business.

One of the things coming up next year, which was made clear by previous Ministers, is the review of quota in 2003. We have not heard much about the Government's position on that. Will they press for the rapid end of quota? Some people thought that it would happen in 2003; if not, when will it happen? If we could press our European Union partners to agree to an end to the milk quota system, which is a clear constraint on the development of an efficient and market-focused industry, there is little doubt that it would do a significant amount of good to the UK dairy industry.

Much has been said about supermarkets. The OFT found cause for an investigation, which was carried out by the Competition Commission. Many of us thought that it was a whitewash and a total waste of £20 million. The voluntary code that has been referred to is totally inadequate to regulate properly the whole of the industry chain. We must also remember that there have been some changes in the way in which consumers purchase milk and milk products. We all know that doorstep deliveries have declined significantly and, as a result, the prices have increased. As consumers shift to supermarkets, the price in the supermarket declines. It is an escalating situation, in which more and more milk is purchased by the supermarkets. Therefore, there is a clear competition issue, which was not grasped properly by the Competition Commission, which looked at excessive profits over the whole range of activities, rather than examining individual products.

There has been growth in new dairy products such as cheese, yoghurt, dairy desserts, fromage frais and so on. Foreign companies and imports have driven many of those developments. We must really try to organise ourselves to be much more competitive in that field, so that we process our milk into those value-added products and start to displace some of those imports. That is an important way in which we can support the dairy industry in the future.

On organic farming, many organic farmers have told me that, although they appreciate the Government's support at conversion, most European competitors continue to receive support post-conversion. That is extremely beneficial to them. Our organic farmers, once converted, are playing on an uneven field of competition because other organic farmers continue to receive support post-conversion.

I turn to bovine tuberculosis, which is a huge problem in Devon and Cornwall. The figures state that it more than doubled between 1995–2000. A Krebs trial is taking place in my constituency, and I understand all the problems of that. However, the feeling is that even at the end of the Krebs trials, which have been delayed because of foot and mouth, and the spending of £35 million, the findings will be inconclusive—yet we shall probably have seen a significant further rise in TB.

TB is going to be the next BSE or foot and mouth. It is a real and creeping problem. If we sit back and rely on the evidence of the Krebs trials to guide us on what to do, we could be sitting here in two or three years with the same dilemma, while more farmers are subjected to TB problems and more compensation is paid.

On animal movements, farmers are still extremely careful after foot and mouth, and there is the odd scare. However, the current animal movement restrictions are putting an increasing burden on their businesses. They want to know what the long term is to be. Are we going to keep the 21-day animal movement restriction, or is that a temporary measure? Will it be replaced by something else? Farmers need to know the longer-term Government policy in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Beard; it is nice to see you in the Chair.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his good fortune in securing this morning's debate. We have almost all been singing from the same hymn sheet, and I hope that that will send the Government a clear message about the unanimity of view on what is happening in the dairy industry at present, and how vital it is for the problems to be tackled.

The past year has brought dairy farmers varying fortunes, with the fluctuation of milk prices and the onslaught of foot and mouth, one consequence of which was to reduce significantly the UK breeding herd. However, we all remain concerned that the commitment shown by dairy farmers is not reflected in the prices that they receive for their produce. The dairy sector probably has to fund more capital investment, place more emphasis on animal health and assign more commitment to its work than most other sectors in the agricultural industry. It is an outrage that dairy farmers work longer than the average working week and yet take home less than the minimum wage.

At the beginning of 2001, higher prices led to a sense of confidence and an enlargement of scale in the dairy sector. Milk producers had previously seen a decline in incomes for almost three years. However, there has been a notable and ongoing decrease since the end of last year, continuing throughout this year and this month. The National Farmers Union estimates that the average producer price in April will be 16.5p per litre. If those trends continue, together with seasonality, producer prices may be further depressed, perhaps as far as the trough of prices in May 2000. That would be seriously bad news.

Our milk producers receive the poorest prices in Europe, yet continue to abide by the highest health, safety and hygiene standards of all member states. The Milk Development Council announced on Monday that it intends to commission a survey to investigate why there is such a price difference between the UK and the rest of Europe.

Our dairy farming industry should not experience, and cannot stand, yet another prolonged period of uncertain and depressed prices. Some factors are uncontrollable. For example, world commodity prices have dropped, and the United Kingdom's milk production during the past few months has been greater than expected, which has led to increased competition and has pulled prices down.

As in every sector, UK dairymen remain disadvantaged by the value of sterling in comparison with the euro. This year, £97 million of agrimonetary compensation is available to the agriculture industry, although that is the maximum and the European Commission has yet to rule on the official sum. Approximately £51 million of that figure should be available to the dairy sector. When he replies to the debate, will the Minister indicate the Government's approach to agrimonetary compensation, and whether he recognises the part that that plays in sustaining dairy farmers' profitability?

It is crucial—this has been said several times—that milk prices are maintained at retail level, and that a fair and just proportion of the price is reflected in producer gain. At the time of the April 2001 retail increase, the National Farmers Union was inundated with calls from the public who sought assurance that price rises would mean more money for dairy farmers. Every call made it clear that there was no problem with paying a little extra for milk so long as that extra money was returned to dairy farmers. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) that I shall continue to buy Yeo Valley organic products, which I have done since I visited Yeo Valley when I served on the Select Committee on Agriculture. They are excellent products, and I was delighted to hear that the company is being honourable by continuing to honour contracts to its producers. Long may that continue.

However, all of that could prove of little comfort to producers. It remains clear that the allocation of the final retail price needs further investigation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) that many believed that the conclusions of the report by the Office of Fair Trading were totally unsatisfactory. Other members of the food chain must recognise that farmers should receive a better and fairer share of the retail price.

The recent Curry report highlighted the need for farmer collaboration, and endorsed the findings of the milk taskforce report. I quote:

"We strongly believe in the potential of collaborative ventures for all farmers large and small. We encourage the competition authorities to consider the wider market context, particularly the consolidation of international suppliers, when looking at new or expanding collaborative ventures."

DEFRA has highlighted the contrast between UK farmer control of production and that in the rest of the world. It states that in 2001, the UK's largest milk group controlled a mere 16 per cent. of production, compared with Sweden's 61 per cent., New Zealand's 90 per cent. and Denmark's 92 per cent. The latter figure impacts strongly on the UK market, because Arla Foods is the company that uses that milk.

Farmers are already doing their utmost to help themselves through the prolonged crisis, but dairy co-operatives are another valid way forward. In some recent mergers, farmers' co-operatives have expressed the hope that they will be able significantly to cut administration and transport costs, and the objective to raise capital and invest in processing, which will allow members to benefit from the added margins between the farm and consumer. What is the Government's view on co-operatives raising money to invest further up the supply chain? Do they have a view on the restrictions and costs that must sometimes be met by those ventures? If those are to be encouraged, that problem should be considered.

Conservative Members are keen for an improvement in honesty in labelling, and would like to see all milk and milk products labelled with the country of origin and the system of production of all major ingredients. If milk is imported, we do not want that information in tiny figures at the bottom of the label. We must enable consumers to choose British milk and British dairy products, which they know that they can trust. Yesterday, I went to the launch of White and Wild, which is a new, high-quality premium product. It is organic milk that comes from farms that have a whole farm biodiversity plan, and it is being sold in about 60 supermarkets from next Wednesday. That is one way forward, and let us hope that the British public will buy that milk, and encourage that movement.

Along with the general decline in milk prices, bovine tuberculosis is a real threat and a constant worry for farmers. In its January 2001 report, the Agriculture Committee called for Government action on farmers' "growing sense of desperation" at the continued spread of the disease. TB testing has been delayed because of foot and mouth disease, but the provisional Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs statistics for the period between December 2000 and February 2001 show that 2,231 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or contacts. As a result of foot and mouth, we cannot assess the situation from last year's statistics on TB reactors but the release of figures from the most recent batches of testing is imminent, and will prove extremely telling. I have no doubt that they will highlight the sheer extent of the desperation that the Government's strategy against TB is causing among farmers.

I have raised a few issues currently facing the industry. As always in this debate one has to gallop up to the final winning post, as it were, but I leave that for the Minister to do. I am trying to leave him sufficient time to do so. It is in everybody's interest in the United Kingdom that a sector as suited to the UK climate as dairy farming should continue and prosper. However, the Government appear prepared to see that asset squandered, and their lack of action seems almost a refusal to defend it or to instigate a recovery in a very fine sector of our agricultural industry.

In the time left to me, I shall try and cover the range of points raised by hon. Members. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on raising the issue. Dairy farming is important in Somerset and the issues that he has raised are important nationally. I certainly agreed with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).

It may be useful if I stress some of the things that the Government have been doing. Although many points have been very fair, I take exception to the last remark that the Government are not doing very much about the industry. The Prime Minister has been directly involved at all levels concerning agricultural issues. He was at the seminar of the Food and Farming Commission. He has taken a close interest in the action plan on organic farming, which I have been asked to chair. The first meeting was constructive and useful. The food chain centre is in the process of being set up, led by the Institute of Grocery Distribution. A code of practice has been introduced. Of course, if people feel that it is not delivering what it is meant to deliver, we will keep it under review. There is a mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. I can confirm that we are opposed to quotas—we believe that they should go.

One of the problems of the dairy industry is that the impact of the various support mechanisms and subsidies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, is a complete mess. It works against the interests of the industry. We must make progress on the mid-term review. We are supporting co-operatives and collaborative marketing in a range of ways. I recently had a meeting with OMSCO. I have been to Yeo Valley, and I confirm that it is doing its best to assist the organic sector and its customers. OMSCO is acting in a principled way, and is a first-class organisation in respect of products and operations.

It might be useful if I set out some of the reasons for the problems faced by the dairy industry, and explain what we can and cannot do. I do not want to mislead hon. Members about the Government's role concerning market intervention. We concede that it is a difficult time for the dairy industry. I accept all the points that people have made. It recovered in 2000 and that continued into 2001, but since then prices have fallen back to what we accept is an unsustainable level. The latest figures show that the farmgate price of milk is around 18.33p per litre, and there is a danger that it may drop further.

It is of course unfortunate that that has happened in the wake of foot and mouth, when many farmers are beginning to restock and recover. The fall in prices has happened for a number of complex reasons. It is, however, certainly a result of strong UK supply combined with weak demand, especially on world markets. During foot and mouth, there were fears that the cull of dairy cattle would lead to shortages of milk, and some foolish claims were made about a likely drop in milk production. We at DEFRA said at the time that we were not concerned about milk production because we did not think that it would be a major problem. Although there was a brief dip in production, farmers reacted to higher prices and the threat of a quota superlevy by increasing their levels of production. Furthermore, although 160,000 dairy cows were culled during the outbreak, the June 2001 census shows that the number of dairy cows in the UK fell by only 80,000 because animals that might otherwise have entered the over-30-months scheme were kept on for additional lactation. Despite losses early in the quota year, production for 2001–02 has exceeded that of the previous year, and production levels in the past few months have been at their highest for more than 10 years. That is a classic market supply situation in relation to production and demand.

At the same time, the situation on the world markets could hardly be worse. Markets were already weak because of economic problems in some key importing countries such as Brazil, and they collapsed further in the wake of 11 September. That had a noticeable effect on exports of dairy products from the European Union. The uncompetitive effect of the common agricultural policy on unsubsidised world markets has led to retention on EU markets, which already have a structural surplus of products that would otherwise have been exported. The effect has been to depress the price of butter and skimmed milk powder, which is a point that has already been made, to intervention levels across the EU—an intervention level in the UK is the same as that anywhere else in the EU. As a consequence, some producers have switched from making those products to producing cheese, which in turn has depressed that particular market. The whole thing is a problem.

What can the Government do? I accept that that is a fair question, but we also have to accept—I do not want to mislead hon. Members or the industry—that we do not run a command and control economy, and the Government cannot intervene to set prices. Price setting and price negotiation is rightly a matter between producers and purchasers, and the Government have a limited role. Of course, we accept that the dairy sector is part of a highly structured, interventionist industry. Since we came to power, we have reduced dairy farmers' costs by waiving cattle passport charges, removing dairy hygiene charges and abolishing the weight limit on cattle entering the over-30-months scheme. Furthermore, since 1999 we have paid more than 100 million in agrimonetary compensation to dairy farmers, both in 2000, when prices were low, and last year when the sector faced the particular threat of foot and mouth.

We made it clear, however, that that support should be regarded as short-term, transitional aid, which is the current agrimonetary position. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was fair about that because he mentioned the Fontainebleau agreement and understands what the problem is. The idea that there is a pot of EU cash for which we can apply is totally wrong. It is not there for us because it was negotiated away as part of the rebate agreement. All we can do is apply for the right to pay subsidy through agrimoney, which we have to find ourselves. The sector must therefore compete not only with other priorities, but with other groups in the agriculture sector that have no such opportunities, such as the pig sector.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only two minutes left and I am struggling as it is.

Agrimonetary compensation is a short-term option, not a sustainable, long-term interventionist policy. That is why, incidentally, the previous Government not only opposed it in the Council of Ministers, but did not pay it in 1996, when they could have done so.

In the one minute left, I have to say that I recognise that there is a terrible problem with TB. Please do not think that the Krebs experiment is focusing just on the issue of badgers and cattle. We are also working on vaccines and management, and we will make an announcement about other measures in May, but we have taken many tough decisions to keep that experiment on track. It has not been knocked off course by foot and mouth. We believe that it will produce important information about combating the disease. We take the matter seriously. We are combating the disease and we will continue to work with the industry to try to reduce it and minimise its impact.

I am delighted to have this opportunity of a debate on sure start programmes. It is not unusual for families to experience problems and finding ways to help them is vital if we are to develop a strong society. I want to begin by looking at the sorts of problems and difficulties that some families face.

Let us take a hypothetical example put together from some of the experiences that I have seen families face. It involves a young couple with a baby. The mother, a young woman in her early 20s, was brought up by her father following the death of her mother. The father, also in his early 20s, was brought up in a household where his father drank and he was more likely to get a clip round the ear than a kind word. He was already developing a drinking habit of his own and the arrival of a baby boy into the family brings its own stresses and strains.

Before the little boy is very old, the family comes to the attention of social services. There were a few unexplained bruises and an unhappy child. The health visitor becomes concerned about his well-being. A few weeks later, the mother, frightened for her baby's safety, contacts social services. She tells the social worker that on returning to the house she found the baby crying and distraught with bruising around his mouth. He was a difficult feeder and when he would not take his bottle, his father forced it into his mouth.

After a long period, the baby is taken into care and later adopted. A year later the couple, having begun to resolve some of their problems, approach social services saying that they want to have another baby but are worried that it would be taken into care. With help and support over a number of months, the couple have a baby who remains at home and thrives. Through contact with a number of agencies they have learned how to look after a child, what needs it has, what behaviour to expect at what age and how to love the child and encourage it to learn from an early age. How much better for all concerned if that young couple had been able to get the help, support and advice on child care from the start without feeling that they were failing by asking for help.

Many situations are not as stark or as tragic as that. The child who enters school never having been given a book to look at, not knowing how to hold a pencil, never having learned how to play with other children, is held back from the start. Parents who had bad experiences at school may feel unable to approach a school. Perhaps the child misses out on the benefits of playgroup or nursery. When the child goes to school, the lack of parental support—from fear and mistrust—create difficulties for her and soon she begins to feel as negative about education as her parents did.

Of course, it is wrong to say that help is not available to families. All children receive visits from health visitors and, where problems are identified, other support is usually found. Such support is often scarce, however, and help is often available only for the most severe problems. As I outlined in my hypothetical example, that is sometimes too late for a child and a family. Many families struggle for years to support their children and it can often be much later when problems arise. Children who have failed to gain the basic skills of reading and writing will struggle in school. They are unable to take part fully in educational activities and so may become disruptive or withdrawn. As they get older, they may opt out of school altogether. That dislocation from education can also be at the root of offending by young people.

Significant research also indicates that strong emotional links in families help children to grow up with a sense of their own worth. A respect for their community starts with the feelings engendered in the family. Many of the complaints that hon. Members receive are about the problem of young people creating disruption in their community. All our communities will benefit if we can find a way to prevent that from an early age.

It is often difficult to change the behaviour of young people by the time the education welfare officer, social services or the youth offending team become involved. It is easy to feel that it is too late for the young person. The costs to society and the young person are often great: additional costs are involved in trying to assist the young person once the problems have arisen. Common sense tells us that to invest in the support of families when children are young will save money when dealing later with the problems of young people and adults. We have evidence from the prison population. Many prisoners have difficulty with basic reading and writing, come from broken homes or have been brought up in care. None of that information is new, nor is it especially difficult to understand. However, doing something about it has been another matter. I therefore applaud the introduction of sure start, which is providing extra money to some of our most deprived communities to give all children a good start in life.

The importance of investing in families early in life has been known for years. It has been impossible to divert resources from dealing with older young people to preventing the next generation from suffering the same problems. The Government have not only recognised that, but through sure start are investing the additional money needed to begin to break the cycle.

The first benefit of sure start programmes is the ability to begin to intervene at an early stage. However, there are several other benefits. Sure start programmes bring together a range of support for children. A holistic view of the needs of children and their families is at the heart of the approach. I welcome the fact that the sure start objectives include the social and emotional development of children, their health, their ability to learn, and the wider importance of strengthening families and communities.

Sure start programmes need to bring together professionals from all the relevant areas to help families in a holistic way. It is vital that health professionals work with educationalists, who need to work with professionals from social services. The importance of voluntary organisations already working in the area must also be recognised. Sure start recognises the importance of the local community. It also recognises the significance of locating its programmes in the local community. From the start, communities must be encouraged to see the programme as theirs, and one that seeks to meet needs that they, as well as others, have defined.

The recently submitted delivery plan for the Gleadless valley sure start programme in my constituency sets out those aims clearly:

"The programme will…seek to combat poverty and unemployment, breaking the cycle of deprivation and giving the community confidence to engage in the regeneration of their area … The programme has a strong emphasis on engaging with local people and empowering them to contribute in the development of local services."

The Woodthorpe estate in my constituency is another good example of how the programme is working in practice. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a group of young mothers who are developing their own support group called "Survivors". The group was originally brought together through the neighbourhood support fund, which is supported by another local community organisation. The young women found the group beneficial, providing the help and advice they needed and enabling them to support each other. Through the group meetings, they realised that they were not on their own; there were other young women in the area with the same problems.

When I visited them a few weeks ago, they told me that not only did they feel more confident as parents and as women but, for the first time, they were able to tell other people what they needed. They knew their estate, its problems and the solutions for young women like themselves. They had made contact with their local sure start scheme and could say what services and support they needed.

That is an excellent example of people in the community helping to develop sure start, and of initiatives that help them to work together. Often, pots of money are given to different projects without there being a clear, overall strategy. On their own, such projects may have little impact, but by joining up the work of two different projects a lasting difference can be made to the lives of young women and their community.

The key to joining up those initiatives was not policy makers or local authority officers but putting power in the hands of local communities. Communities do not think like departments, they do not have the boundaries of budgets, structures and hierarchies; they see the issues and the problems and they begin to find their own solutions.

Sure starts provide the means to build on existing services that are working in the community. In Sheffield, home start is part of the sure start programmes. Home-Start is a national body, which is organised at a local level, providing volunteer support by mothers to other mothers—in some places, by parents to other parents. As a social services manager, I had a key role some years ago, in developing a home start for the area in which I worked. Using the model of local volunteers who had experience of bringing up children under five, parents experiencing difficulties with their own under-fives were able to receive support. It is recognised that everyone with small children needs support, but it is not always readily available to every parent. The service did not have the stigma associated with other services for families with problems and that is an essential aim for sure start projects.

Another feature of that home start project, which was funded through city challenge money, was building up the skills of volunteers to take a more active role in their community in their own right. It was successful in that aim, with many volunteers building on the training that they received through home start to take on courses or paid employment. Some went on to be committee members for the local home start and for other community organisations. If sure start programmes are also able to achieve that, they will help children to have a better start in life and communities to become stronger and develop ways of meeting their own needs.

It is important that sure start is not linked only with voluntary organisations. One of the benefits is that Government and local government departments can work through programmes to meet their aims and targets. For example, in Sheffield, the health authority's strategy for improving oral health included co-ordinated initiatives with sure start, providing funding for children up to two years old to have feeding cups, toothbrushes and paste by giving packs to parents.

There are many other good examples of sure start programmes throughout the country—we will no doubt hear more about them this morning—where services are working together to break down barriers between health, education and social services to ensure that all families and children get the support that they need, as early as possible.

I especially welcome the essential evaluation process that is built into all sure start programmes. It will produce information about initiatives that work and where sure start really makes a difference to families and children. The information will ensure that we know that the money currently allocated to sure start is doing what it set out to do; there will be an extensive body of knowledge of the different ways in which sure start programmes have sought to meet the shared objectives. There will also be knowledge of good practice and, most importantly, we will build up information about what really works.

On that point, I want to put some issues to the Minister. Sure start has, rightly, been widely welcomed. Few people could disagree with its aim and objectives. The additional finance to develop the programmes has been welcomed with open arms, with areas bidding for many more programmes than the Government have been able to fund.

I have set out today why I believe that sure start should achieve its aims and objectives. If it proves to be an effective model, how will the Government ensure that the lessons that are learned can be used in other areas? It is unlikely that there will be funding for every area that wants sure start or we think might need it. However, every area already has agencies working with families: health visitors, social and educational services, and community and voluntary organisations. How can those existing services learn the lessons to achieve the aims of sure start, and of all of us, for the development of all young children? In short, how can the sure start approach become mainstream provision for the benefit of all children?

Sure start rightly tries to move our society away from the situation in which, from the day a child is born, we can look at their family and neighbourhood and have a good idea of what chance they have of succeeding in life. However, we do not want sure start to create further divisions or children living on a sure start-supported estate to have a better chance than those on a next-door estate that does not have such an initiative. The Government should be commended for developing the sure start programme, but I want it to make a difference to an even greater number of children. If that can be achieved, we will be on our way to giving more children real chances in life and to building stronger communities and society.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on securing the debate and adding to the number of women Members of Parliament in south Yorkshire in the 2001 election. I am pleased to be able to take part today because I am on the board of the Denaby sure start programme, which now includes Conisbrough. When the Denaby sure start first began as a trailblazer project, we were just part of a local authority ward. We have now been extended to cover the whole of the ward and include Conisbrough, which raises new challenges.

My hon. Friend is right. The Government's priority is to recognise that Governments can play a supportive role at the earliest points in children's lives, not by nannying, but by meeting the needs of parents in the community. We must recognise that parents play the most important role in a child's life and that they need support as well.

I welcome today's debate and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my fellow board members, with whom I have shared the ups and downs in trying to get the project off the ground in the past few years. I congratulate our director Julie Warren, who has just gone on maternity leave, and wish good luck to Jane Stanley, who has just been appointed as deputy and will cover many of her duties. I congratulate all the sure start staff and the volunteers from the community who have put so much effort and support into making the project such a success, in particular with the parenting group that we have formed in our board.

Our board made the early decision that it would consist of a third each from statutory agencies, community representatives—of which I am one—and parents. That brings its own challenge in bringing people together from different backgrounds and ensuring that they all have an equal say and stake in decisions.

I am sure that the Minister would agree that now is a good time to raise questions, some of which she may not be able to answer when she sums up today. With the roll-out of more sure starts—Doncaster will shortly have five—it is an opportune moment for hon. Members to talk about their experiences and views, which might be helpful in these pioneering days to the ongoing development of this policy area.

I realise that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall just raise a few issues. First, funding is important. Sure start has a good funding basis on which to develop, but the reality is that other funding is in force in the communities where sure start is located. Conisbrough and Denaby, for example, have neighbourhood renewal, health action zone and housing management programmes, a town centre partnership, the Wellgate community project, the community composting network, the organic community farm and more. Additionally, we have the crime and disorder partnership, which covers Doncaster, the early years child care development partnership and more. Those are all worthy projects and it is proper that the Government should fund them.

In several respects, however, those projects are dealing with the same issues as sure start, albeit with a different focus. One issue in common is the regeneration of communities, which is about social as well as economic regeneration. I represent a former mining constituency, as does the Minister, which has just one working pit today. Several generations have not worked down the mine and are not part of the old welfare network that the National Coal Board and the unions provided for the mining communities. Today, communities are grappling to find a new sense of social cohesion for the future. New jobs and skills for the future are an important part of that.

Many of the neighbourhoods in which sure start was piloted, is situated or will he coming on line soon have different pockets of funding without much cohesion: the issues need to be brought together. The Government, the Minister and other Ministers must recognise that we must encourage linkage between the different regeneration groups.

Jane Stanley, the deputy director of our sure start, found out by chance that a community group wanted to develop a training centre. Child care, education and training are, alongside health support and everything else, an important part of sure start's ethos. The truth is that poverty is at the root of the most vulnerable families' problems. Education was probably hit and miss for many families and the thought of going back into education holds its own challenges for many.

Here is an obvious linkage: one community group could lead on that issue, but sure start should be part of the process. Funding may be available through objective 1 or neighbourhood renewal, but joined-up thinking about the linkage of issues is necessary. The last thing that we want is community groups, whether development groups or trusts, doing all the leg work in competing for funding, when there could be more cohesion and working together. That is important for sure start, which has received funding to pay for staff. Many other community groups do not have staff, but work purely on a volunteer basis.

We must ensure that sure start is not viewed as the big sister with all the money, staff and professionals somehow undermining the other voluntary groups. That is not good for people management or working together. We do not want the volunteer groups to feel intimidated by another organisation taking over. Our board has to grapple with issues as important as linkage, but there are lessons for other sure starts in Doncaster and throughout the country.

It is important to consider management. In Doncaster, we have five sure starts. Two of them—Conisbrough and Denaby sure start, with which I am involved, and Mexborough sure start—will be under the Doncaster West primary care trust. The other sure starts will come under NCH management. Clearly, if we have five sure starts in Doncaster, there will need to be an overall Doncaster liaison group through which they can work together. As other parts of south Yorkshire come online, there will be the potential for sub-regional liaison.

I hope that people will not misunderstand me. I do not want to create a mammoth bureaucracy, but the situation needs to be considered, and Government help would be useful with regard to ideas about how it can be managed. We want to avoid a revolving-door situation, in which the same people are always going to ever more meetings.

The chair of the early years child care and development partnership, Trevor Finch, attends our sure start board meetings. However, with five sure starts in Doncaster, how will that partnership meet the needs of all five? The answer may be to have a representative on the liaison group and somehow feed into that.

My next point concerns baseline data. At least one sure start was knocked back because of a poor business plan. A key element was whether the base data on the population's needs were accurate. That was not my scheme, but having been through the process, I have some sympathy. The collection of accurate data is fraught with difficulty. Much of the local authority data is not broken down within a ward—it is only on a ward basis—so trying to break data down into smaller communities is difficult, particularly when one is trying to set targets. In addition, I understand that information on child minders is hampered by data protection legislation.

In practice, not only sure start, but probably every regeneration bid—whether from the Home Office side, the Department for Education and Skills, or wherever—relies on a group or partnership spending a year auditing or drawing together data on crime, poverty and income. In that case, why not have a central information unit collate and update that information for each locality to stop everyone reinventing the wheel? All those different projects rightly have to assess the outcomes that they are achieving as compared with when they started, and a unit such as I have described would avoid the need for individual groups to scrabble around to pull information together.

On resources or support for family support strategies, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley about mainstreaming. As I have said many times, we have five sure starts in Doncaster. I like to think of them as five pebbles in a pond. They are all in different locations. I hope that the effect of their work will ripple outward, the ripples will at some point converge, and the whole of Doncaster will eventually be covered by the innovation and ideas that sure start brings to the discussion about supporting family strategies.

There are other issues. Within my sure start, health visitors have adapted their work. Some health visitors have seized that opportunity. Previously, they did not have the opportunity or funding, but now they have. Others have found it more difficult to make the transition. They have worked in a certain way and are not ready and I imagine that that is probably the case in a number of other fields that involve working with families, such as social services and education.

There are lessons to be learned about how we can take the new ways of working forward. That leads into the modernisation of the national health service and social services. The question is how we can take ideas from the new ways of working in sure start and apply them to national qualifications and training for all workers in those different fields. Some of the best practice from sure start could be integrated into the national training accreditation for health visitors in future. That would be one way of mushrooming up some of that best practice.

Likewise, before sure start, we traditionally had family centres in Doncaster, and we still have them. Much good work is done in those centres, but they are sometimes not helped by the perception that they represent an old model of local government delivery in this field. There are some fantastic people working in those centres, who, without the funding of sure start, are trying to do what it is doing. How can we embrace them in our family support network? How can we give them a chance to reinvent themselves, even if, in many cases, they are doing very good work?

On links with common health messages, sure start deals daily with drugs and teenage pregnancy. Many groups and organisations, and those involved with healthy living and healthy schools programmes, should talk to sure start about what is happening to the people whom they meet. Those groups are often not consulted or brought into the loop, although their input is valuable to the bodies and organisations that lead the way in such subjects. Government funding should require sure start to become one of the partners, or at least a consultee on such subjects, when that is appropriate.

The Government are achieving a lot and are prioritising family support, although every family is different. It is difficult for the public to get a total picture of what is going on, as there are so many initiatives and projects. Families do not fit into nice neat boxes or have, for example, only pre-school children. They may have both children at primary school and teenagers, and grandparents may be involved. Our sure start is meant to be for pre-school children, and it is, but we often have to engage all members of the family so that they can understand what we are trying to do and how we can bring them in. There are also those families in the community, particularly of an older generation, that no longer have children living with them.

Now is a good time to take stock of sure start and how it links with the national child care strategy. I am delighted that we have a full-time day nursery as part of our sure start building. However, that is not the end of the matter; we need to have all the other services in the community as well. The building is one thing, but it is the services outside the building and how we link them up with other services that support families that are important. That is a challenging piece of work. I have gained tremendously from being involved in my sure start project. I congratulate the Government on the initiative, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley for arranging the debate.

I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on initiating this important discussion. It is nice to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) because we paupers in the 175 square miles of Lancaster and Wyre do not have a single sure start project. I fervently wish I did; I am here partly to ask why we do not have one, as we need several.

I have managed family centres and child minders, have been part of local education authority partnerships, and have worked in community development, and I am particularly envious of places that have sure start programmes. They are a classic example of how the Government are working to attack poverty and some of the most difficult and entrenched problems associated with it. Sure start is the epitome of good community development. It is an anti-poverty strategy that empowers families and enables generations to move out of the cycle of deprivation lasting decades, and it enables them to improve their communities and their lives.

Sure start programmes are a way of transforming the ghastly self-serving bureaucracies with which the public sector can become engaged. The public sector can challenge them and change them into powerful agents on behalf of communities. They seem to me to be a radical way of approaching service development, and of ensuring that such services strongly reflect the needs, views and ideas of the local communities that they serve. Such projects are needed if we are going to establish responsive services that listen to and learn from the people on the ground who experience the daily reality of their communities' poverty and deprivation. They are also needed if we are going to attack the professional and organisational boundaries that often get in the way of the provision of really good services to people.

There is not a sure start programme in my constituency, but I am married to someone who managed one until a few months ago—I sometimes felt that I was married to a sure start programme—and that has left me with a good impression. Sure start works. It is a model to which communities respond. People understand what it is trying to achieve; the residents of places that have suffered most from long-term unemployment, poverty, poor services, community breakdown and deprivation recognise that a programme that will focus on the needs of a new generation can help their communities to escape from the isolation and alienation that they have experienced and that, therefore, it is worth supporting. Such communities recognise that what is needed is a long-term approach to difficulties that have been created over the long term—difficulties that are inter-generational.

Some of the problems that I have come across are caused by the difficulties of establishing sure start in areas that have several levels of local government. That produces disadvantages and they are particularly acute where a shire county council links with a district county council.

Other messages that I have received point to things that need to be worked on as a sure start project develops. Many of them refer to the quality of local people's commitment to sure start; it is important that there is a strong local partnership to enable sure start to get under way, and it is essential that Government and the sure start organisation—and all of us, in fact—ensure that the true partners are working coherently, so that sure start works.

I have heard about some of the difficulties that have been created when partners have not been prepared to take responsibility for crucial issues, such as the insurance of staff. I have also heard about partners who do not face problems and issues together, but pass the buck on to others, and about partners who have felt that they did not need to continue their investment in other services, because there is a sure start project in the area. That entirely belies what sure start is trying to achieve. I have also heard about poor communication between partners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley was talking about several subjects: the sort of information that is needed; the impact of sure start; and the needs of particular communities. Although those are extremely important, politicians might have a different perspective and feel the need to show success, which is not always helpful to people working on the ground. Several problems with which projects are engaged are deep-seated, profound and long-standing. Even with the best will in the world, all the resources in the world and the skills and experience that go into the projects, the problems will not be addressed immediately. Dealing with the problems requires a great deal of confidence and relationship building, in addition to the empowerment of powerless communities and the building of their resources.

My impression of all this is that perhaps too much information is sought and that attempts are made to measure success too early in the process. Given the high standard of quality and commitment of the people working in sure start whom I have met, perhaps we should relax, empower and help those people and trust their professional abilities a little more. The model is good and there is a good way of working that is tried and tested. There are clear ways forward.

My hon. Friend mentioned what happens if some parts of an area have a sure start programme while others do not. As I said, I feel that acutely. Although it might be unrealistic to think that we could have a sure start programme in every community that needs one, the example of sure start should help us to transform our general services. We need services that focus on the needs, wishes and feelings of people in the community. We need services that listen to children and young people. We need services that are not interested in professional boundaries and barriers, but that are prepared to work together throughout disciplines and organisations to focus on individuals in need in our communities. There must be modernisation of the public services that deal with such issues, and projects such as sure start must be involved in early years partnerships, regeneration opportunities and a holistic emphasis on community development.

I want a huge transformation of local government services. I would like children's departments to be re-established and transformed to bring together not only local government services, education and social services, but aspects of health services. The way in which sure start operates is a good model for the future, but we can progress further and build on the success that has been achieved.

I do not want to repeat the eloquent praise of the concept of sure start that we heard from the previous three speakers. I want to focus instead on the precise selection of communities that would be served by sure start. If my hon. Friend the Minister who is to respond to the debate has a long and detailed memory, she will remember that I raised that matter some years ago. My constituency is mainly rural, with small towns. The concentration of deprivation that is usually a sign of a requirement for a sure start programme is difficult to establish. Such deprivation is often concentrated in a corner of a rural ward or in a small village, and the sure start programme is not well adapted to deal with that requirement.

That position has now changed substantially and, last week, I moved ahead of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) because we now have a mini-sure start programme that is funded within south Derbyshire. That is excellent news and we are all delighted about it. It will be located in the area where local councillors, the local infants school, community groups that serve the estates and I lobbied for it initially. We are celebrating.

However, it is extremely difficult to get such schemes off the ground. It was not our first attempt to establish a scheme. We tried earlier and one of the difficulties that we faced was that the mini-sure start scheme offers only two years of guaranteed funding. That is an intimidating barrier for a low-income community. It means that, after two years, the services to be gained from sure start will not necessarily be funded by the public purse; they may have to be funded through a variety of means that will involve payments from the local community or additional well-resourced, fund-raising activity that is targeted through the new opportunities fund or other sources of funding.

Many lottery projects in my constituency face that difficulty. The resources of volunteers who can put together well-organised, fund-raising schemes are scarce, and to be faced with yet another large bill in two years put them off the initial project. They said that they could not proceed on that basis and did not want to land themselves with a liability that they might later regret.

There were further hurdles this time round. Although many encouraging noises were made about the early years partnership that was sponsoring the project, there was a block on the money coming through. I commend Derbyshire county council for its endorsement of the project. It loaned money to the partnership to purchase the site adjacent to the nursery that was being erected by private funds in Woodville to ensure that the project was kept on track. It also retained the builders working on the nursery, which will be finished in August, to erect the building for the mini-sure start programme in the area. The council played a critical role and provided the sellotape to ensure that the project goes through to its eventual outcome in January of next year for 200 local children and their parents in the Woodville and Hartshorne area of south Derbyshire. It will be of huge benefit.

I am not trying to make out that my constituency is the most deprived in the country. I am pleased to say that it is not. However, Woodville and Hartshorne certainly have a higher concentration of unemployment and poor health indicators than elsewhere in south Derbyshire. They are on the edge of the Swadlincote urban area and that has a higher concentration of young parents, too, which is typical within Derbyshire. Those are all reasons why a mini-sure start programme would benefit the community and I am grateful that one has been established. It has proved hard to obtain. In some ways, those difficulties resulted in a tougher and more resilient process than might have existed in other circumstances.

An important private sector partnership is involved. Hermitage Day Nurseries is constructing a building that will provide 90 places locally, 48 of which are reserved for the local community. A close relationship is expected with the sure start programme, which will run from the building next door. The early years partnership and its members played a critical part in pulling together the scheme and making it work. As I said, the county council has been critical in trying to ensure that the scheme stays on track in spite of hiccups and difficulties.

The local infant school and the pre-schools are heavily involved in making the scheme a working reality in the community. I am certain that it will be a tremendous success and I shall be delighted to see progress well beyond the two years for which it is guaranteed. However, such projects require a support mechanism to ensure their continuity, provided that they meet our performance targets. In my area, the mechanism that should be considered is support for the early years partnership, to ensure some continuity of funding for the project into the future.

It would be a tragedy if, having won what is a small victory in the greater scheme of things but a large success in such communities, that victory were snatched away in two years' time, when significant progress was obviously being made to meet our goals. That progress involves improving parents' skills and the expected outcomes of children served by the project, and, as has been said, increasing the local community's resilience through witnessing a success in their midst that is brought about and managed by their own efforts. That must not be placed at risk by short-term, pump-priming funding, however well intentioned that model might be. I hope that the Minister will offer some thoughts about how that support can be maintained in future.

I am pleased to be taking part in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on having secured it. I have two sure start programmes in my constituency and want to make the case for a further one. I therefore have some way to go to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).

The first programme was in the Camborne area. Shortly after the 1997 election, I visited the Trevu centre—a former school that had become a derelict building—and walked into a school holidays club. Cynthia Watmore and others present said, "What we'd really like, Candy, if your Government is really committed to tackling the problems of the Grenville estate and the Camborne area, is something that starts before the child is born, and goes right the way through, rather than waiting to tackle the problem until the child gets to school. Wouldn't it be great if we took this building and did something really creative with it?" I look at it now, and it is amazing. I wish that my hon. Friend the Minister could come and see it, perhaps on a visit to Cornwall. It is a true inspiration and shows what can be done when public authorities have turned their back on a building, saying that they can do no more with it. We have changed it.

Just over year ago, when the Trevu site was being regenerated and rehabilitated, it was brought home to me how such a project can impact on people. I went to the Grenville estate in Camborne. Sitting in one of the front gardens was a group of young women, most of whom were pregnant and had children at their feet. I went up to them, as one does in politics, and said, "Hi, I'm Candy. Will you be going out to vote?" They said, "No. Why should we? You never do anything for us." I pointed over to the school site and said, "You go in there in a few months. See what a difference there is and be part of it."

One young woman was quite unpleasant to me, if the truth be known, which is why she sticks in my mind—such people tend to. Amazingly, when I went back to the Trevu centre a few weeks ago to open the toy library, she was helping to run it. She was smarter and brighter and her child was engaged and actively involved. She was also there on a subsequent visit, taking a leading role.

Sure start is about taking and helping a person to emerge almost chrysalis-like from someone who sat in front of the television watching "EastEnders" all the time to someone engaged in the community and taking part in computer training, which is tremendous. The Government should be congratulated. Instead of her child growing up in an environment in which nothing ever changes, both child and mother have an opportunity and expectation for the future. Good on the Government—that is what I say.

The sure start in Camborne links into other programmes introduced by the Government, such as the working families tax credit, the health and education action zones and wider regeneration of the community. I genuinely believe that children's expectations and horizons grow when one's neighbourhood and opportunities are improved.

My second sure start is still at an embryonic stage. It is based in Penryn and the Beacon estate in Falmouth, of which I hope the Minister will be aware. Although Penryn is further down the line, people who know about the subject are aware that Hazel Stukley and others in Falmouth have done some trailblazing work around which sure start and home start have begun. They started their work during the previous Tory Government because they were so frustrated that nothing was happening in one of the poorest wards in the whole country. They said, "Enough is enough. We must start turning this around." As health visitors, they started programmes that built on others, pyramid-like. Dentistry came into the estate for the first time. Eating problems were tackled. Things happened incrementally and grew.

When I look at the Beacon estate now, there has been a remarkable change. I visited a couple of weeks ago and pay tribute to Councillor Gerald Quin Chee, Mary May and Lesley Trenchard, who are doing so much in the community. I used to be a social worker and I do not believe in putting sticking plaster on social problems, which is one reason why I went into politics. We must solve the problems at their foundations and roots. Sure start is all about that. It is not sticking plaster. It says, "Let's tackle deprivation and problems and make a real impact on social and health care, employment and your child's expectations." I am bowled over by what is happening.

One area of my constituency is not part of the wonderful scheme. As the Minister will know, my constituency is one of the poorest. We "enjoy" objective 1 status—the highest level of structural funding in Europe—because we are among the poorest. It is even mooted that, because the rest of the country is soaring away and Cornwall is doing great things, we are lagging further behind and, despite enlargement, we may qualify for objective 1 in the next round, which is very depressing. There is a feel-good feeling in the county, we are moving forward, but despite that, we still lag behind. In north Kerrier, one of the poorest parts of the poorest county, are the Redruth and Pool areas, which link across to Camborne. Camborne, Pool and Redruth are former tin-mining communities in the lee of the Carn Brea hills. Allegedly, the people of Camborne do not talk to the people of Redruth, and vice versa, although that is changing, but the communities share high unemployment and great social deprivation.

I understand that Redruth is one area being considered for that status in the last round, and I make a plea to the Minister for it to be included, to tackle problems in the foundation way that I have discussed. I strongly urge her to look sympathetically at Redruth's needs. I thank her and the Government enormously for everything else that is going on.

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on instigating the debate. I hope that the Minister will listen to many of the comments that she and other hon. Members have made. Although the Liberal Democrats have praised the sure start initiative from its inception, problems arise from it and there are issues to be addressed. Many of those have been referred to.

Ensuring that children have the very best start in life has always been a central plank of our policy. My background is in architecture. I know that the foundations of a building have to be down before the superstructure can be put up. What happens in early years is like those foundations, and the best foundations are required. We have always given great prominence to the importance of identifying at the earliest possible age children with particular needs and providing remedies with the potential to meet those needs so that they can move forward with their peers and take the fullest possible advantage of their education and social opportunities.

That should mean that many children who might otherwise face considerable difficulties have the chance to grow up as well-rounded and productive members of society. For as many years as I care to remember, we have argued for the integration of care and education, and multi-agency involvement in the early support of a child and its family.

Another principle dear to us is that decision making should happen at the lowest possible level. Sure start meets all those criteria. It is a well-founded scheme in its planning and delivery and it is making real differences to the lives of many children and families. I hope that it will go on to benefit many more. The Government must be praised for that. For too long, Governments of all colours have tended to tell people what is good for them, whether they like it or not. Some parts of the Government still tend to do that, although not in this case. The requirement to involve local people, especially those who will benefit from sure start schemes, in the planning and delivery of services as far as possible departs significantly from that tendency. The extensive consultation required, and the fact that users of the services all over the country are involved, should be a great source of satisfaction to the Government.

Of course, it is difficult to get such people involved in what may be an intimidating experience for them. It must be very difficult for a layperson to sit on a committee of health care and education professionals, planning the delivery of multimillion-pound schemes. However, on the principle that large oaks from little acorns grow, it is hoped that, once service users get the taste for being able to influence directly what is on offer, many more will wish to be involved.

As an aside, it is worth saying that the Government should pay attention to what is happening in that respect and extend the principle to other areas of their policy. All over the country, Liberal Democrat councillors have found that consulting and involving local people in decision making makes the quality of service provision, as measured by its relevance to the lives of local people, rise considerably. Long may that principle continue at all levels of government.

One criticism of sure start is that it was originally concentrated in urban areas. The Government responded to that criticism, however, and the problem has been tackled. Sure start projects have recently been introduced in rural areas and about 50 schemes are in operation or at the planning stage. We welcome that significant improvement in the extension of sure start ideas, but with one or two reservations. In particular, the level of funding is rather low and the duration of the schemes is rather short.

The Liberal Democrats have often drawn attention to the fact that considerable deprivation exists in many rural areas and we are pleased that the Government have recognised its existence—particularly since the foot and mouth disaster, which has had such an impact in many remote areas. The nature of such areas means, however, that it is often more difficult and expensive to deliver the quality services necessary. Remote areas have transport difficulties and problems of isolation affect precisely those families who are most likely to benefit from sure start. In addition, consulting and helping such people is an order of magnitude more difficult.

That is not to say that innovative schemes have not been devised or that local people have not been involved. Dedicated and creative people have done a great deal of significant work to overcome shortcomings. The sure start unit approved an interesting scheme that was developed in north Allerdale, in north Cumbria—an area that was devastated by foot and mouth disease. In the light of the large and scattered area covered by the project, the local steering group decided that it would be difficult, if not impossible to avoid the stigma of sure start provision to the disadvantaged. It has therefore devised a scheme to seek external funding to make services available to all the children and their families. That has meant raising the same amount of external revenue funding as is provided with sure start and a considerable amount of extra capital funding. That will greatly benefit all the children and families in the area and provide extra specialist help for target families. It is a credit to the sure start unit that it recognised the innovative nature of the north Allerdale scheme and gave its approval. I am sure that the scheme will be closely watched and that lessons will be learned from it.

I referred to the problem of funding for small sure start programmes and more needs to be done in that regard. The small schemes are funded for only two years, and there has been no indication of whether funding will continue after that initial period. It makes little sense to devise a programme to support children from birth to three years old, only to end it after two years. That contrasts with the full sure start schemes, which run for 10 years and receive considerably more funding. Funding for small sure start programmes may have been intended to cover the period until the end of the current comprehensive spending review and may be extended in the next review—I certainly hope so. It would be a great shame and a disservice to rural areas if schemes were cut just when they were becoming effective.

Much of the criticism of time scales would disappear if the Government gave a commitment to extend the schemes beyond the current two-year period. Could the Minister give such an undertaking? If so, small sure start schemes would take their place alongside the full schemes as effective and innovative solutions to long-term pressing problems. Without such an undertaking, however, they will be short-term fixes only with a lasting impact on only relatively few children.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on initiating a good debate in what has been a pleasant atmosphere. The concerns and criticisms that have been expressed have been sufficiently benign for the Minister to he quite relaxed when she replies. By and large, she has responsibility for what we all consider to be a good programme. We all want improvements to be made to it, but she will recognise that it is well supported and has great practical effect, judging from the local examples that we have been given.

Sure start is a key part of the Government's anti-poverty strategy, and I shall remark on that as well as on sure start itself. That we seriously consider poverty and recognise the complexity in putting forward solutions and ideas is self-evidently a good thing, but it is fraught with hazards. Among those, is the party political approach that seems to deny that anyone else cares about the subject, or that anything was done before certain key dates, which normally coincide with the election of parties to Government. Another hazard is to become too attached to particular policies as "the answer", although the evidence might be piling to suggest that it is not.

What depresses all of us, whenever the issue is addressed, is to recognise that the map of areas of relative deprivation throughout the United Kingdom shows little change over a century. In a country that has become progressively wealthier, material poverty is markedly different from that of previous generations, but the poverty of hope, aspiration and achievement is perhaps more acute now than ever before; that so much of it seems to be concentrated in children and young people is doubly hard to bear.

There have never been such opportunities—and many people grasp them—but what is it that prevents some from even dreaming of the heights to which they could aspire, let alone achieving the steps along the way? My background in the subject is that I was a Minister in the Department of Social Security with responsibility for low-income benefits and poverty issues between 1992 and 1995. Between 1994 and 1997, I had responsibility for city challenge projects in Hulme in Manchester, in Bolton, in Blackburn and in Wigan. I was therefore able to make judgments at the time, and to have made them since, on which national and local policies have been successful. Nothing has yet convinced me that there is one simple answer, as others who have described the long-term nature of the problem have confirmed this morning.

Sure start has always struck me as a sensible initiative. To bring together a variety of bodies that are concerned with the welfare of the child at the earliest stage, in places associated with poor expectations and outcomes, has obvious merits. I look forward to hearing further about the evaluations when completed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley gave graphic examples of why the scheme was necessary in her area. She described family breakdown, those in difficulty with their children, parents who find the most basic things difficult, and the lack of knowledge about what to do in every possible circumstance. She also spoke about delinquency. All in all, sure start has made a difference to her, and the way in which she described that suggests that she wants the lessons learned to be accepted elsewhere.

The hon. Lady was followed by the hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Teignbridge (Richard. Younger-Ross). In various ways, they described how the scheme could be reformed or how some schemes could be introduced to particular places. I was pleased that a couple of hon. Members mentioned the problem of trying to deal with indices of poverty in areas that are generally well off, but which have poorer pockets. I suffered from that, as you will recall, Mr. Winterton—

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in this place I have a particular title that has been hard-earned over many years—additional Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Additional Deputy Speaker, I shall place both knees on my chair to address you so that I strike the right pose. You will recognise, as you are from the north-west, that one can represent an affluent constituency, but still find pockets of deprivation within it. We would all be pleased if better targeting dealt with that.

The sure start initiative seems to pick up one of the key lessons learned from initiatives such as city challenge: attending to the bricks and mortar of environmental improvements is only one part of complex jigsaw. The more difficult part is to affect hearts and minds, to change attitudes and expectations, and—with sympathy and great effort—to work on changing people.

The initiative must also take note of the second most important lesson, which, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge said, is one that the Government sometimes find hard to take in: control must be relinquished to allow people as much power as possible to effect the most important changes in their lives. It was noticeable that hon. Members who spoke of successful schemes thanked those who were involved locally and gave credit to people who were the inspiration behind several of the initiatives.

We also need to be honest about the time scale. It is unfashionable for politicians to admit that anything they want to achieve will take longer than the term of a Parliament; hon. Members referred to that. Let me be doubly courageous. First, The Prime Minister was courageous and right to break the rule when he talked about ending child poverty over a 20-year period. Secondly, even that time scale is not long enough. It will take longer than that for certain changes really to take root, and they have to last more than one generation.

I am reminded of the need to work for a longer period by an article that appeared in The Times today about Bob Holman, whose name is familiar to many of us who deal with poverty issues. I first went to see Bob on his estate in 1992, when I had responsibility for benefits, and saw some of his work. Ten years later, he is still doing essentially the same work and demonstrating the benefit of continuity. The newspaper article includes a quote from him:

"Our work is long term. You cannot solve problems in three years here. You have got to grow up with people. You have got to grow up with families. It just doesn't seem to be within the grasp of politicians who want it now and who want to work on short-term targets. It's a different ball game."

I get the glimmer of a sense that dealing with poverty issues is not a short-term game. All hon. Members can agree on that, and that is welcome.

However, may I briefly flag up two areas of concern, both of which might undermine the child poverty reduction initiatives, of which sure start is such an important part. I alluded to the first earlier; namely, the danger of being overly attached to certain policies, despite the evidence. Last week, the Government published data on child poverty that revealed that they had failed to meet their claim to have taken 1.2 million children out of poverty in their first term. I refer to a press release from the Child Poverty Action Group:

"The Government has failed to meet its target for reducing child poverty, official figures published today reveal. The figures, which give a snap shot of child poverty before the last election, reveal that child poverty fell by only 500,000 between 1996/97 and 2000/01. This is against the measure of poverty which the Government has consistently used in setting its targets."

Without dwelling too much on that, may I suggest that one reason for that is the myriad changes to low-income benefits, particularly an over-reliance on tax credits.

The Minister will be aware of criticisms that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is particularly concerned about the way in which tax credits have been used. They have not fulfilled the objectives that we would all like to achieve of relieving child poverty and contributing to anti-poverty measures.

For example, between 1999 and 2003, the Government will have successively abolished family credit, introduced working families tax credit, introduced disabled persons tax credit, introduced child care tax credit, introduced employment credit, abolished married couples allowance, introduced children's tax credit, introduced baby tax credit, abolished working families tax credit, abolished disabled persons tax credit, abolished children's tax credit, abolished baby tax credit, introduced child tax credit, abolished employment credit and introduced working tax credit. In all, between those years, the Government will have introduced five new tax credits for families, scrapped four of them and then introduced two new ones in April 2003.

It is no wonder that, A, people are confused, B, the take-up has not been as good as it should be, C, some of the benefits are not going to the most needy and, D, there is a worry about introducing more tax credits, because they are not actually doing the job that they are designed to do. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the issue and explained where it fits in with the present anti-poverty strategy. Perhaps it is time to review it.

My last point is even more difficult. I introduce it gently, but it is very important. At some stage, any serious attempt to lift children out of poverty will have to examine the damage caused by broken relationships and reconsider the promotion of marriage. No one doubts the emotional and financial damage done to children and families through the breakdown of relationships. However, strong evidence is emerging from a series of studies that points to the advantage of marriage over all other forms of relationship for positive outcomes for children in relation to health, achievement, propensity to crime and so on.

Let me be very clear about what I am and am not saying. We have moved on from taking the side of marriage from a moral-authoritarian point of view that one ought to marry because it is right, and one should be condemned if one does not do so. I do not advocate that attitude. Those who advocate marriage are not simply putting forward a rosy, starry-eyed view. Marriages are rarely perfect, but successful ones weather the sort of storms in which other relationships may break down, in which case the most vulnerable are left more vulnerable still.

Can people have successful relationships outside marriage? Yes, of course they can, and that is their choice. Can children be brought up successfully in relationships outside marriage? Yes, of course they can. There is, however, growing evidence that the best outcomes for children come from married relationships. If we are really serious about the issue, it is time not for a particular political party to claim that idea, but for all of us to recognise that strong families, which can exist with good values from any class or background, need support and advocacy.

Bearing that in mind, will the Minister say why the Government have withdrawn their support for national marriage week, which the Lord Chancellor's Department has previously supported? It could easily be supported within the Government's existing policy of not distinguishing between different forms of stable relationship. If we are looking at what works and what works best, the evidence is growing in favour of marriage as the most secure base for children. It is time that we all re-examined our attitude to that in a non-pejorative, rational, straightforward manner. With that, and the continuing successful work being done by sure start, the future for anti-child poverty measures in this country is quite bright.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on securing this debate and choosing to raise an issue that is immensely important to young children and their families, and will continue to be important to them for many years to come.

It is a great privilege to work on the sure start programme because it has immense support throughout the country, and it is clearly supported by Members of Parliament of all parties. It is unusual when the most hostile question that one gets from MPs is, "Can we have one in my area, please?" That is a tribute to the immense amount of work that is being done throughout the country by the sure start programmes. I also pay tribute to Naomi Eisenstadt, the head of the sure start unit, and her team, which does an immense amount of work on a new programme that is difficult because it requires a new way of working. We sometimes overestimate how easy it is to do things such as sure start that have so much support because everybody wants to do them and thinks that they are valuable.

Sure start produces a lot of challenges in local areas and it requires many changes in the way in which things are traditionally done. It is an immense tribute to the huge amount of work that is being done in those areas that the sure start programme is gaining so much support. Some of the most powerful evidence is the anecdotal information that one hears when one visits sure start programmes. I was given a scrapbook that had a series of pictures and images that local children and parents had collected. It included the phrase, "Please, please keep our sure start going because it has changed my life."

I have heard very strong statements from parents. I visited the Nottingham sure start, where one woman said that she had been on the housing transfer list for a long time. She had been waiting for many years and had just been offered a house in another area. She had been desperate to get off her estate for a long time, but because sure start had arrived she rejected the move because she wanted to stay. Having sure start facilities and sure start support on her doorstep was making a huge difference to her family life, and a huge difference to her wanting to stay in that area. That is powerful testimony to what sure start is doing. Of course, it is not all that easy. There are real challenges, and many hon. Members raised issues that we need to address. However, sure start is working and making a real difference to family lives.

Sure start was established in April 1999 after work in the comprehensive spending review showed that there were alarming disparities between the life chances of children in poverty and those living in more affluent circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley described many of the problems that sure start aims to address. One key issue is the difference in life chances for those growing up on a low income compared with everyone else, which can be observed in children when they are as young as 22 months. One can see the differences in what is happening to children very early in their lives, and then see those differences widening as they grow up. It is also about recognising that universal mainstream services often do not do well enough at supporting those in poverty in the lowest income areas, who often do not receive the same services as everyone else. We must recognise that it is part of a broader strategy, as many hon. Members suggested, to abolish child poverty altogether.

Abolishing child poverty is about not just raising family income, but addressing and raising opportunities. The key elements of sure start are: focusing on the under-fours for the first time, focusing on parents and communities, and what parents want in their local areas, focusing mainstream services on deprivation and integrating services, while ensuring that they are universal and non-stigmatising. We have set clear targets for sure start for social and emotional development, health, the ability to learn, and strengthening families and communities. During the first five-year period, 1.4 billion is going into sure start. That will set up 500 sure start programmes-437 have been announced already and 259 of those programmes have been approved. We expect to reach about a third of children under four who are living in poverty.

I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) in favour of a further sure start for Redruth. I also understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was seeking more sure start support for his constituency. Hon. Members will understand that the way in which the sure start programmes are targeted is to recognise areas of deprivation and concentrate on them. The sure start programmes that are already up and running are having an impact on the increasing number of child care places and other related issues.

It takes a long time for sure start to have an impact. Ultimately, we are concerned with making an impact on children in 10, 20 or 30 years. We have a substantial research programme to monitor and evaluate sure start programmes—not just what they are doing during the next couple of years, but what they will do for the long term. We will need to learn those lessons.

I particularly want to deal with the points that many hon. Members have made about where sure start goes next. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that there were problems about sure start that had to be addressed. They are not necessarily problems; I think that they are limitations of the existing sure start programme. We must recognise that the programme cannot do all of the things that we want it to do. The question is, what are the next steps for the programme?

We must recognise the issues identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) as regards areas where there are smaller pockets of deprivation. What can one do about the situation in Doncaster, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? There are four sure start programmes there already. How do we link them up to cover all of the areas in between? How do we reach children living on low income who do not live in areas of concentrated deprivation, which are the most suitable areas for the current model of sure start?

We have already examined how one might build on the model of sure start by considering the rural pilots, for example. We are taking sure start into 13 rural areas, and four more are being developed. Those areas face different types of problems, which are not about simply taking parents and children to sure start services. We need to take sure start and mainstream services to parents and children in those rural areas. I accept the points that hon. Members have made about the mini-sure starts. Those must consider the long-term issues, not just a two-year period. The programme that we have set up so far is not the solution to the problem of small pockets of deprivation. It is a £22 million limited-pilot programme, from which we will learn lessons.

We know that there are people who live in small pockets of deprivation that we cannot reach through the existing sure start programme. We must learn how to reach them. Our long-term aim should be to provide sure start support for all children who are living on low income, wherever they may be. The challenge for us is to establish how to do that. One method is the mainstreaming programme, which is relevant to the situation in Doncaster. Pilot areas in Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester, Sunderland, Southampton, North Tyneside and Rochdale are looking at trying to mainstream the lessons from their sure start programmes and spread them across the whole area. They will pick them up in the mainstream services. I can certainly send my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley more information about those because she rightly raises some complicated issues.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised a series of tangential issues concerning child poverty and marriage. He should take those up with the relevant Ministers. Sure start should support all families, whatever their background and status. We must learn from what sure start is doing at present. A lot of progress is being made. We have many lessons for the future too.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of Lame magistrates court and to comment on the Northern Ireland Court Service's consultation document, "Court Accommodation in Northern Ireland 2001–2010". I wish to focus on the need to retain the Lame courthouse, which, among others that I cannot speak about from personal experience, is under consideration for closure.

I first want to record my appreciation of the willingness of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) in accepting my invitation to visit Larne courthouse. The interest she showed when she met the mayor of Lame, Councillor Fleck, chief executive Colm McGarry and the courthouse staff who provided a conducted tour and answered her probing questions was much appreciated. The consultation document has succeeded in stimulating discussion and public debate on court accommodation in Northern Ireland. The aims listed in paragraph 1.3 of the consultation document will have broad support. The Northern Ireland Court Service should plan to provide high-quality court accommodation in Northern Ireland; it should give the public value for money in the overall cost of building and refurbishment programmes; it should use resources sensibly; it should improve the quality of facilities for everyone who uses the courts and ensure that courthouses are reasonably accessible.

I am concerned that the burden of expense that would transfer to the least well off clients served by Lame courthouse could not be justified by a caring Government who claim to defend those least able to defend themselves in society. I challenge the assertion that facilities at Lame courthouse are poor and that there is little room for improvement. The special needs of children, families and the disabled within the justice system can be best served only by retention of Lame courthouse. It has the essential facilities to meet local needs and other desirable facilities could be added at modest expense.

I have served as an elected councillor in Larne, in the buildings opposite and adjacent to Lame courthouse, since 1973. I have never had a single complaint about the courthouse facilities. However, I cannot say the same about the medicine prescribed by the resident magistrates for those found guilty in court. Solicitors and barristers who use Larne courthouse regularly do not consider the current facilities to be sub-standard. When I contacted local legal practices for opinions on the consultation document, I received supportive replies. O'Rourke, McDonald and Tweed solicitors told me:

"In all our time of using this Courthouse, we have not had any complaints from our clients in relation to the facilities at the courthouse. As solicitors, we also do not have any problems with the facilities at the courthouse and have had no difficulties whatsoever carrying out duties there. Given that neither our clients nor ourselves nor, as far as we understand, our local colleagues, have had any problems with the facilities, we would suggest that, even though it is not a modern courthouse, its facilities are more than adequate for members of the public and professionals alike."

A representative of Johnston and Courtney solicitors agreed with that statement, as did McAllister, Keenan and Co. solicitors, whose experience of Lame courthouse is definite. McAllister, Keenan and Co. told me:

"As regular practitioners within this Court, we have never had any complaints from any of our clients in relation to any of the facilities. There may be a way in which the Courthouse facilities could be extended…[and] …some extra space could prove to be useful."

However, their next observation is significant:

"It is our experience that no matter what the facilities of any given building, people and products expand in order to consume the space available."

Although Lame is not a modern courthouse, the facilities are more than adequate for members of the public and professionals alike. The question has been asked locally whether the Northern Ireland Court Service is writing off Lame as not important enough to have its own courthouse. Life-long residents, runners into Lame like myself who have worked in the borough for more than 40 years, and the borough council, which represents the whole community, feel strongly that it is a matter of civic pride that Lame should retain its courthouse. The borough's population is increasing and continued growth is predicted.

At present, the courthouse handles a wide range of work daily and the staff provide a friendly service to all who have business to transact. Due to the geography of the borough, people who live outside the town already have to travel many miles, from Carnlough and Glenarm in the north of the borough and Islandmagee in the south, to attend Lame courthouse. There is a matrimonial court, a criminal court, a family proceedings court, a small claims court and a juvenile court, which all provide accessible local justice and other services.

Approximately 560 people per month use Lame courthouse, and the proposed closure and transfer to Antrim would cause immeasurable hardship, distress and inconvenience. Clients and professionals would be required to travel a further 20 miles, and there is no direct train or bus service. To get to Antrim for a 10 am sitting would mean catching the 6.53 am train from Larne to Belfast central station in order to catch the 8.5 am connecting train to Antrim, arriving there at 9.4 am. People living outside Lame town would be unreasonably inconvenienced and could be travelling from 6 am to get to Antrim for 10 am. The cost of a return ticket, at £11, would be like another small fine.

Bus travel would involve some risk of being late for a 10 am court sitting in Antrim. It would mean an early 7.35 am start from Lame to Belfast and then taking the 8.45 am connecting bus from Belfast to Antrim. A return ticket costs £10, with £3 for a taxi between the station and the courthouse, while a single taxi fare from Lame to Antrim costs £20.

My hon. Friend's point about the poor quality of public transport and the impact of the proposals on people who do not have access to cars—many people who are involved in the court proceedings do not have such access—relates to my concern about Banbridge magistrates court. In drawing up the proposals, the court service does not seem to have taken proper account of the transport difficulties, which is partly why we in Banbridge are concerned that our courthouse is retained as well.

As I pointed out, I personally know the details of how my constituents will be affected in Lame, and as my right hon. Friend noted, there will be comparable situations in other areas, including Banbridge. The proposals would adversely affect specific areas in Northern Ireland, and we want those matters to be considered further.

Most people who pay fines do not have bank accounts or chequebooks, and there could be major defaulting on payment of fines if the court moved to Antrim. That would put extra pressure on Antrim court, as warrants would have to be issued. Regrettably, police time would be wasted in serving them at a time when there is an acute shortage of police in most police stations.

Maintenance is paid into and out of Lame court to estranged wives and children, and is an important service. That money provides part of an essential weekly income and any disruption to regular payments into and out of the court would cause hardship.

Finally, press reporting in local papers of court sentences for crimes committed against society names and shames offenders, and in a small way may deter others from criminal activity. Readers of Lame newspapers do not purchase Antrim newspapers, so local accountability as a result of local reports of the workings of the criminal justice system would be lost. If our Government and the Northern Ireland Court Service care for clients who use court services in Lame and elsewhere, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convince those of us who also care by withdrawing the proposal to close Larne courthouse.

I also ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider how more desirable, although not essential, facilities can be installed at a reasonable cost to the public in the existing courthouses in Lame and Banbridge.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on securing the debate. He has campaigned vigorously on the issue on behalf of his constituents. I thank him for his kind remarks about my visit to Lame, which I will talk about later in greater detail. I listened carefully to all the points that he made so eloquently, but I will start by outlining some of the background to the changes that are proposed in our consultation document.

As hon. Members know, the Northern Ireland Court Service's accommodation strategy for 2001 to 2010 was issued for public consultation on 7 December 2001. The consultation document was circulated to an extensive range of court users including staff, the judiciary, the legal profession—the hon. Gentleman made several comments about the response that he received from local members of the profession—interested parties such as MPs and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and local councils.

Copies of the document were also sent to a wide range of groups outlined in the Northern Ireland Court Service's equality scheme, such as victim support groups and citizens advice bureaux. The document is the result of an internal review by the Northern Ireland Court Service and outlines a strategy to improve the overall quality of court accommodation for court users.

I should like to reiterate the important principles that guided the review. We believe strongly that all court buildings should be high quality and meet modern requirements, in line with health and safety, fire, energy conservation and environmental regulations. Cases should be shared out as evenly as possible between each court division. Services to court users should be efficient and high quality and we should make the best possible use of existing facilities. Court buildings should be easily accessible for disabled people and meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Child witnesses and victims of crime should have modern specialist waiting facilities and trials involving children charged with serious offences need to be held in surroundings consistent with the principles set out by the European Court of Human Rights. Maximum advantage should be taken from advances in modern information technology and courts should be located, wherever possible, within reasonable travelling distance of users.

The strategy details the future of court accommodation in Northern Ireland and proposes the closure of a number of courthouses that currently have inadequate facilities. That means the subsequent transfer of business to other more suitable and better-equipped venues. The venues identified as having inadequate facilities are Larne, Banbridge, Limavady, Cookstown, Clogher and Kilkeel. Business will be transferred elsewhere; in the case of Larne courthouse, the business will transfer to Antrim, a newer and in many ways better appointed building.

The consultation period closed on 29 March. I have visited four of the venues proposed for closure; Larne, Banbridge, Limavady and Cookstown. I have viewed the alternative facilities to which the business is proposed for transfer; Antrim, Newry and Londonderry. I have also seen the new courthouse at Dungannon and I plan to visit Clogher and Kilkeel shortly. It is important to see all the courthouses myself to gain a first-hand knowledge of the facilities.

As the hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned, I visited Lame courthouse on 22 January and met the mayor of Lame council, David Fleck, and the chief executive of Larne borough council, Colm McGarry. I much appreciated the warm welcome and the frank discussions that took place then. On the same day I visited Banbridge courthouse where I met the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) whose intervention highlighted the travelling difficulties likely to result from the closure of the courthouse. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has taken every available opportunity to press the case for the retention of the Banbridge courthouse. The detailed plans that he has provided have been most helpful, but I hope that he will take advantage of my officials' offer to meet the architect and discuss his plans.

My officials have also arranged a series of meetings with members of local councils to discuss our proposals in order that I have as much local feedback as possible. I want the consultation process to be open and transparent so that we have as much information as possible before we take a decision.

The Government are committed to providing a high standard of court accommodation in Northern Ireland, as I hope we have proved by the significant investment to improve the court estate; about £63.8 million in the last 11 years. The new Laganside court in Belfast, which was constructed under a public-private partnership arrangement, represents a capital investment of £22.4 million. We have made future provision for capital expenditure of £20 million for the period to 2006. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that there is a commitment to ensuring a high standard of court accommodation.

The public consultation period produced more than 50 responses, eight in relation to Larne courthouse. My officials in the Northern Ireland Court Service are at present undertaking a detailed analysis of those responses. During the consultation period, an independent survey of court users was undertaken by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, at Lame, Banbridge, Cookstown and Limavady courthouses. The results of that survey will be the subject of detailed analysis. Initial results suggest that although there is a high level of satisfaction among persons using Lame courthouse, people who were probed about specific issues such as waiting areas acknowledged that the accommodation provided was less than satisfactory. I have asked for an equality impact assessment to be undertaken in respect of each of the courthouses concerned under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That will include outreach work where necessary. I expect the results of these assessments by the end of April.

Larne courthouse is used for magistrates courts business and occasional county court and small claims business before the district judge. Court statistics show that the work load at Larne is, at present, diminishing. Magistrates courts sittings totalled 87 in 2001, a reduction of 29 when compared with the figure for 2000. Between 2000 and 2001, there was a 22 per cent. reduction in the number of adult defendants dealt with. County court business was minimal, with only seven sittings in 2001.

The administrative office at Lame courthouse is located on the upper floor and accessed by an internal staircase. There is at present no lift for disabled access. However, when I visited the courthouse, despite the difficult working conditions, I noticed the dedication and enthusiasm of the court staff. We should take every opportunity to praise the staff, not least for their cheerfulness, and I hope that my words will be passed on to them.

In approaching any proposed courthouse closure, I have to bear in mind that all users of court buildings deserve an efficient service that is delivered in well-equipped and secure buildings. The venues under consideration for possible closure have been identified as lacking necessary facilities, such as secure prisoner accommodation and separate waiting areas for victims and witnesses.

The Parliamentary Secretary will know from the court accommodation strategy document that it was proposed that Bangor courthouse in my constituency should close. Will she confirm that it is now not listed for closure and explain to my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) why Lame cannot gain a reprieve as well?

We gave a strong commitment that Bangor courthouse would close only when we had built a new courthouse to replace those of both Bangor and Newtownards. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's question. If I can give her further information, I will write to her, as I am conscious of the time.

It is important to have basic accommodation standards. Court users can reasonably expect that in the 21st century. However, I note all the comments made by the hon. Member for East Antrim—particularly about travelling difficulties—and by local solicitors. We have to balance the need for accommodation improvements against factors such as the availability of local transport and accessibility. The hon. Gentleman set out in great detail some of the difficulties that would be encountered. I will certainly pay close regard to those very relevant considerations before reaching any final decision on the future of the courthouse.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I know that this is an important issue and I emphasise again the importance that I place on full and effective public consultation. As I said, the results of the consultation exercise are being analysed, as the results of the court user survey and equality impact assessments will be. I shall not rush to judgment, because I want to balance all the points that have been made, including in today's debate. There is no doubt that some points will be conflicting. When reaching a conclusion, we will have to balance all views, but I hope that it will be possible to make a decision before the summer recess.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim on securing the debate and on the hard work that he and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have put into representing their constituents and ensuring that I am aware of those considerations. I am also grateful for the warm welcome that I received when I visited Northern Ireland. As I said, I will certainly write to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) if I have anything to add about Bangor courthouse. I hope that that provides some reassurance that we are considering this issue carefully and that we will take into account all representations that have been made by Members of Parliament.

I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing this debate after my earlier requests in January, February and March The issue may appear to some to be parochial, but wider and important matters arise from it. The wall of the organisations involved that I have come up against has led me to pursue a new direction and, as Richmond park is a royal park, I contacted His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and asked him to comment on the situation. As a keen environmentalist and, more importantly, someone who has acknowledged the role of a decent, clean and safe urban environment, I hope that he will respond.

I have advised the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of the debate as the park is in her constituency. However, the relevance and importance of the issue for me is its undoubted impact on my constituents, especially those in Roehampton. I shall explain why the proposed closure of the Robin Hood gate—the main access from the A3 and Roehampton vale—has attracted such criticism and will delve briefly into the history of the decision, but only so far as to draw useful lessons for the future on consultation and decision making.

The criticism of the proposal stems from a concrete event; the foot and mouth epidemic of last year. During that period, as was to be expected, Richmond park was closed to all vehicles in line with the standard safety procedures throughout the United Kingdom. The resulting displaced traffic—families, commuters, dog walkers and the thousands of others who frequently drive through the park—were obliged to use routes around the park. Predictably, that caused problems on all the surrounding roads and areas and affected local residents, schools, businesses and those travelling through the area.

The side roads off Roehampton vale and Roehampton lane were havens for rat running, and the main roads were gridlocked. The gridlock extended down to the Upper Richmond road and the south circular. Pupils arrived by bus at the Paddocks school on the Lennox estate after 10 o'clock in the morning. I even contacted Transport for London to see if the Upper Richmond road was wide enough to install a bus lane between Roehampton lane and Priory lane but, regrettably, the road at that point is too narrow. So the chaos continued, only to disappear as soon as the gates of Richmond park were re-opened after the end of the foot and mouth epidemic.

What for some in the countryside was a nightmare proved an equally salutary lesson for those living in Roehampton. With that in mind, I was incredibly surprised to hear the Royal Parks agency's proposal to close the Robin Hood gate to Richmond park, among its other plans such as closing the central car park and the introduction of a land train. I was telephoned about the decision to close the gate just before Christmas 2001. I spoke immediately to William Weston, the chief executive of Royal Parks, and asked him why he had not consulted me before making the decision. He said that he had no statutory requirement to do so and that the Minister, Baroness Blackstone, had spoken to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who had raised no objection. The hon. Lady has told me subsequently that she had not endorsed the proposal for the closure. I spoke to the Minister who agreed that the permanent closure proposal should be replaced by a trial period of five months, but she did not agree to drop the proposal.

We have at our disposal loot and mouth traffic data, which provides an almost perfect test period for the closure of the gate and highlights the problem that will arise following a closure. That data predicts that some 700 extra cars an hour will be on the roads through Roehampton when the gate is closed. At the time of the original December 2001 decision, no traffic data from that time had been made available to Royal Parks from either Kingston or Wandsworth councils. Royal Parks would not wait for the information, which surely would be not only helpful but essential for an informed decision. Equally extraordinary, up to last week, Wandsworth council had still not, according to Royal Parks, sent the full foot and mouth traffic data.

According to Wandsworth council in an e-mail that was sent to me this week, after weeks of my asking for such information, the traffic reports were passed to Peter Brett Associates, Royal Parks' consultants, on 5 March. As if that were not late enough, I was told in the same e-mail that

"we were not in a position to pass them the base data as this was funded by the Transport for London".

I am afraid that I have not had time to find out from Wandsworth council the technical difference between the traffic reports and the base data.

The base data was passed to Transport for London on 16 May 2001. I do not know why that information was never passed to Royal Parks to help it make its decision; that seems ridiculous, as the plans for the park have been in the air for several years. To be deprived of such excellent comparative data is extraordinary and does not speak wonders for Wandsworth council's long-term thinking. If it was that worried about the closure of the Robin Hood gate, why did it not pass on key data before March? It smacks of publicity-seeking to rush to a judicial review.

At the end of March, some two months after Royal Parks announced its proposals, Wandsworth council finally debated the matter and opposed the closure. With two days to spare, it threatened Royal Parks with judicial review because consultation on the closure of the gate had not been separated from other matters that Royal Parks wished to pursue about the park. Royal Parks gave in and agreed to a fresh consultation, which ends in June 2002. Royal Parks is adamant that the closure must still go ahead. That has always been the case; indeed, the original consultation carried no option for residents to vote for retaining the status quo until I insisted on it.

I understand that the status quo was a very popular option, although that appears to have made little impact on the decision-making process. Why? Those who answered the consultation questionnaire handed out in early 2001 overwhelmingly wanted all the gates to be left open as they are now, with the same opening hours as now. However, Royal Parks says that the status quo was never an acceptable option. Change was essential so as to better preserve the quality of the environment; the flora and fauna in the park. That is laudable, but no park such as Richmond stands apart from its surroundings, nor does traffic in the park stand alone as an issue.

As a practical and keen environmentalist, I chaired London Agenda 21 between 1994 and 1997, and I look forward to going to the world summit for sustainable development this summer. However, when there is a trade-off between the environment inside and outside the park, we must look for a balance. Changing the status quo and closing the Robin Hood gate would affect my constituents disproportionately.

We must consider the longer-term view by making the roads to the park safer for cyclists, improving the public transport infrastructure for those going to and through the park, and changing to vehicles that run on liquefied petroleum gas or zero-emissions vehicles. We should encourage people to shop locally and to educate their children in the high-quality local schools in the Roehampton and Putney area, thus eliminating the school runs through the park. I would love it if Richmond park were without traffic. It is my local park, and I have visited it in the past 30 years with my children. However, without the necessary infrastructure surrounding the park, I do not believe that that is an option.

The balance, in terms of quality of life and extra pollution outside the park, would be hugely weighted against my constituents if the closure went ahead. The suggestion that the closure of the Robin Hood gate would protect the environment also sits strangely with Royal Parks' next proposal. It is for the development of a new golf centre, complete with floodlit driving range, a large car park and banqueting suites in the area between the internal south-north road and the Alton estate; that is, the Roehampton estate. The golfing centre is accessed by the A3, Roehampton vale and Norstead place. It would open the Chohole gate to the public and build over Silver hill, Hyde Park nursery, and Kings Farm plantations. Currently, all of them are open areas. With this proposal, Royal Parks is not following what appears to be its usual practice, which is to attempt to protect the environment.

Although nobody could object to speed bumps on park roads or a 20 mph speed limit, Royal Parks has told me that a reduction from 30 to 20 mph would require primary legislation. Surely, that cannot be the case. Will the Under-Secretary clarify that?

I mentioned other changes to traffic arrangements in Richmond park. Chief among them is the proposed closure of Pen Ponds car park. That has caused outrage, not only from Putney constituents, but from across south-west London; a petition has already gathered 10,000 signatures, and it is swiftly gaining more. Royal Parks has now proposed to allow the elderly, and people with disability stickers for their cars, to continue to park in that central car park and to allow everyone else to park there outside peak times. However, that appears to be another muddle, and I ask Royal Parks to scrap its plans, and to think again.

What lessons can be learned? First, Royal Parks and the Under-Secretary should consult with Members of Parliament, and authorities that represent people who will be affected, before any decisions are taken. Secondly, all statistical data that can be made available—in this case from Wandsworth council and Transport for London—must be handed over to Royal Parks with in a time scale. With regard to that, in this case I exonerate Royal Parks because it has been asking for that information since last September, and it has not received it. Moreover, Wandsworth council says that it did not pass the relevant information to the traffic consultants until 5 March, which was three months after the announcement of the proposed closure of the gate.

Thirdly, if such data are not available, any decision should be deferred until the information is made available. Fourthly, any future plans for the park should look at all angles of sustainable development—not only at the environmental consequences within the park, but at the social consequences, and the right of the people who live around the park in Roehampton to live without the extra traffic pollution and gridlock that would result from the closure of the Robin Hood gate, as happened last spring and summer. Fifthly, Royal Parks should consult with the local decision-making bodies, such as Transport for London, on the impact of in-park policies; it is narrow-minded not to hold such consultations, and that must be avoided in the future.

Finally, I wish to correct the misleading impression that might have been picked up by those who have been watching the edited television and radio coverage of this issue in recent days. They might think that I see it as a people versus animals issue, and that I would support the people every time. Not only do I have a clear commitment to all forms of environmental concerns, but this issue was never so black and white. I believe that the existing balance with regard to access for cars should continue and, if that were maintained, it would go a long way towards protecting the environment of Richmond park.

I am grateful that the Under-Secretary is present, and I look forward to his response.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on drawing the Chamber's attention to this important subject. I pay tribute to his efforts on behalf of those of his constituents who will be affected by the proposal to close the Robin Hood gate in Richmond park. With regard to that, he has made a strong case for proceeding with great care.

I wish to set the issue in context. It is important to remember that the royal parks are a national asset. They are paid for out of central Government funds, and taxpayers in Richmond in Yorkshire contribute as much towards their upkeep as do the residents of Richmond-upon-Thames; or, indeed, people in Macclesfield or Pontypridd.

The royal parks have been given to the nation in trust by the Crown to provide open spaces where people can enjoy the open air, and get away from the pressures to which they are subjected on every day of their urban lives. I am not sure that I like the phrase "urban lives", but you know what I mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The parks are special places that form part of our cultural heritage, and in managing them we are committed to maintaining high standards of care and maintenance and taking the lead in good environmental and horticultural practices. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who has been a doughty and imaginative fighter for the incremental advances in environmental protection and understanding that we need.

By the same token, roads in the royal parks are not public highways. They are not the responsibility of local highway authorities but are maintained by Royal Parks to provide access for those living and working in the park and for people visiting the park. The parks have not escaped the inexorable rise in the volume of traffic on the country's roads over the past 30 years, and drivers have increasingly taken to using the parks' roads. Those roads were never intended to make up for the inadequacies of the local road network, and Royal Parks is entitled to try to reduce the intrusion caused by thousands of additional vehicles taking short cuts through the park.

Richmond park is unique. It is an internationally regarded park and a grade 1 listed historical landscape. In addition, because it has been managed as a deer park for 300 years, it has evolved a unique habitat that has made it home to species of insect and plant life not found anywhere else in the region. It has been designated a site of special scientific interest, a national nature reserve and a European special area for conservation.

The inspector responsible for the first review of the Richmond-upon-Thames unitary development plan said that the

"difference in status between Crown Roads and public highways must carry substantial weight in assessing the role of the parks in the functioning of this important and cherished part of the Borough."

Royal Parks is considering how to reduce traffic in Richmond park not on a whim but as part of a process that started several years ago. Indeed, it has been conducting an exercise that all local authorities are now required to do: to consider how to reduce traffic on their roads, which is a clear Government objective.

In 1991, the Government set up a series of reviews of all royal parks, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, to find out how they were managed and set out principles on which they should be managed for the foreseeable future. The review group considered each park separately and invited stakeholders in all the parks to contribute to its reports. In addition, stakeholders were given an opportunity to comment on the final draft before the report was published.

In 1996, the review group, which contained, among others, the leader of Richmond council, published its report on Richmond park, which states:

"On the basis of wide consultation, traffic is by far the most contentious issue affecting Richmond Park."

It also states:

"This stretch of countryside within a world city, in itself quite extraordinary, is undermined by noise, pollution, congestion and danger from cars, all aspects of the great city which most park visitors have come to escape".

It noted that

"the need to reduce the impact of traffic … rates high priority".

The Government accepted the review group's recommendations.

In 1998, Royal Parks addressed the first issue raised in the report and carried out an origin and destination study of traffic using the park. That established that more than 95 per cent. of traffic in the park on a weekday—and about 80 per cent. at weekends—was through traffic, with almost 4,000 vehicles entering the park in peak hours.

Following that, a working group that comprised agency management, police, traffic engineers and landscape architects produced a paper on which the agency consulted during the autumn and winter of 2000–01. The proposed range of options for reducing through traffic in the park included: making the park roads one-way only; introducing speed humps, road width restrictions and other traditional traffic management measures; introducing a 20 mph speed limit; introducing a road toll for through traffic; and closing the roads in the middle of the park to prevent through traffic during rush hours, although that would allow park users to drive into the park.

The agency carried out a thorough consultation involving the distribution of 30,000 questionnaires throughout local communities. It held five public meetings and 10 separate public exhibitions. The whole exercise generated around 1,000 written representations. Following the agency's consideration of the responses to its consultation, it produced the report that it presented to local authorities on 17 December 2001.

If Wandsworth borough council had responded to the agency's request in August 2001 for traffic data to help the assessment of the effect of different options, the matter might have been settled by now. It was important for my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to state that clearly in his speech. One would have thought that a big, powerful and famous borough would have bothered to notify the agency about crucial traffic figures as part of the consultation. However, it chose not to; one wonders why.

Despite what those who would support unrestricted access to the park for traffic might believe, the agency clearly took account of views expressed during the consultation. Indeed, it was praised for the way in which it did that at the presentation of its report to local authorities on 17 December.

The current access arrangements do not allow unrestricted access to the park. I do not want unrestricted access, but a continuation of the current arrangements, which provide a balance, especially during the dark hours of winter.

I take my hon. Friend's point, and I shall try to deal with it in a moment or two.

The agency rejected many of the original options, and it is worth explaining the reason for that. It did not close Ham gate because that would have led to additional traffic on the already overcrowded roads to the west of the park. It rejected the use of speed humps and other traditional traffic calming measures because they are designed for urban streets and are inappropriate for a park. A one-way system was considered to be unsafe because it might encourage speeding and tempt drivers to perform dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Options to close link roads in the park were rejected because that would affect the routine and daily lives of people and businesses. The agency decided to try to work with local authorities to assess whether it was possible to control traffic in the park by using measures outside the park.

The fact that the suggestion to close Robin Hood gate was made at one of the public meetings is proof, if that were needed, that the agency took account of the consultation process. That option was chosen because Robin Hood gate offers only limited access; this may address some of my hon. Friend's points. The gate is already one-way because a driver may not enter the park through it. It closes at dusk in the winter months and, therefore, it is unavailable during the evening rush hour for several months during the year.

Wandsworth borough council was reluctant to come forward with traffic figures at the time of the consultation. That is inexplicable, given the importance of safety on roads, especially in the urban areas about which my hon. Friend is concerned. Nevertheless, the council is rightly concerned about the effect of the closure on traffic in the area. However, it gets little credit for quoting figures that apply to a time when all park gates were closed to traffic because of the foot and mouth outbreak. The agency has no wish to avoid consultation as its efforts over the past two years have clearly shown. It did not, technically, consult on the closure because it was not a stand-alone option in the original consultation paper.

Royal Parks has withdrawn its proposed closure of Robin Hood gate in order to consult the local authorities and Transport for London and I assure hon. Members that it will not make a decision on the closure until after that consultation. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some comfort.

It is estimated that the closure would reduce through traffic in the park by some 5 per cent. That may not seem much, but given the level of opposition to options that would produce more significant reductions, the agency would be satisfied with that amount until further options were investigated.

A 12-month trial is proposed. The period must be long enough to take into account the effect of seasonal variations in traffic volume and usage, and to allow time to measure the full effect of the resulting re-assignment of traffic. It is well documented that, when a road is closed, drivers gradually disperse over a wider area to find more convenient routes. That is more likely to happen with longer-distance traffic. Some 60 per cent. of park traffic is from outside the three neighbouring boroughs, so it is unlikely that all of it would go through the immediate neighbourhood, about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned. However, to satisfy the local authorities, the agency has agreed to carry out an initial review after six months.

Of course, I cannot say whether the effects of the proposed closure will be as severe as the council claims, which is, after all, why the agency proposes to close the gate for a trial period. The actual effects can then be measured rather than relying on the outcomes of desk-top exercises. The royal parks are important assets. They are a recreational resource for those who live nearby, historic landscapes and wildlife habitats, and tourist destinations for visitors from the United Kingdom and abroad.

From time to time, the agency needs to take measures to preserve the character of the royal parks that makes them such special places; such desirable places to be neighbours with. My hon. Friend is right to be primarily concerned about the health, safety and welfare of his constituents in the neighbouring streets. Nevertheless, I am sure that he would agree that it would be absurd and unreasonable if the agency were never allowed to do anything that might affect people living outside the park. I thank him for the opportunity to clarify the position taken on this important matter by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone and by Royal Parks.

It is nice to be here and, although there are not many hon. Members present, several interested parties are here to listen to the debate.

I am honoured to lead this brief debate this afternoon. Although the debate concerns the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital, I will briefly dwell on its history. It was founded as long ago as 1123, and was the first hospital in what is now the United Kingdom. It received its royal charter from Henry VIII in the 1540s, and anyone who walks through West Smithfield will see his statue. Exactly 100 years ago, it became the first teaching hospital in the country. In all that time, it was endowed and supported by the local community; indeed, that local support was integral to its continued existence for centuries.

Barts, as local residents affectionately know it, is internationally renowned for its medical excellence. Institutionally, it is equally well known across the nation. I would not mind betting that if we asked people anywhere in the United Kingdom to name one hospital other than their own general hospital, Barts would be mentioned more often than any other hospital.

The national health service was founded in 1948. It is ironic that, today of all days—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will extol the virtues of Labour's health service—we must remember that St. Bartholomew's hospital happily operated without the health service for 825 of its 879 years. I am afraid to say that it has only been in the 54 years since the nationalised health service came into being that the hospital's future has been threatened.

I take no pride in confessing that it was my party—the Conservative party—that sought to implement the Tomlinson report when it was last in government. The report was, in my view, predicated on user figures that applied in the depths of the early-1990s recession and which were manifestly not borne out. It is a great regret that my party put in place some of the reforms that have affected Barts and which have upset not only the residential population of the City of London, but people across London and much of the UK. One thing that has become evident to me, even though I became a Member of Parliament only nine months ago, is the strength of feeling throughout the UK among people who have great reason to thank the staff at Barts or who simply see it as one of those institutions that have been undermined over the years.

The Minister and I must have an eye on the decades to come, rather than simply the past. Independent bodies have made projections about the City fringe working population. The Minister may know that the figure was 550,000 in 1999 and that is envisaged to rise to about 695,000 by 2016. A further 150,000 people are therefore expected to start working in the City fringe area in the next decade and a half.

We must also consider the residential population of the City of London; my constituents. In the past decade, the population has increased for the first time in more than two centuries. As many people will know, roughly 160,000 people lived in the City of London at the time of the first census in 1801. As of last year, the figure was 6,500 and rising. The City of London is now a very attractive place to live. The Minister will be aware of the Barbican, which is no more than a stone's throw from the West Smithfield site, but there are other new developments. There is a thriving residential community in the City of London.

There are difficulties with congestion in central London, and Mayor Ken Livingstone is putting his congestion charge in place in the next nine months. It is only a couple of miles from the eastern fringes of the City of London down Whitechapel road to the London hospital, but the journey can take a perilously long time because of the congestion that is part and parcel of life in central London.

In several debates about London in Westminster Hall and the Chamber, I have said that we must recognise that London remains the economic powerhouse of the United Kingdom. The London Development Agency, under Ken Livingstone, recognises that. We have a crisis with our infrastructure in the capital, and that seems likely to remain for some time. Health is only one relatively minor aspect; transport, which has been much in the headlines, and other areas, particularly housing, are also part of the difficulty for central London in ensuring that highly-qualified public sector staff work here.

I work closely with several Labour Members, Liberal Democrat Members, and the cohort of 13 Conservative Members in London. There is agreement across the political divide to ensure that we avoid the idea of a zero sum game, which the Government have all too often tried to impose on London. For example, there is an idea that for Barts to get better health care, other places must suffer; the Homerton and Whittington hospitals, or others in London's five rather large health authorities, must get fewer resources. The argument is that if more money goes to central London, the suburbs must suffer, but I entirely reject that reasoning. London remains the economic powerhouse, and it has great difficulties, which include an increasingly large residential population and a large daytime population.

The events of 11 September were a wake-up call for us all. The threat of a terrorist attack is in the forefront of people's minds in central London. It applies not just to the City, but to Canary Wharf and this part of London—Westminster—which is the political capital of the country.

The lesson of what happened in America was that hospitals in New York were close at hand to cater for the relatively few casualties; tragically, there were few casualties, but many outright deaths on that day. If we were to have a similar incident in central London, I believe it would cause utter chaos for our infrastructure. As I mentioned, the two-mile journey from the City of London to the London hospital would be an enormously difficult obstacle to overcome.

There is no necessity to build a new hospital in central London. We have the facilities, and, as many know, enormous investment less than a decade ago went into the Barts site; some £15 million was spent on six new operating theatres, many of which have been under-utilised during the past nine years. At the same time, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Minister for London, has written a letter to several central London Members of Parliament, which recognises:

"The NHS does not have the reserve capacity maintained for the purposes of major incident management."

He had obviously been contacted by a number of the hardworking residents' groups that have fought a long-standing battle in relation to St. Bartholomew's. After 11 September, they had clear concerns that difficulties could exist.

I understand that the rumours are true and that a further £18 billion or £25 billion—it depends on which paper one reads—will be injected into the national health service in the coming years. Even if the Government do not feel that they can bring back a fully-fledged accident and emergency unit, I should like the Department of Health to consider doing as much as it can for this unique part of central London. Could we have heralded admissions with a receiving room to take account of what I accept, as I am sure does the Minister, is the skewed daytime population of central London? Many people are aged between 18 and 45, and they have particular health needs that are different from those that apply to the suburbs or other parts of the south-east. In Scotland, where accident and emergency units have closed down in city centres, there is some authority and experience of having heralded admissions with a receiving room to take particular account of local circumstances.

I shall not go on much longer, because I should like the Minister to respond at length. The issue of Barts is not a narrow, constituency interest, although there is a growing residential population in the City of London, which has understandable concerns about the relatively long journeys in terms of time—by London standards—that they are expected to take to the Whittington, Homerton or the London. Barts is, and has been since its foundation almost 900 years ago, an asset for all Londoners who rely on the City of London services daily for their work and pleasure.

I want to salute the hard work of several people, particularly Wendy Mead, who is in the public gallery here today, as well as many members the Corporation of London, who have fought a long-standing campaign over the years. I have come to the campaign relatively recently, having been elected for the first time last June, though I was made well aware during my 18 months as a prospective candidate that the issue required significant highlighting.

Today, we understand that there will be an announcement of significant new investment in the national health service, which will be funded by many of those taxpayers who make up the daytime population of the City of London. I call upon the Minister to explain how he will ensure that the voice of St. Bartholomew's hospital is allowed to express itself during the ongoing discussions concerning the expenditure of the colossal sums that we envisage being injected into the health service.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on raising this issue, and for the spirit in which he deployed his arguments. I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of pursuing narrow constituency self-interest, although I suppose that there is nothing wrong with that. However, he has not done so, and that will not form any part of my response to his points.

He has a perfectly legitimate concern, which he has expressed very eloquently, about the ability of the national health service to respond to circumstances such as—heaven forbid—those which occurred in New York city on 11 September. I want to deal with the concerns that he has raised. I will explain the issues that we have addressed, or tried to, since 11 September, and how we have approached the problem and challenge of dealing with that type of emergency planning scenario in the City of London.

The hon. Gentleman made several points at the beginning of his speech about funding. He referred to a zero sum game and objected to a process that promised development and enhancement of services in some parts of the capital only at the expense of others. I should make it clear that that is not how we do things. We are not funding or securing the development of services at Barts by starving other parts of the national health service in London. On average, most health authorities throughout London received a cash increase of about 10 per cent. About £500 million of additional NHS capital investment is going into the city this year in addition to the £600 million of additional revenue support. It is not true to say that development in Barts, or any other part of the NHS in London, is funded only at the expense of reduced allocations to other parts of the NHS in the city.

I want to deal specifically with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. As a Minister, I have had the good fortune to visit Barts on several occasions. In fact, I was there only last week. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's description of Barts. It is a building of exquisite beauty with an unrivalled history in the development of medical sciences in our country. I agree with him that our challenge is to secure its future. There is a very lively debate taking place in the Corporation of London and elsewhere in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about the future of accident and emergency services. The challenge for us today is to think about how we develop the long-term future of hospital services on that site, and that is where I want to start my comments today.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that developments at Barts will be at the centre of a huge capital scheme, worth £620 million, to build a major new teaching hospital at the Royal London hospital, Whitechapel, and secure the development of Barts as a specialist cancer and cardiac centre. I should point out the scale of that to the hon. Gentleman: it is the largest hospital development scheme in the United Kingdom today. I believe that the scheme will secure the long-term future of the hospital. It will not bring what the hon. Gentleman has described, but it is a significant moment in Barts history because it will bring major opportunities to contribute for decades to come to the health and well-being of the people of east London and the City.

Following the London review led by Sir Leslie Turnberg in 1997, Barts and the London NHS trust, together with other local NHS organisations, began to develop plans to modernise hospital services throughout the trust. In January 2000, the Department of Health gave formal approval to plans for a 10-year programme of development and improvement to health services. Since that time, the trust's plans have been developed further, and advanced work is due to commence at St. Barts this summer. The planned development is a combination of refurbishment and new build that will increase by 100 the number of beds throughout the two sites, creating a total of around 1,285 beds, of which 900 will be at the Royal London hospital and nearly 400 at St. Bartholomew's.

As well as modernising hospital services for east London and the City, the project will also help to regenerate the area by addressing employment, education and environmental improvements. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the NHS employs about 150,000 people in London and contributes 6 or 7 per cent. of the capital's gross domestic product. It is obviously a major provider of health care services, but it is also a significant partner in the economic development of the City about which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has spoken. As well as cancer and cardiac services at St. Bartholomew's, a range of services will be provided, including diagnostic imaging, pathology and pharmacy services, as well as a patient hostel. The minor injuries unit will also remain fully functional.

The hon. Gentleman did not raise today the issue of whether an open-access chest pain clinic should be provided at St. Bartholomew's as part of cardiac services, but he has raised it with me before. Local health services already have two chest pain clinics at Homerton hospital and Newham hospital. Those locations were chosen because their local population has the greatest need for those services. Chest pain clinics are generally regarded as general hospital clinics, and as cardiac services at St. Bartholomew's are regarded as tertiary services, the advice that I have received is that it would not be appropriate for such a clinic to be located at St. Bartholomew's hospital.

I appreciate that in the raw terms of population the decision on chest pain clinics makes sense. Clearly the population is based around the East Ham area and, indeed, Hackney. However, does the Minister not recognise—I am sure that he does and I should like to hear his comments—that there is a large daytime working population? When it comes to consideration of such clinics, Barts should be treated as a different, and in a sense unique, case. As I mentioned in my initial comments, there is a daytime population, rather than a full-time residential population, for chest pain clinics of more than 500,000 in the City and its fringes.

I obviously accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the responsibility of local NHS organisations and the new director of health and social care for the capital to keep such considerations under the most careful review. The question is not whether there should be additional services, because I am convinced that there should be and I am hopeful that we will continue to receive the investment to allow such development to take place. The difficulty in all those cases is to decide where the investment should go.

On those issues, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that we in the Department of Health always try to act on the best clinical and medical advice. It is very important that that remains so because that is the proper discharge of Ministers' responsibilities. He and other Opposition Members frequently criticise us for meddling in the affairs of the NHS, and I would take issue with him on that, although not on this occasion. Generally speaking, such decisions need to be informed by the best medical, clinical and scientific advice, and we act on that. If any such advice were different from that that I have received it would be a factor to which I should pay the most careful attention.

Returning to the developments at Barts, the first stage is the £21 million upgrade of the west wing and Kenton and Lucas block using public as well as charitable funds. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the west wing is a grade 1 listed building currently accommodating out-patient clinics and support offices. The greatest care will be taken to maintain historic features while adapting the space for new clinical use. Work is due to commence this summer, and we hope that it will be completed by the end of 2003. Once refurbishment is completed, the breast care unit will be located in the west wing, allowing all those facilities to be centralised together in a new, modern environment.

Refurbishment work at Kenton and Lucas block, a grade 2 listed building, will begin this summer and once completed in 2004, slightly later, will accommodate an integrated rehabilitation unit, sexual health clinic and fertility clinic. Other moves that have already taken place at Barts include the provision of better nursing accommodation for nurses previously housed in Queen Mary wing, which will now be redeveloped to make best use of the space for clinical services. The remainder of the developments at Barts will progress alongside the developments at the Royal London hospital.

In February this year, I announced approval for Barts and the London NHS trust to seek private finance partners to implement the development proposals. The trust advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community in February 2002. It is expected that work will begin on that scheme in 2004.

I want to say a few words about whether full accident and emergency services should be provided at Barts, which I think is the main theme of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He has raised with me before his concern that the reviews informing the decision to close the accident and emergency department at Barts were based on old data and that in the climate following 11 September workers in the City need to be reassured that there is emergency provision nearby. I fully understand that. He has asked me to reconsider the decision taken in 1993 to close the accident and emergency department at Barts.

When I last met the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues, in October, I explained that the decision to close that department would not be revisited. That remains the Government's position. The decision was based on the best clinical advice from the royal colleges and I am not aware of any convincing new evidence, since the decision was made, that would lead me to conclude that it should be reconsidered.

The closure of the accident and emergency department at Barts was supported in the Tomlinson report back in 1992 on the ground that accident and emergency services at Homerton, Guy's and St. Thomas's, the Royal London and University College hospitals were all within easy travelling distance of the population local to Barts and accessible in the event of a major incident. Those services remain in place and continue to be accessible.

As I understand it, one difficulty in looking at the 1992 Tomlinson report is that the projected figures for daytime population were drawn up at the absolute depths of the last recession, as I mentioned in my initial comments. Even in the seven or eight years since then, we have seen an explosion of the daytime population in London. We envisage that that will continue, in a fairly uniform way, for the next decade and a half. Some of the basic statistical premises made to justify the closing down of the accident and emergency department in 1993 seem, therefore, to be faulty, if not entirely out of place.

I perfectly understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and was hoping to come on to it in a few moments. I do not dispute for a second that matters have changed since 1992. They clearly have. I am on this side of the Chamber and the hon. Gentleman is on the other. That is one change, one of the more welcome ones, but that is not a theme for today.

I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point that accident and emergency services in London and elsewhere might need to expand as the population grows and as the working population in parts of the country expands. It is the responsibility of the national health service to make plans for that. Clearly, if the population increases, we will need more beds in hospitals and more nurses and doctors. That is axiomatic. The argument, in relation to the points about Barts and the wider points that the hon. Gentleman has made, is about where those extra services, if they are needed, should be located. I shall return to that point in a second.

Since the accident and emergency department at Barts closed, the number of accident and emergency attendances at the four hospitals to which I just referred has risen as capacity has increased. In particular, attendances in accident and emergency at Homerton hospital have increased by a little more than one third. That lends support to the view that there is adequate accident and emergency capacity available for the people of east London and the City. Patients are being attended to in those departments well within the time limits that we have set as national targets.

If there were a mismatch between capacity and demand, the length of waiting times in those four accident and emergency departments would be rising significantly. They would certainly not be beating our target of 75 per cent. of patients being treated and discharged or admitted within four hours. Throughout those four departments, more than 90 per cent. of patients are admitted, transferred or discharged within that four-hour target.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the accident and emergency department closed in March 1995, and the minor injuries unit opened at exactly the same time. In 1997, as part of the London review, Sir Leslie Turnberg re-examined the St. Barts hospital closure and considered views from as wide a spectrum as possible. That will continue to be our approach.

The hon. Gentleman asked how the people of east London and the City will be able to have a say in decisions that affect health service provision. We certainly need to improve the way in which we communicate with, consult and involve patients and the public in all areas of decision making. I hope that the new primary care trusts, supported by the strategic health authorities, will be able to do that. New legislation in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will take patient and public involvement in the NHS to a new level.

We are actively trying to encourage a climate in which decision making is as open and informed as possible. I certainly do not take the view that has been put to me on occasions by other right hon. and hon. Members that the NHS operates as a secret society. I understand why the criticism is sometimes made, but it is profoundly damaging to the NHS if such allegations have any legs. It is the people's service, and the people must be fully involved in the decisions. They may not always agree—that is the problem—but I certainly share with the hon. Gentleman a very strong desire to involve them fully. It happened on this occasion, and we will ensure that it does in the future.

The previous Conservative Administration's decision to close St. Barts was overturned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when he was Secretary of State for Health, but he upheld the decision in relation to the accident and emergency department. It was and remains the right decision.

At the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, the trust has a comprehensive major incident plan that centres on accident and emergency services. Following events on 11 September, the plan has been updated and was tested as recently as February. The London Ambulance Service co-ordinates a well-rehearsed plan for the transport of patients to several receiving hospitals in the capital in the event of a major incident.

The trust's day-to-day accident and emergency service is run from the Royal London hospital, which has a trauma centre and a dedicated children's accident and emergency department. A 24-hour comprehensive emergency service is provided seven days a week, including on-site senior accident and emergency staff. In fact, the accident and emergency department at the Royal London hospital is unique within London and the United Kingdom in its provision of a resident accident and emergency consultant 24 hours a day, Monday to Friday. That is not the case anywhere else. It has some of the best clinical outcomes in the UK for patients who undergo surgery following emergency admission.

The minor injuries unit continues to operate at St. Barts. It is open from 8 am to 8 pm, Monday to Friday, and will be retained as part of the new development. There is no prospect of its disappearing. In the event of a major incident in the City, which is the hon. Gentleman's concern and should be a concern of us all, there is an escalation plan for the walking wounded who might arrive at St. Barts, but the hospital would not receive any patients directly from the London Ambulance Service. That is a clear protocol.

Two new walk-in centres were developed at the Newham and Royal London hospitals during 2000. They will offer fast and convenient access to local NHS advice, information and treatment seven days a week without an appointment.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question of the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The Government are committed to modernising health services and ensuring that patients receive treatment of the highest quality that is fit for the 21st century. The development of St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London is part of the commitment and will modernise services for patients and staff in east London and the City. After years of deliberation, the future of the hospitals in those areas is now clear, as the modernisation and rebuilding plans for both sites reach the final approval stages. I say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that the debate needs to move on, so that we can focus on ensuring the success of the exciting plans to redevelop the NHS in east London and the City.