What plans he has to improve the code relating to special advisers. [55925]

A code of conduct for special advisers was published in July 2001.

I thank the Minister for that illuminating answer. Does she accept the need to amend the code to improve the accountability of special advisers, as it is almost impossible to find out what they are doing? In particular, does she agree that there is an opportunity to allow Select Committees to interview special advisers so that we could find out officially what we know unofficially—that Lord Birt knows nothing about transport and is full of ludicrous ideas?

First, on behalf of the Government, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recent marriage? However, wonderful as this place is, perhaps the Chamber is not the most exciting place for a honeymoon.

We are the first Government to publish a code of conduct for special advisers, which we did immediately after the general election. By contrast, our Conservative predecessors refused to do anything of the kind. It is for Ministers to decide who should represent them before Select Committees.

What priorities guide the operation of Government regional offices. [55927]

The Government offices for the regions bring together the work of many different Departments, and we have increased their number from three to nine. Their priorities are to deliver the programmes of sponsor Departments, such as the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal and the crime reduction programme.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that in the delivery of the Government offices' priorities, particularly priorities such as tackling poverty and regeneration, small pockets of deprivation outside city areas get the attention that they deserve? Too often, in my Gedling constituency, although we now have sure start and some regeneration money, money pours into the city but pockets of deprivation outside the city area have missed out. Will my hon. Friend look into that to make sure that we get the support and help that we need to regenerate those communities as well?

I accept the points that my hon. Friend makes. It is right to concentrate on the most deprived areas, but of course regeneration needs to go much wider, which is why, as he suggested, we have programmes such as sure start, which have proved such a success. However, I shall certainly take his comments to heart and make sure that in our regeneration programmes we do not forget those other areas.

Will the Minister bear in mind the fact—which, as a London Member, she will know—that if the Deputy Prime Minister has his way and regional assemblies are imposed on the kingdom, Londoners will primarily pay for that, because we produce more wealth than any other part of the kingdom? Will she at least eliminate one tier of interference—the Government offices for the regions?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government offices for the regions in that way, because in fact they were created by the Conservative Government that he supported. If that is yet another policy U-turn, it is good that the Chamber should hear about it first. As for regional governance, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is far behind the times; it was clear from the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that that would be a matter of choice for regions, and they could decide by way of referendums. We are in favour of people having a say. Would the hon. Gentleman deny them that?

Will my hon. Friend expand on the role of Government offices for the regions following the election of regional assemblies? Will the assemblies, for instance, draw the bulk of their administrative staff from the existing regional office staff, as happened to some extent in Wales and Scotland?

Some of the staff of the Government offices will go to the new bodies, but we will still need the Government offices because, as we indicated clearly in the White Paper, some central functions will not go, including certain locally delivered services such as education.

If he intends to contribute to the recently announced inquiry into the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. [55931]

I understand that, with the exception of Lord Richard, no appointments have yet been made to the independent commission on Assembly powers. As I understand it, the terms of reference of the inquiry have not yet been agreed, so it would be premature for me to speculate on the Government's input to the work of the commission.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The devolution settlement in Wales is still very young, but any changes to it should be made only with the consent of the people of Wales. Does he agree that Members of Parliament should be fully involved in the inquiry that has been set up, and will he write to the First Minister to say so?

The agreement and settlement for the Welsh Assembly and Welsh devolution was decided by the Welsh people. However, the partnership agreement signed in October 2000 between the Labour and Liberal elements of the Administration established the commitment that before the end of the Assembly's first year, an independent commission on its powers and electoral arrangements would ensure that we could operate in the best interests of the people of Wales. The commission has not been appointed and terms of reference have not been given. We must wait and see what emerges from the discussions.

I welcome the publication of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper on the English regions a couple of weeks ago. I think that paragraph 5.2 says that the document recognises that in England, devolution will be a process not an event. Will he use his considerable influence in such matters to ensure that whatever happens in England in terms of regional devolution, Wales, as a nation that is part of the United Kingdom, will stay one step ahead in the process of devolution?

I think that we have made the position absolutely clear. The people of Wales settled for their Welsh Assembly and the people of Scotland settled for their Scottish Parliament. We now intend to give the English regions the opportunity to decide about English regional government. It will be their choice—and properly so— and the people will soon have that opportunity to speak.

Does the Minister not think it somewhat ironic that certain people are pushing for more powers for the Welsh Assembly, when it refuses to use the powers that it already has, such as those relating to quangos? Is it not also ironic that those people have the cheek to ask for more powers for the Assembly when virtually no one in Wales is at all sympathetic to the idea?

My hon. Friend makes a good point; there is certainly an awful lot of irony in this debate—in all parts of the United Kingdom.

What plans he has to improve the co-ordination of civil defence and emergency planning. [55932]

The civil contingencies secretariat at the Cabinet Office was established last June. It provides the central focus for the Government's commitment to deal effectively with disruptive challenges, crises and emergencies. Effective multi-agency arrangements for dealing with emergencies, whatever their cause, are in place. We need to update the statutory framework and we are preparing the ground for that.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he confident that local authorities in areas of high population density such as Leeds can cope with the various emergency scenarios that they may face?

One thing that I have learned in the course of my work on emergency planning is that the preparedness and work of local authority emergency planning officers are excellent. I should like to pay tribute to them. There is excellent co-ordination between the health services, the police and the fire authorities. I am confident that in major centres of population such as Leeds, the emergency services stand ready to cope with whatever challenges they may have to face.

The Minister will recall from our extensive debates on the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill that many local authorities throughout the land remain deeply disappointed at the level of support and guidance from central Government following the events of 11 September. Will he clarify whether the Cabinet Office has now issued definitive guidance to all local authorities about what they should do to prepare for any repetition of 11 September or anything like it? Do the Government endorse the conclusions announced in the past few days by senior members of the US Administration that further terrorist attacks may indeed be very likely? If so, will he review any guidance that he has already issued?

In respect of any terrorist threat, we remain on the alert and the situation is as it was after 11 September. As for discussion with local authorities, a ream of advice is available for emergency planning offices. The website at www.ukresilience.info should be sufficient to provide up-to-date information from the central news co-ordination centre about a number of different matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that advice to postal services and a series of other agencies, including health and fire authorities, is available in the public domain, as well as on the basis of the emergency planning college and the training that is done through the civil contingencies secretariat.

What powers would a directly elected assembly have in relation to emergency planning and civil defence?

The Deputy Prime Minister recently published the White Paper on regional governance, which included information on how we intend to give responsibilities to regional authorities in respect of civil contingency matters—and to strengthen the regions that do not opt for regional elected assemblies—in terms of the capacity to co-ordinate on a regional basis any mutual aid arrangements between local authorities, and other more strategic issues. I am certainly working hard to ensure that we have a strong regional dimension in emergency planning.

Does the Minister agree that the system of making security status known in Government buildings is obscure and not widely publicised? The term ?Black Bikini", for example, does not mean much to people in security terms. Has he observed that in the United States, the Department with responsibility for homeland defence has recently produced and widely publicised a new system using five different statuses ranging from red to green? Does he think that we have something to learn from that?

The British are always very good at such things, and I am confident that the advice given to all public officials and civil servants in Government buildings about the level of security that applies is widely understood and readily available. I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman's "Black Bikini" example, but, having discussed with American homeland security officials some of the wider experiences in the United States, I shall certainly look much more closely at the matter.

When he plans to bring forward a civil service Bill. [55933]

In response to recommendations from both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Select Committee on Public Administration, which is chaired by my hon. Friend himself, the Government have committed themselves to civil service legislation, the timing of which will be announced in the normal way.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I suppose I am getting a little weary of asking this question, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is getting weary of answering it, but we have to sort it out somehow. The outgoing Cabinet Secretary says that we need a Bill now, the incoming Cabinet Secretary says that he is not sure, the First Civil Service Commissioner says that we need a Bill urgently, and the Public Administration Committee says that it is going to produce a Bill of its own. Can my right hon. Friend now say with some precision when he expects a consultation document to appear, and when he expects a draft Bill to follow it?

We have made it absolutely clear that the Government's position is that we will produce a civil service Bill, which will become a civil service Act. We are in agreement with the conclusions of the Public Administration Committee on these matters. The recent comment by my hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Committee, that he felt that there was some doubt about that was quite wrong. We are strongly of this opinion, and we will produce that Bill. We welcome any consultation and any views that may be presented to us, and a consultation document will be produced shortly.

The sooner the better. Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that not only is this measure widely sought after—and there is some consensus around it—but it is a proper response to the welcome stream of apologies and expressions of regret that have been heard from, for example, Alastair Campbell, who said that the techniques of opposition had been used in government for too long, and from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who referred to over-politicised press officers? Surely, drawing the boundary lines more clearly is what the Act would be for.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about drawing the boundary lines. We have made that clear, and I think that we are the first Government to make it clear that there should be a civil service Act. We will carry out that promise.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the danger of introducing a civil service Bill at this time is that it will get bogged down in the current controversies? Will he ensure that the long-term future of the civil service, and the issues of "departmentalitis" and the division between policy and implementation, are addressed before a Bill is introduced?

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we intend to do. We will consult before the Bill is introduced. That is our intention; let us make no mistake, the Government are committed to bringing in a new civil service Act—with all in agreement on the matter, we hope.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that all civil servants throughout the United Kingdom should have an opportunity to develop their expertise and competency? Will he seek to include in the civil service Bill provision for such training for professional civil servants as will enable them to gain expertise that will facilitate easy transfer between the Assemblies and Parliament, and thereby afford them greater opportunity for career development?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and the consultation document will cover many aspects of training, management and transferability between different sections.

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's reaffirmation that it is the Government's intention to publish a draft civil service Bill in the near future. Is it still current thinking that it may contain a proposal for a cap on the number of special advisers?

The Bill will address itself to that point—but my hon. Friend must await the consultation document.

As there is genuine cross-party consensus that we should have a civil service Bill, and furthermore that one of the principles that should be enshrined in it is protection of the independence of the civil service from any allegations of undue political influence, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that such a Bill would be a good vehicle for introducing a genuinely independent non-partisan watchdog to check that donations to the governing party have not bought any favours? Does he further agree that such a vehicle is greatly to be preferred to the toothless poodle announced by his party yesterday?

The name of Asil Nadir comes clearly to mind. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to making sure that there is transparency in all political donations. We committed ourselves to that in opposition, although the previous Conservative Administration would not support such a proposal. We continue to be committed to that aim, because we believe that all contributions should be open to proper examination, and we took another step towards it yesterday when we said how our party will deal with the matter. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his party will do the same?

Pursuant to his oral answer of 24 April to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr. Thomas), Official Report, columns 320–21, on sustainable development, if he will make a statement on progress in preparation for the world summit. [55934]

The fourth preparatory ministerial committee for the summit will take place in Indonesia from next weekend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will lead the United Kingdom delegation.

Do Ministers preparing for the summit recognise that civil nuclear power is essential for sustainable development?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that nuclear power is an important part of the provision of power in this country, and it will continue to be so. As the recent report by the performance and innovation unit pointed out, by 2010 about 20 per cent. of our power will be provided by nuclear generation. We are now conducting serious consultations about the future of power, and particularly about the role of nuclear power, which will be covered by a White Paper to be announced at the turn of the year.

I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will have seen the BBC news item last night about the perilous situation in Malawi, where the worst famine since that in Ethiopia some 20 years ago is expected. As part of his preparations for the conference in southern Africa, will he ensure that all western Governments are fully engaged in efforts to avert that crisis?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are involved in many matters around the world, and the world summit on sustainable development is about trying to get the same commitment to helping poorer nations and those who suffer great degradation and poverty as we gave to combating terrorism after 11 September.

I genuinely commiserate with the Deputy Prime Minister following the news that he may be suffering from diabetes. I know from my own family experience that that has no impact whatsoever on the ability to conduct an active career, and I am sure that he will able to do that. Given that the Cabinet Office has made it clear that health factors played no part in his decision not to go to Bali, will he explain why he will no longer be joining his officials there? Is it because he is a little embarrassed about the reports of the level of luxury that will be enjoyed by those who do attend?

The hon. Gentleman is developing a reputation for asking personal questions that have no relevance whatever to the point before us. He relies heavily on a British press that is much discredited for its handling of such stories— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may say "Oh", but a recent European Union report points out that only 20 per cent. of the British public trust the British press, yet the figure for the rest of Europe is more than double that. That shows how press prattle tends to dominate many matters of substance, both in this place and outside it.

As it was the Conservative Government who took the first delegation to the world summit in Rio in 1992, the hon. Gentleman should be aware of the well known fact that those negotiations are conducted by the Secretary of State for the Environment. My responsibility for such matters therefore ended at the last general election, when I moved from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and they are now dealt with by the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I never intended to be part of the delegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, or to attend Bali Hi—or Bali Low—at any point.

What recent meetings he has had with organisations involved in combating urban poverty. [55935]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has recently met local organisations involved in combating urban poverty in Bradford, Doncaster and Hull. He also chairs the new deal for communities MPs' forum, which was attended by representatives of the Bristol and Salford new deal for community partnerships when it met last month.

Does the Minister agree that combating urban poverty involves not just improving income, but improving opportunity and the environment, and reducing crime? In my local authority of Sandwell, the new deal in the community has found employment for 150 people and secured training places for a further 600. By working with the police, it has also reduced burglaries by 50 per cent. Will the Minister apply the example of the Sandwell partnership to new deal projects in other areas of the country, and consider extending the Sandwell project to other parts of my constituency?

I certainly agree that in tackling poverty it is important to adopt minimum standards, or floor targets, which I describe as the social equivalent of the minimum wage. My hon. Friend is also right to say that, through the new deal for communities, some excellent work is being carried out in Sandwell by the local college and the police. I congratulate him on that work, and we will of course want to learn from such good practice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in dealing with urban poverty, it is crucial both to create jobs and to get people to existing jobs? Has she seen the recent report that highlights the importance of the bus service in getting people to their jobs, and to college opportunities? Will she persuade the Government to pay far greater attention to providing more buses and creating a better bus service?

My right hon. Friend is right. We know that there is a correlation between transport, jobs and unemployment, and that is precisely why the social exclusion unit is producing a report on that very subject.

What plans he has to review the ministerial code of conduct. [55937]

A revised ministerial code of conduct was published last year, and it remains under review.

It is apparently okay for a Minister to mislead the House about the sacking of a civil servant, yet when the same Minister tells the truth about the referendum on the euro, he gets into trouble. Is there not something wrong, therefore, with the ministerial code of conduct?

This is becoming a very tired subject. The hon. Gentleman should reread the statements that were made to the House; it is time that we moved on.

When he next plans to review the ministerial code with reference to parliamentary statements and other Government announcements. [55938]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

The Minister may think that it is time to move on, but I am not sure that the country does, so when will he answer the question? When will the ministerial code deal with those who lie to the House?

Jonathan Aitken, Neil Hamilton, Jeffrey Archer—I am trying to remember the names. Perhaps my mind is a little jaded by the history of Conservative Administrations. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the ministerial code of conduct is a strong document that ensures high standards of conduct from Ministers. I am proud of it. The hon. Gentleman should read it, and the amendments that are being made to it.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 May.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister share my concern at the acute shortage of affordable homes and homes for rent in London and the south-east? Will he therefore ensure that the desperate need for extra housing investment is addressed in the forthcoming spending review? Does he agree that through such extra investment and by building on the fact that we have already reversed the disastrous cuts in housing investment that took place under the Conservative Government, we will demonstrate more clearly than ever the utterly hollow sham represented by the words "caring Conservatism"?

I am pleased to say that over the next couple of years, as a result of the additional investment, investment in housing will amount to some £4 billion, compared with about £1.6 billion when we came to office. As important as anything else has been the starter homes initiative for key workers in London, which will help about 4,500 of them. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal more to do. That is clearly an important matter in relation to the comprehensive spending review. Of course, all that investment was opposed by the Conservative Opposition.

In 1998 the Prime Minister removed the power of head teachers to exclude pupils involved in drugs. Does he now regret that policy?

Of course head teachers have the power to exclude pupils who are causing a problem in their schools. We have tried to bear down on unnecessary exclusions, but the right of head teachers to exclude pupils is necessary.

The Prime Minister speaks of excluding children, but in 1998 he gave appeals panels the power to overrule head teachers' decisions to exclude those involved in drug taking or dealing. Worse than that, the Prime Minister made it clear in that legislation that head teachers had to listen and respond to the directions of the Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State has said that excluding pupils for drugs offences was

"extreme and not related to the real world".

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the number of school pupils taking drugs has gone up or down since then?

We know very well that the numbers of pupils who take drugs is a serious issue in our schools, but it is nonsense to suggest that we are saying that head teachers should not have the power to exclude pupils who are taking drugs. What is more, the work that we have been doing in schools on drug education and on ensuring that those who are dealing in drugs are properly punished bears comparison with anything that the previous Government did. In fact, over the past few years, we have invested more money in drugs education in our school, whereas the previous Government cut the amount of money available.

As ever—promises, but never the answer. Drug taking in schools has risen by nearly a third since the present Government have been in power, all because they undermined head teachers. Linked to that, assaults on teachers have risen fivefold since the Government came to power. Is it not a fact that schools are more drug-infested and more violence-ridden as a direct result of the way in which the Government have undermined the discipline of teachers and head teachers?

That is a pathetic attempt to exploit an issue which everybody knows is a serious issue in schools. It is nonsense to suggest that we have been lenient with people assaulting teachers in schools. We have made it clear that they should be subject to the severest penalties. As for drug taking in schools, if the Government were responsible, how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that when the Conservatives were in power, crime doubled and drug taking at every level increased? We have taken measures to ensure that head teachers have the power to exclude, but we are also trying to deal with the causes of drug taking in our schools. Once again, the Conservative party sees a problem and, instead of trying to deal with it, simply wants to exploit it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan over the disputed area of Kashmir, which are in danger of developing into a full-scale war, or even a nuclear confrontation. What steps will he and the British Government take to defuse that extremely dangerous and potentially lethal situation?

The situation is indeed grave and serious and the dangers inherent in it cannot be stressed enough. India and Pakistan are currently confronting each other, and I urge the leadership of both countries to pause and reflect before taking action that could plunge not just their countries but the wider region into conflict, with implications for the whole world. We are in constant touch with both countries and other allies, and we will do everything that we possibly can to try to calm the tension and remove the source of conflict.

My own view is that it is essential in the end that Pakistan should stop support for any form of terrorism in Kashmir or anywhere else in the region and, at the same time, that India should be prepared to offer a proper system of dialogue to resolve all issues between the two countries, including disputes over Kashmir. That is the only way we will resolve the issue in the long term. In the short term, I urge both countries to reflect carefully on the moves on which they may embark.

Without doubt, the entire House will agree with the Prime Minister's sentiments on that issue.

On a different issue, does he agree with his former policy director, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who this week signed a parliamentary motion that puts forward his view that the five economic tests for sterling's entry into the single currency have already been met?

I agree—of course—with the Government's policy.

Then here is the ideal opportunity for the Prime Minister to clarify what the Government's policy actually is. Given the conflicting signals over the past week coming from the Treasury and No. 10, has the Prime Minister ruled out introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech this autumn to enable a single currency referendum?

The position is entirely clear, as it always has been. We believe that if the economic tests are met and passed—that assessment has to be made before June 2003—we will put the issue to people in a referendum. That is clear, and it is different from the policy of the Conservative party, which is against the single currency for good, for ever and at any point in time, and the policy of the Liberal Democrats, which is to enter the single currency even if the economic tests are not met and it is not in the economic interests—

indicated dissent.

If the right hon. Gentleman denies that, he presumably agrees with me. He should adopt the Government's policy, too.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to Ken and Libby Osborne, whose son Joshua was tragically killed by their child minder, Linda Bayfield. Will the Prime Minister instigate an urgent review of the laws that protect our children from abusive child minders and nannies and, in particular, give parents the right of access to serious complaints that have been made against child minders? In the case of Ken and Libby Osborne, that would have saved their son Joshua, who would still be with us.

I extend my sympathy to Mr. and Mrs. Osborne on the tragic death of their child. The Department for Education and Skills is looking at how the regulation of child care and child minders can be strengthened. However, no decisions have yet been taken. This case obviously illustrates the need for such a review.

I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the crisis in the coal industry, including the threat to Betws colliery in my constituency. Will he tell us when the Government intend to make an announcement about an extension to the existing coal subsidy regime, which is currently set to expire on 23 July?

As the hon. Gentleman says, we are considering that now. I should point out that I think Betws colliery has already received nearly £3 million under the operating aid scheme, and I think a further £1 million, or slightly more, is likely to be approved by the European Union shortly.

The operating aid scheme has brought benefits to the coal industry—some £140 million has been paid out under it—but we must review it, and we are reviewing it. I cannot say exactly when the decision will be made, but it will obviously be made before the deadline that we set.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the American Government's assertion that Cuba is a terrorist state?

I think that America is entitled to its position on Cuba, which it takes for obvious reasons. We, however, take our position.

What assessment have the Government made of recent reports of confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in South Korea and, indeed, in southern Japan? One case was less than 20 miles from a principal World cup stadium.

Given that rural Britain is still reeling from the impact of foot and mouth disease last year, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the thousands of Britons travelling to the World cup, as supporters and as journalists covering not just England matches but all matches taking place in those two countries, do not inadvertently bring the virus back to the United Kingdom through British airports?

Obviously we will consider what measures are necessary, but it is important to recognise that strict measures are already in place as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak that occurred here. While we must of course take any reasonable precaution, we must also ensure that we are not over-restrictive or unnecessarily bureaucratic.

After Potters Bar, safety on the railways is at the forefront of all our minds. British Rail was forced to sell off its track maintenance operations in 1993. Does the Prime Minister agree that the use of sub-contracted maintenance workers since then makes it more difficult for us to create a railway that is truly safe?

I think that the Lord Cullen recommendations give the answer. Lord Cullen recommended certain changes which are being implemented now. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has also asked for work to be done by the Health and Safety Commission.

I do not think that the use of contractors and sub-contractors always means that a lower standard of safety is adhered to, but it does mean we should ensure that the proper checks are made to establish that safety standards are being adhered to. That is, of course, the very reason for Lord Cullen's recommendations.

Why, according to the Institute for Management Development, has Britain fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league since Labour took office?

Actually, the country moves around that competitive league virtually from year to year.

Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the same report makes it clear that Britain will have a better growth record than any other major economy anywhere in the world. I thank him for giving me an opportunity to raise the issue of the economy. Britain now has the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates for 40 years. Britain now has the lowest unemployment for nearly 30 years. Britain has cut long-term unemployment massively, and I pleased to say that Britain's economy is set to grow more than any comparable economy this year.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question.

The Prime Minister will know that heroin is one of the biggest problems facing former mining constituencies such as his and mine. Is he surprised, given his earlier remarks about primary school education, that Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council, which is run by Plaid Cymru, still refuses to fund primary school education on drugs, such as the project in my constituency called DARE— Drug Abuse Resistance Education? Is he worried about the fact that my constituents must wait for 12 months for projects related to crime, drugs and alcohol? Does he believe that the way to deal with the problems is not to talk about reclassifying drugs, but to start thinking about making the extra investment in health, education and anti-crime measures that the Tories pointedly failed to make?

It is important that we take action in relation to this problem. First, we must make sure that there is proper investment in drugs treatment and in drugs education. That is what we are doing. We must also make sure that those who engage in peddling drugs are dealt with severely. That is why the changes in the criminal justice system and the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is being opposed by the Conservatives, are just as important as drug treatment and prevention.

Will the Prime Minister tell us which Cabinet Minister is in charge of organising elections and referendums?

The issue of elections and referendums has obviously been dealt with through the Home Office in the past. However, all decisions are Cabinet decisions. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know anything particular, he can ask us.

On 8 June 2001, in a Downing street press notice—issued, no doubt, by the Prime Minister—he made it clear that responsibility for referendums and elections was transferred to the newly created Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Last year, therefore, the Prime Minister put the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in charge of referendums. When the Transport Secretary said that legislation on the euro referendum would be announced on the day of the next Queen's Speech, was he telling the truth?

First, the Home Office did indeed introduce the legislation on elections and referendums. Secondly, of course local elections are governed by the DTLR. As for what the Secretary of State has said, the position in relation to the euro referendum is exactly as I set it out a moment ago.

That is clear, then. It is marvellous that when the Transport Secretary goes on failing to tell the truth, the Prime Minister runs to his defence. When it appears that there is a glimmer of truth in what the Transport Secretary says, the Prime Minister dumps on him. Perhaps the Prime Minister could now answer the question. The Transport Secretary, the man in charge of referendums who will organise the legislation, said that on the day of the next Queen's Speech there would be legislation on the euro referendum. Was he telling the truth—yes or no?

The position in relation to the referendum is clear. If the economic tests are passed, we put the matter to the people in a referendum. What is more, those tests have to be met, or passed, or assessed before June 2003. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman: it is clear, as we said in the manifesto, that the tests have to be assessed before June 2003. If the tests are met, the issue goes to people in a referendum. The right hon. Gentleman can make whatever debating points he wants, but that is the policy. It is clear—indeed, it is a darn sight clearer than his policy.

More!

Order.

The Highways Agency made public commitments to environmental improvements before its operations in the capital were transferred to Transport for London. Those commitments have not been honoured. Four years ago, after the M11 link road was built through my constituency, I was promised, in writing, £1 million for environmental improvements to Leyton and Wanstead. That promise has not been fulfilled. Will the Prime Minister look into the matter so that trust can be restored in the word of Government agencies?

This is another case of a transferred obligation, as I gather that Transport for London is now responsible for compensation schemes. It has received about £20 million for doing so, but I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's point.

The Prime Minister made some remarks in the past week with which I agreed. I refer to his science policy announcement on Monday, when he said that he would take further action to protect the science base and support scientists. Will the right hon. Gentleman back that up by making sure that we can in practice prevent animal rights activists from stopping legal research, and encourage trials of genetically modified crops to find out what their impact is? Does he recognise that problems of facilities and academic pay in the universities will create tensions for big research laboratories, which may well go to the United States. There is a big agenda here. Will the Prime Minister follow his good words with action?

The work that we have done already in trying to protect companies, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences, has been important, and we need to make it quite clear that those people who want to protest should do so legitimately and lawfully. What they should not do is disrupt legitimate business and prevent research, because people may be totally opposed to GM crops, but at least we should know the facts, based on research.

I will be making it clear tomorrow as well that, of course, we want to continue the support for science. We have already increased its funding very significantly, both in the public sector and in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, but I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we carry on that work. The science base is hugely important not just to the future of this country, but, in particular, to the economy and the education of our children.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the complaints of people who are intimidated—or who, more often than not, feel intimidated—by the collections of young people on street corners are echoed by the young people themselves, who would much rather have somewhere else to go and something else to do? Will he take the opportunity of the comprehensive spending review to invest heavily in the youth service, which has been a Cinderella service, and in facilities for young people throughout the country?

We are doing two things: first, we are investing more money in youth services, and secondly, we are also investing in the new Connexions service which offers young people the prospect of proper career advice and development, which is vitally important for them. But my hon. Friend is right: at the same time as we bear down heavily on street crime and make sure that people who are repeat offenders are not constantly bailed, and so forth, we have to invest in programmes, such as sure start, and education, making sure that the youth services are properly funded so that young people have something to do and somewhere to go, rather than hanging about on street corners, creating mischief.

On 26 February, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said:

"Martin Sixsmith offered his resignation, which was accepted, on 15 February."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 574.]

Was he telling the truth?

That has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend and me. What this indicates, yet again, is the utter inability of the Conservatives to deal with any policy issue. It is fascinating—is it not?—that just once at this Prime Minister's Question Time have I been asked a serious policy question from the Conservative party— and that was from someone who does not agree with his party's leadership.

In light of the reports of a college placing creationism and evolution on the same terms, does the Prime Minister agree that the national curriculum should be clarified to prevent the two being presented as scientific equivalents? Does he also agree that it is better to draw a clear line now, rather than later, to deal with the consequences of those teachers who abuse their position?

We must be careful of exaggerating the issue of creationism in schools. I say to my hon. Friend that the national curriculum already provides certain safeguards. Of course those safeguards are kept under review, but I am hesitant myself about saying that those particular issues should be dealt with if it is the case, as I believe, that the school in question is a good school, providing a good service for its pupils.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the former membership secretary in his own constituency that the Labour party has ceased to be a democratic movement and has become a centralised mail order business?

I do not believe that he would have said that at all. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that, if he looks at some of the local election results, he will see that we saw off the Liberal Democrats in many areas of the country.

May I raise the question of Gibraltar? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Does the Prime Minister recall the prayer that says, "God grant me the courage to change the things which I can, the patience to accept those things that I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference"? Should not that be applied in relation to the Government's policy on Gibraltar? The fact is that we cannot change Spain's position, so is it not time that we concluded those abortive and foolhardy talks and robustly defended the right of the people of Gibraltar to enjoy access throughout Europe and to promote their economy unhindered by Spain?

Hear, hear.

Opposition Members cheer, but they should know that the Brussels process in which we are engaged began in 1984 and has been carried forward in good faith by the Government. It has been carried forward for a very simple reason: there is a dispute over Gibraltar and it has many ramifications within the European Union, for this country as well as for Spain. It is important that we try to resolve it, but we have made it clear throughout that the final say has to rest with the people of Gibraltar. We have conducted the talks in good faith and we will continue to do so.

As the Prime Minister very sensibly expects strong support for his policy against terrorism, and as there is no commitment in the Good Friday agreement to granting an amnesty to terrorists on the run, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an absolute assurance that he has no such intention?

What I can say is that we will look at the issue very carefully—as we said; there is a real issue as regards people on the run who have been either charged or convicted of offences, and circumstances where those who have been convicted and served their time are now out on the prisoner release scheme. We are well aware of the sensitivities regarding that issue in Northern Ireland and we hope that we can find a way forward that meets those sensitivities but that deals with a genuine problem—an anomaly in the system.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Newcastle-under-Lyme Labour borough council on its work with the Labour Government and the Labour county council in attracting thousands of new jobs to former coal mining areas in my constituency? Furthermore, does he agree that the effective partnerships that we are forging show Labour making a real difference up and down the country in clearing up the wreckage left in former mining communities by the Conservatives?

It is true that massive investment is going into the former coal mining areas. That has of course created many, many jobs; indeed, there are 1.5 million extra jobs in the economy as a whole. All that investment was opposed by the so-called new party of the vulnerable.

As a fellow musician, the Prime Minister, I am sure, appreciates the contribution of the creative industries of the United Kingdom. He will therefore be aware that massive losses have been incurred by some of the major record companies in the UK. What are he and his Government going to do about the real issues of music piracy and copyright infringement that pose a great threat to the UK music industry?

I do not describe myself as a musician, but in respect of record companies, we have tightened the law in this country—it has also been tightened internationally. Many of the laws against piracy have to be dealt with internationally—as we are trying to do—and although I understand the frustration experienced by the record companies, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the result of the technology that is now available makes that very difficult.

In answer to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend re-emphasised the Government's commitment to increasing investment in science and engineering. In that context, does he share my disappointment that in a recent survey of 16-year-old school leavers neither scientist nor engineer figured in the top ten career choices of girls? What are the Government doing to improve the attractiveness of careers in science and engineering for girls and for boys?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that many young people do not see science as a good career. One of the best things that we can do is to show by what is happening in science today— in particular the extraordinary spin-offs between scientific endeavour and the commercial world—what huge opportunities there are for our young people. I hope that the investment and the priority given to science by the Government will play a part in that. If young people knew, for example, that in the Cambridge area alone there were some 60,000 high-tech, well-paid jobs as a result of co-operation between science and the academic world, we should have a lot more people going into science.

If the Prime Minister believes that questions in the House about whether a Minister has told the truth are not important matters for the House, may I ask that he take advice from his mentors and come back next week with a different answer?

Moving on from that, my specific question is on Northern Ireland. Has the Prime Minister noticed that the proportion of people—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked one question, and that is enough.

Of course it is important that Ministers tell the truth. I was simply saying that the issue had been dealt with comprehensively by the Secretary of State. I was saying also that it was typical of the Conservative party that it wants to personalise every issue rather than deal with policy issues, which are the real stuff of politics.

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

I should express right at the beginning of my remarks the fact that I fully understand the sentiments and concerns that underpin amendments Nos. 2 and 4, which were made to the Bill in another place. In particular, I am sure that we would all wish to ensure that the enormously important contribution that academic medicine makes to the national health service is properly safeguarded and that its international reputation for excellence is properly secured.

Fundamentally, the arguments in favour of the amendments are based on two assumptions, the first of which is that the existing legal framework to ensure that education, training and research is properly underpinned in the NHS is either inadequate or ineffective. I do not believe that to be the case. The necessary statutory powers already exist and help to ensure that a proper focus on education, teaching and research is maintained right across the service.

The second assumption is that the NHS does not take the question of education, training and research seriously enough—that it is too low a priority and that creating a new legal duty in this area will improve matters.

On the first of those two arguments, I remind the House that section 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 places a clear duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his functions so as

"to secure that there are made available such facilities as he considers are reasonably required by any university which has a medical or dental school, in connection with clinical teaching and with research connected with clinical medicine, or as the case may be, clinical dentistry".

That duty is already delegated to health authorities, and once the changes under "Shifting the Balance of Power within the NHS" take effect—and once the changes under the Bill take effect later this year—it will be delegated directly to primary care trusts across the country. The duty is no less of a duty because it is delegated by the Secretary of State to PCTs. The Secretary of State and, through him, PCTs, will have a duty under the section to ensure the provision of facilities that are necessary for clinical teaching and research.

Under paragraphs 14 and 15 of part 3 of schedule 5 A to the 1977 Act, which broadly sets out the powers and duties of PCTs, PCTs are empowered to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research and to make officers and facilities available in connection with training by a university or any other body providing training in connection with the health service.

Under paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, an NHS trust may undertake and commission research and make available staff and provide facilities for research by other persons. Under paragraph 12 of schedule 2 to the 1990 Act, an NHS trust may also provide training for persons employed or likely to be employed by the trust or otherwise in the provision of services under the 1977 Act, and to make facilities and staff available in connection with training by a university or any other body providing training in connection with the health service.

Under section 5(2)(d) of the National Health Service Act 1977, the Secretary of State has the power to conduct, or assist others to conduct, by grants or otherwise, research into matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and into any such other matters connected with any service provided under the 1977 Act, as he considers appropriate.

In addition to those specific powers, if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary under section 17 of the 1977 Act, as amended by the Bill, he has a power to give directions about their exercise of any functions to strategic health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts. The exercise of all those powers in relation to health bodies in Wales has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.

Anyone with a fair mind would regard that description of legal powers and duties as a comprehensive one, which I believe provides a solid legal basis for education, training and research right across the NHS.

The Lords amendment was made with the best of intentions—I am absolutely sure of that—but it would be superfluous to include its provisions in the Bill. As a general principle, we should not legislate unless there is a clear and obvious need to do so. An adequate legal framework is already in place and can, if necessary, be supplemented by directions from the Secretary of State to strategic health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts about the exercise of relevant functions. There is, in short, no substantive need for the amendment, and that is why we should not accept it. There is another set of difficulties with the amendment. It is too vague to be meaningful. It does not even define education, training or research, or limit the scope of those three concepts to the health sector; nor does it offer any way of measuring whether the bodies concerned are meeting their legal obligations.

The second argument in support of the amendments relates to the concern about whether there is sufficient focus on education, training and research in the NHS. I believe that there is. That is certainly true of resources. On research, the Department of Health has increased its research and development budget from £432 million in 1996–97 to £507 million in this financial year. In relation to education and training, the budget for multi-professional education and training—the new MPET budget—has increased from £1.7 billion in 1996–97 to £2.9 billion this year. Those are significant increases in resources. No one looking at those figures could say that the Government have not focused sufficiently on education and training issues.

The amendments are not necessary to protect the funding for education, training or research. NHS funding for supporting research and development and for education and training is already managed centrally, as I am sure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) recalls from his time in the Department of Health. NHS education and training funding is allocated to local NHS work force development confederations, which bring together local NHS organisations, including primary care organisations. Those in turn have the responsibility to purchase NHS-funded education and training from higher education institutions in accordance with local work force requirements, of course taking account of national priorities. NHS trusts can also use their own funds to support education and training where appropriate.

PCTs in particular, therefore, will not be under pressure to spend that money for other purposes. We have no plans to put the funding for research into PCTs' allocations for patient care. The money for research is ring-fenced. Indeed, even the small amount of money that health authorities spend directly on commissioning public health research and development will in future be protected within a ring-fenced central research and development budget.

The argument is not simply about money, however. It is right that we continue to look carefully at how we can improve present arrangements. That is why we will look for an increasingly closer collaboration between universities and research-active NHS bodies to guarantee the quality of research that meets the needs of patients and of staff delivering services at the front line.

We are already putting in place a new network of PCTs that will help to promote high standards of research governance and management across health and social care. The creation of that network by April next year is one of the targets in implementing the research governance framework for health and social care, which my Department published in March 2001. Those PCTs will have research management capacity that they will share with other PCTs around them, encouraging, I hope, a collaborative approach to research. By next April, we will also have in place around 30 new teaching PCTs, mainly in underprivileged and under-staffed areas to provide teaching, research and clinical opportunities for primary and community care professionals to support and improve the delivery of services to local populations. Teaching PCTs will work alongside local universities to provide a learning environment for their own organisation, as well as a local resource for the wider health community.

PCTs will also have the ability and opportunity to enhance the quality of patient care by engaging patients and carers in support of teaching and research; by fostering the special opportunities available in primary care for research and for teaching students across the range of health professions; and by taking full account of teaching and research in their commissioning of local and more distant hospital and specialist services. We expect PCTs to grasp those opportunities to ensure both the long-term success of the NHS plan and the continuing contribution of the NHS to health-related research and education.

To ensure that PCTs are fully equipped to take on their new functions, the national primary care trust development programme has been established. The programme recognises that, in addition to developing the general competencies of PCTs, more detailed work is required over a longer period on specific issues. I am pleased to be able to announce that one of those subjects will be the research, education and training issues affecting PCTs. The national primary care trust development programme will pull together a number of front-line PCTs, and other key individuals and organisations, to help to take that work forward. That will help to support PCTs in discharging their important responsibilities in that sector.

The Government are fully committed to investment in the NHS work force. The NHS plan has made that commitment clear, and our record in office confirms the priority that we rightly attach to education, training and research. Since 1997, the number of nurses has increased by 31,520; in the year between September 2000 and September 2001, the number of qualified nurses employed in the NHS increased by 14,430, or more than 4 per cent. Since 1997, the number of qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff has increased by almost 14,000; in the past year alone, the number of such staff has increased by 4,290 or 4 per cent. Since 1997, the number of doctors has increased by 9,550; there are now 99,170 doctors, excluding GP retainers, in the NHS in England. In the past year, the number of NHS doctors has increased by 2,850, or 3 per cent. I am glad to say that there are now 4,320 more consultants than there were in 1997.

The House will probably be grateful if I do not continue to read through that long list of statistics, but overall they are extremely positive. They confirm that we have prioritised that necessary investment, and that it is being made. We are committed to the development of that work through an expanded programme of education, training and research. The NHS plan and the most recent Budget underline those strong commitments. The Government are also committed to a modern NHS that values and makes use of research-based evidence in developing patient services.

Given the legal provisions that are currently available to sustain the proper focus on education, training and research, and the special arrangements that apply to the use of those resources in the NHS, I hope that the House agrees that amendment No. 2 is not necessary. Although I am sure that it is motivated by the best intentions, the circumstances in which we should and should not legislate are clear.

Amendment No. 4 would impose a similar statutory duty on local health boards, NHS trusts in Wales and specialist commissioning bodies in Wales. The position in Wales in respect of legal powers must now take into account the devolution settlement and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The existing powers and duties of the Secretary of State, laboriously described by me this afternoon, as they apply to the NHS in Wales have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly.

In addition, clause 6 confers on the Assembly a new general power both to establish local health boards and to determine their functions and duties. Consultation on the new structures will soon start in Wales. The problem with the amendment is that to a large extent it pre-empts that consultation exercise by establishing on the face of the Bill one of the duties of these new bodies; it is therefore inconsistent with the thrust of clause 6.

Were we to accept the amendment, we would in effect fetter the democratically elected devolved Administration in the exercise of their powers over those policy matters. The form, functions and responsibilities of local health boards are rightly matters for the Welsh Assembly to determine through regulations. Those regulations will be subject to scrutiny through the secondary legislation procedure, which will allow full open debate by Assembly Members. That is the right way to determine the functions of the new bodies in Wales, and that is what clause 6 already provides for. Amendment No. 4 would take us in the opposite direction, and for that reason, we should not agree to it.

I listened carefully to the Minister and I appreciate his acknowledging that the amendments were tabled in all good faith. However, he went on to say that they were superfluous; I do not concur with that aspect of his analysis. As the Minister will know, concerns have been expressed in many areas by a large number of individuals both inside and outside the NHS about the terms of medical education, training and research. The amendments apply to England and Wales; they have the widest possible terms and embrace all aspects of education, training and research relevant to the NHS.

4 pm

I am sure that we all agree about the importance of education, training and research, but we cannot ignore problems in respect of their delivery, which is at the heart of our disagreement with the Minister. We want to focus on the size of the problem and whether existing NHS structures allow education, training and research to thrive and prosper. No one would disagree that our final goal is to ensure that they do so, but our disagreement or, rather, our change of emphasis, concerns the way in which we maximise opportunities and ensure that delivery goes beyond mere rhetoric and lives up to expectations. The issue at stake is not simply the existence of powers in NHS legislation, but whether they are being used to their full extent to maximise benefits and opportunities, which is why the proposed new clauses use the word "duty" in their titles. Will the Minister explain again why he believes that that word is superfluous, instead of regarding it as a back-up in the armoury of delivery to ensure that we achieve the end that we all seek?

While we all agree about the importance of education and its vital role in the NHS, it is plain to many people, particularly those involved in training and research, that those disciplines are vulnerable and threatened in the NHS. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that teaching and research resources are currently squeezed in NHS trusts. Lecture theatres are used for other purposes; there is a staffing crisis in universities; and doctors are so overwhelmed by day-to-day demands on their time, which affect their health care functions, that there is little or no time for research. It is all too tempting to sit back, secure in the comfort of the extra resources to which the Minister referred this afternoon and the possible extra resources that will emanate from last month's Budget. Citing statistics, however, will not make the problem go away; after all, part of the problem has been the squeeze on finances.

The problem, however, is not as simple as that. It is far from clear that any extra resources will find their way into teaching and research, as the Minister hopes. The crux of the matter is whether all the bodies in the NHS with a role in teaching, research and education will deliver the enhanced service we all hope for. I have doubts, for example, about primary care trusts and their lack of expertise and experience. The Minister may say with some justification that as PCTs bed down and gain experience, that problem may be minimised. The fact is that, as we made abundantly clear in Committee, the time scale for the introduction of PCTs was rushed; there will be problems with the new bodies' lack of experience and their ability to cope with their heavy responsibilities.

I have no doubt—and I hope that no doubts arise—that PCTs will build up experience and that the fears and concerns expressed in the initial stages of their creation will be removed. None the less, experience is a problem in the early stages, as it will be in any new organisation. The trusts have been asked in these early days to concentrate on identifying and providing acute care and other health services. However, if all their time and effort is concentrated on the delivery of health care—everyone would agree that that is their main function—problems may arise if they have to cut corners in the early stages because of those demands.

Education, training and research are a classic issue that PCTs will always feel they can pick up on later while seeking now to minimise the other problems concerning health care provision. Another problem is that the trusts' natural orientation is towards primary care. For those reasons, I do not believe that there can be certainty that PCTs will commission so as to promote and safeguard education, training and research to the extent that we would have hoped and expected them to do, especially in their early days.

The safeguarding of those elements of the health service, on whose importance we all agree, is still not addressed by strategic health authorities. The Government have stressed the role of SHAs in terms of the performance management of PCTs that fail to achieve what the authorities believe they should achieve on education and research. I am deeply sceptical, however, about whether the introduction of such loose structures and untried processes at this stage of the reforms will solve the problem.

Nevertheless, there is one sure way we can safeguard the three critical areas in question and put beyond any doubt the responsibility of NHS bodies for those vital elements, which are crucial if our health service is to continue to make improvements and enhancements and to deliver quality treatment. That solution is for the Minister to think again and accept the amendments introduced by another place—a place that is renowned for being not the partisan and highly political body that this House often is, but a more reflective body, which in debates about the Bill has drawn on the expertise of people who have spent a considerable proportion of their professional lives in the health service and in health and research in general. It would be unwise not to heed their wise words and reflective views and to seek to reverse a measure that was introduced into the Bill not to cause trouble but to strengthen, encourage and enhance training, research and education.

In the light of the reasonable way in which I have tried to convince the Minister of the argument. I hope that he will understand in an equally reasonable way that as we are considering such a crucial matter it would be wise to strengthen and reinforce the message by agreeing to the amendments, instead of deciding that they are superfluous and relying on the provisions as they stood before the Bill was amended.

I speak in support of the Lords amendments and against the motions to disagree on the basis of, first, a series of problems that exist at the level of academic medicine and teaching and research; secondly, an additional problem caused by Government policy, which puts more pressure on primary care trusts not to deal with the problem; and thirdly, a question mark over whether there is any problem with introducing the amendments. The Government may suspect that they will not be effective, but I do not believe that they would do any harm.

There are significant problems in education, training and research. There are also significant numbers of vacancies in academic medicine, and that situation is not getting any better; if anything, it is getting worse. Without the people to do the training—and, indeed, the people to train the trainers—we shall not have a work force in the future. A briefing provided by the British Medical Association tells us that the number of medical academics as a proportion of the work force has fallen from 11 to 8 per cent.

That fall is partly the result of an increase in the numbers of staff, but I would argue that there is an a priori reason for the proportion to stay the same, because as we recruit new staff they will initially be at a junior level, and we are still not seeing enough resources going to provide either the trainers or the trainers for the trainers. The significant problems in the recruitment of medical academics are often due to the pressures on them, and the lack of resources they feel they have in terms of time, equipment, hardware and space to do the teaching that is required.

A further component of the need to ensure that resources are allocated to this area is the desperate need for consultant expansion. If resources were spent on education and research because of the amendment that has been made in the House of Lords, the side effects would be that a significant amount of that money would be extra funding, and that extra priority would be given to consultant expansion. I have said to the Government— and to the Minister who is speaking for them today— on many occasions since 1997 that they must safeguard consultant expansion and ensure that resources go into enabling senior-level consultant staff to do high-quality work, research and training, rather than allowing the expansion of sub-consultant and non-consultant career grade posts, which, for all their merit, are almost by definition not involved in the training of the next generation of specialists; they are almost entirely service-related posts.

Until the Government can do something about the explosion of such posts, I will have little faith in their ability to ensure that there will be sufficient numbers of people to do important work such as the research that is led—although not exclusively carried out—by consultants, and the training that ought do be done almost entirely by fully trained specialists. Were the Government to introduce, through separate legislation, the means of controlling this explosion in sub-consultant grades and non-consultant career grades, we would be much more inclined to support the position that they are taking here and—I suppose that this is what counts for the Government in terms of the size of their majority—in another place. The Minister will accept that I have raised this issue several times; I have never had a satisfactory answer. Perhaps, with this Government, I never will.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of what he is saying has to do with semantics, because what were once senior registrar grades are now, effectively, consultant grades, as we have recruited consultants who are younger and less experienced?

I fear that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question, and I would hesitate to guess at what he means. The easiest thing for me to do might be to restate our position, which is that we need—and the Government have said that they wish to see—a consultant-provided service for the treatment of patients and for the education and training of the next generation of the work force, and a consultant-provided, or at least consultant-led, research service. This applies to the other health care professions as well; I am using this as an example, but I am keen not to be seen to be concentrating on this one aspect.

If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman I apologise, but what we have seen instead is an explosion of jobs being created that are not to do with education and training. They are purely service jobs, including staff grades and associate specialists or, worse, non-mainstream trust grade doctors who are there to do the service work that trusts feel under pressure to do. Their numbers have expanded enormously. The Minister has heard me say before that many of the people filling those posts have not been treated well by the health service, often on the basis of their background or race, and that there are significant issues to address in this area.

We need to expand consultant opportunities and increase the number of people being trained for that specialist status. In the absence of a Government policy to guarantee that, this amendment, which would put a duty on the commissioners of services who provide the funding for those posts, would provide a mechanism for applying pressure for consultant expansion, although it would not be enough in itself. I hope that by setting out my position I have addressed the hon. Gentleman's point.

4.15 pm

The Minister said that the Government recognise the importance of research and try to base their policy on it. I question that, as I have before, because of some of the health policies that the Government are pursuing, such as giving priority to the two-week wait policy for cancer patients, which for all its merit is certainly not based on evidence of clinical outcomes. If the Government are saying that they support research so that it can inform their policies, they must "want"—to coin a phrase once used by another hon. Member—more research evidence, because I am not satisfied that that is happening.

My main concern is the pressure on primary care trusts and budget-holders arising from the distortion of priorities caused by the welter of Government targets, which are based, at best, on sensible service provision and, at worst, on aims that have little significance for, or impact on, rational patient outcomes. We know that education and training will always suffer when the commissioners of care are faced with compulsory targets.

If the Government withheld from setting some targets or at least adopted a more rational approach to target setting, I would be more likely to support their position that there is no need for the Bill explicitly to defend and protect less glamorous areas of the NHS. They may be less glamorous, but what is significant in this discussion is that they are not outcome-measured like many of the other initiatives that the Government have forced on primary care trusts. We have the tyranny of appraisal and the measurement of outcomes, and anything that does not have a hard outcome is deprioritised. That is why placing this duty on primary care trusts, although it is not the optimum solution, is a useful approach.

I turn finally to ring-fencing. The Minister knows my view that ideally we would have proper devolution of funding. Local commissioners would not be hidebound by ring-fenced pots or targets but would be in a position to allocate funding as they saw fit, according to local priorities, with a recognition of services that are not affordable through explicit rationing.

The Minister seeks to defend his position by saying that funding for research and education is ring-fenced, but at the same time he claims that the Government are devolving responsibility for decision making to primary care trusts, and that is not wholly consistent. The Government must decide once and for all whether they are in favour of full devolution of spending decisions or whether they are in favour of a ring-fenced approach. We could then examine that policy in more detail.

The time of people in education and training is not ring-fenced. They find that increasingly even their unpaid overtime is being eaten into by service requirements, some of which are reasonable and some of which are merely target chasing. It is to protect their ability to do their job and to avoid causing them to leave the NHS in disgust, which would create an even greater manpower problem, that we should agree with the Lords in their amendment and allow the duty to remain in the Bill.

I shall try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Both made thoughtful and well argued cases for the amendment, but none of their arguments confronted the issues as I see them. They did not deal with the inescapable logic that we should consider the legal basis of how these matters are currently regulated in the NHS. They also failed to deal with my remarks about our commitments and our allocation of resources. Listening to those contributions, one would think that education, training and research budgets were being cut because of service pressures elsewhere. That might well be an accurate description of past times, but it does not describe where we are today. Education, training and research projects are all growing substantially—a fact that provides the right context for the discussion that we should be having about these issues.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised some important points, and I agree with much of what he said about non-consultant service grade doctors and so on. There is little doubt that some of the growth in those grades constituted a reaction by trusts to the problems—as they perceive them—arising from the working time directive. To find solutions, we need to address that issue and to engage with the service urgently. It is not in the long-term interests of patients, doctors or the NHS itself to trap a large number of doctors in service grades in which they will be unable to use their full potential and skills. Frankly, such posts would not seem attractive or easy to fill in any case, even if it were right to set them up.

There is one aspect of the hon. Gentleman's argument that I find slightly difficult to understand. How would placing such a duty on primary care trusts deal with the problem? I accept that, in essence, we are talking about service issues that relate to resources. We need to look at medical, education and training issues in the round, and that is what we are doing. For example, we are considering senior house officer training, and there is a very strong case for reconsidering other grades, particularly non-consultant grade 2. Education, research and training are not—as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford have suggested—at the bottom of a list that prioritises issuing targets, and so on. Such issues are a priority, because fundamentally the national health service is a knowledge-based service. It is based on, and driven by, science and evidence.

The key to growing capacity—the biggest challenge that the NHS faces—is to invest in the NHS work force. We must train the new doctors, nurses, therapists and other grades of staff that the NHS needs for the future. We would be daft to compromise its ability to meet the NHS plan's challenging targets by taking a penny-pinching approach to education, training and research. We are simply not going to do that.

The Minister knows I accept the argument that he has just made, and I recognise that funding is available to begin the expansion of various aspects of the health service that we all want to see. I welcome his comments on non-consultant career grades, and perhaps we can pursue that issue later. However, I should stress that I am arguing not that the amendment would resolve the problem, but that—in terms of the need for consultant expansion, rather than service grade expansion—it would offer a protection, until we can see the fruits of the Government's thinking. Such thinking is reassuring, but we need to see the fruits of it.

If I genuinely thought that that were so, I would take a different view, but I simply do not believe that the amendment would achieve the hon. Gentleman's aim, and it certainly would not achieve mine.

There is also a wider context, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that we should keep in mind. On the broadly philosophical question of the balance between earmarked funding and general allocations to NHS organisations, I hope that he recognises the fact that we are earmarking unified general allocations to NHS trusts less and less. However, education and training is a separate issue. The hon. Gentleman, his Liberal Democrat colleagues and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford have identified the importance of such investment. We can secure prioritisation in an effective way without fundamentally compromising the thrust, the spirit or the letter of our policy on devolution.

The work force development confederations that receive the new training and education resources on behalf of the NHS are constituent organisations, consisting of local acute trusts, primary care trusts and so on. They are the organisations best placed to take such decisions. In distributing training and education resources to the confederations, identifying such resources carefully, and ensuring that they are spent on the purpose for which they were intended—a point that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised in support of the amendment— we are in no way conflicting with our overall position on the devolution of power to the NHS front line.

This is probably one of those debates in which, despite having all the arguments on my side, I will not persuade the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and the Liberal Democrats to take a different stance. They supported the amendments in the other place and I fully understand why they did so. In asking the House to disagree with the Lords amendments, I am in no way trying to downplay the importance of education, training and research. We differ about how the goal can best be achieved.

I am absolutely sure that the Secretary of State, the Department of Health and the NHS recognise the importance of education, training and research. We have shown that commitment in the way that we have dedicated significant additional resources to challenging some of the problems that we face and dealing with the capacity constraints that we inherited in the training of nurses, doctors and other therapists.

We are getting on with that job. The best way that we can do that is to continue in the direction that we have set, and not legislate unnecessarily. We would be doing that, and ineffectively as well, if we accepted the amendments. The Government will continue to attach the highest priority to education, training and research across the national health service.