in the Chair]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce the debate on support for carers. I intend to outline some of the difficulties that carers face in their duties. I shall focus on three particular areas: children who need care, hidden carers—placing emphasis on young carers—and the health needs of carers. I acknowledge the moves that have been taken to support them, but I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I shall be pressing her for more to be done on their behalf.

I have personal experience as a former foster carer for a local authority. I also cared for my mother during her terminal illness. I recognise the number of people who, at some time in their lives, will inevitably face caring responsibilities. It is a great pleasure to hold the debate in the middle of carers' week, an event that is especially important as it will highlight the difficulties faced by carers throughout the United Kingdom. It came into being through co-operation between several organisations that represent carers and which were anxious to highlight the difficulties they face. The organisations wanted to emphasise the contribution that carers make not only to the people for whom they care, but to society as a whole.

The organisations were Carers National Association, Contact a Family, Crossroads—Caring for Carers, and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. The week's activities are supported by the National Lottery Charities Board. The entire week will be devoted to highlighting the needs of carers, as well as celebrating and thanking them for their work. The organisations that are involved in carers' week highlight the fact that carers come in many and varied forms. They range from young carers under 18 years of age who care for a family member to people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s who care for a friend or a spouse. There are many other variations of carers, including, of course, parents who care for disabled children. I shall refer in detail to that group of carers later.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) is present. She has expertise in the work of carers, having been responsible for Barnardos in Wales before becoming a Member of Parliament. I am sure that everyone recognises the work of Barnardos in providing valuable respite care for families with severely disabled children.

Despite the variation in age and other factors, the definition of a carer is now widely accepted. It is a person who, without payment, provides help and support to a friend, neighbour or relative who could not manage otherwise because of frailty, illness or disability. Who are carers? Some facts and statistics from the 1995 general household survey give an insight into the wide range of carers. Six million people in the United Kingdom care for a relative, partner, friend or a child with a disability. That is about 10 per cent. of the population.

Carers can be of any age or gender and from all communities. Invariably, because of their caring duties, their lives are restricted. We are here today to debate support to ease those restrictions. It is perhaps not always recognised that men are almost as likely to care as women—42 per cent. of men compared with 58 per cent. of women. Despite the examples at either end of the spectrum, carers are most likely to be aged between 45 and 64 years. Half of all carers look after someone over the age of 75, a situation that will increase with an ageing UK population. Almost 1 million carers care for more than 50 hours a week, a fact that should, perhaps, be viewed alongside recent improvements made in the workplace. The European Union working time directive has given people a choice about the number of hours a week that they work. Figures show that a significant number of carers work well beyond the stipulations of the directive.

More than 2.5 million carers juggle care with paid work. A survey of carers showed that 50 per cent. had given up work to care. That is another important aspect that relates to support, for two reasons. First, we must enable carers to maintain their income. Evidence shows that financial stress is a major problem for many carers. Secondly, we must prevent isolation, another problem that carers have identified. Keeping contact with the workplace is important.

I remind the Minister that, in a speech in London on pensions on 5 February 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that too many people leaving the labour market do so not because they want to but because they feel that they have no choice. Many cannot afford to do so. It would be interesting to know how many leave their jobs because of caring responsibilities. Is any research being done on that, especially in light of the carer survey sample that I cited previously, in which 50 per cent. of carers surveyed gave up work to care?

The Government's family-friendly work strategy that has been implemented since 1997 is helping carers in a way that has not existed before. It is important that the situation is continually reviewed and that every possible help continues to be given to support carers in the workplace.

Surveys of carers have common themes. They all show that carers often suffer from financial worries; emotional stress; physical demands; isolation; loneliness; and, regrettably, still, despite the acknowledged efforts of recent years by the Government, lack of information and support.

Carers' needs are varied, and support for those needs must be equally wide-ranging. However, I shall take up the three aspects of caring to which I referred earlier. The first is children who need care. Three per cent. of children under 19 have a disability and need care. About 95 per cent. of those are cared for at home by a parent. That is an estimated 1 million parent carers, whose plight I shall examine in a little more detail.

Every day, 75 children in the UK are born or diagnosed with a serious disability or rare syndrome, and the vast majority of them are cared for at home. Discovering that their child has a special need or disability is probably one of the most devastating experiences that a parent will live through. The feeling of both physical and emotional isolation can often be acute.

There are more than 325,000 disabled children in the UK. Caring for a disabled child presents parents with challenges that are different from bringing up a child who does not have a disability. It can also have a dramatic impact on other, non-disabled children in the family.

Surveys have shown that more than half of households with a disabled child lack some of life's basic necessities because they cannot afford them. Three quarters of families with a disabled child live in an unsuitable home. There are few specialist nurseries or child minders with accessible premises. Training needs are involved, to enable parents to work. No assistance is provided for families towards the cost of visiting a disabled child in hospital.

Contact a Family offers parents of disabled children access to good-quality advice and information and contact with other families in similar circumstances for mutual support. It also provides training for parents of disabled children, such as in how to lift and care for a growing child. Obviously, such training can help to avoid health problems for carers. Will the Government consider making access to such training a statutory entitlement, perhaps through the education budget, in the same way as, for example, basic literacy and numeracy training is free for adults?

I am also aware from my constituency casework of the many different stresses and strains that are placed on families with disabled children, who must often wait for assessments to be carried out. Delays are often caused by a shortage of certain professionals, such as speech therapists. Such delays can impact on their child's ability to stay in mainstream education, which in the long term is to the child's detriment. Other delays, whether relating to adaptations to the home or supply of necessary equipment, also impact on families unnecessarily. What further practical steps does the Minister feel can be taken to minimise delays to families in obtaining such necessary help?

Secondly, one of the most disturbing facts identified in research by carers' organisations is the number of hidden carers. They are people who care for another person but do not identify themselves as carers. They might be frightened of a perceived stigma or be simply unaware of the importance of their role. Either way, it means that many people who undertake a caring role fail to gain the available help and support that could improve the quality of their lives and the lives of those for whom they care.

There are an estimated 51,000 young carers aged under 18 who are part of the group of hidden carers. It is important to identify those young people and to give them help in their caring roles. Their roles are often recognised only when they are absent from, or have problems in, school. A closer examination of the widely publicised case of the mother who was jailed for her daughter's truancy from school revealed that two hidden carers were involved, which demonstrates the problems.

There are several projects, drop-in centres and websites specifically for young carers but, unfortunately, the Government's guidance to schools to be alert and sensitive to the needs of young carers does not seem to have been adopted by all schools and education welfare services. I understand that a young carers information pack that has been designed by the Carers National Association is available through the Department for Education and Skills. Will the Minister confirm whether that pack has been distributed to all schools? I understand also that officials from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills met earlier this year to consider support for young carers projects and the production of quality standards for young carers' support. What was the outcome of those meetings?

Carers UK should be congratulated on two leaflets that it produced specifically for carers' week. The first gives information to carers on the help that is available, and the other is designed to help general practitioners to identify their patients who have caring responsibility but might not readily realise their role.

Thirdly, I turn to health needs of carers. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers published information at the end of last year showing that 23 per cent. of the carers it surveyed had suffered deteriorating health since taking on caring duties. The figure was 35 per cent. for carers who had cared for 10 years or more. Carers UK has conducted work on carers' health. It found that half all carers have sustained a physical injury since becoming a carer and that half have suffered a stress-related disorder.

Surveys undertaken by Crossroads show that a regular break can make all the difference to carers and will enable them to maintain their own health and well-being. A break from caring is invaluable in reducing the psychological and emotional stress that many carers face.

One of my constituents is a mother whose severely disabled teenage child has been allocated one overnight stay a fortnight in a respite care facility. That break has made a tremendous difference to the family. However, it should not have required a letter to the local newspaper and contact with the family's local Member of Parliament to achieve that.

Clearly, the £140 million carers special grant that was announced last year for respite care will be a substantial help. Will the Minister say whether the situation is being monitored? What further moves are being made to examine carers' health needs overall?

We have a different situation in Wales. It is the Assembly's responsibility to deal with the practicalities of grants for carers. However, I shall mention one of the worries of Pembrokeshire Crossroads, which is in my constituency. It wants to ensure that carers' special grant money that is given to Wales by the United Kingdom Government is not rolled up by the Assembly into the general rate support grant after 2004. Although clearly the Assembly must decide how to handle the funds, I hope that it will listen to the views of carers' organisations in Wales before making its decision.

Henry Johnson, who is the chairman of Pembrokeshire Crossroads, told me that 4,000 extra hours of support have been provided to local carers for short breaks—for example, to go shopping—under existing arrangements. He told me that there is a tremendous local fear that if the funding is rolled up rather than ring-fenced, Pembrokeshire county council will not recognise and support the valuable work of carers. Regrettably, that fear has substance. Studies recently undertaken reveal that Pembrokeshire has the lowest per capita spending on social services of all the unitary authorities in Wales. Certainly, my local council's approach to social services spending is reflected in my mailbag by problems that might not exist if there were a greater commitment to the needs of carers. Perhaps the Minister will discuss Mr. Johnson's concerns when she next meets the National Assembly's Minister for Health and Social Services.

From the information that I have gathered about carers, it is apparent that the caring role arises out of a relationship. Practical caring is usually an extension of emotional caring, whether as a parent for a child, a child for a parent, a neighbour for a neighbour or a spouse for a spouse. Caring arises out of human relationships, which are above economics. However, we cannot ignore that, on a financial level, the work and commitment of carers saves the United Kingdom vast amounts. Figures published on 2 May 2002 by Carers UK show that carers save the state about £57 billion a year—the total annual cost of the national health service.

It has also been shown that 77 per cent. of carers providing substantial care are financially worse off. The Government have now announced changes to invalid care allowance that will benefit many carers and will come into operation in October this year. They have also listened to the requests of carers for ICA to be paid for eight weeks following the death of the cared-for person, which reduces stress at an emotional time. Carers' organisations welcome these changes.

Whatever ICA is called, it has always meant a loss of earnings benefit. Many carers would wish me to raise that problem. Given the massive financial and social contribution that carers make, it is time that the Government considered making carers' allowance a benefit that recognises the extra costs of caring rather than being a simple loss of earnings benefit. That would eradicate the many problems caused by overlapping benefits, which cause carers tremendous frustration. Significant cost implications would obviously be involved in any such change, but viewed against the straightforward financial value of carers' work to society as a whole, the sum would be well spent. I would welcome the Minister's response to that point.

Another worry for many carers occurs when the person being cared for moves into a residential home, and the carers find themselves without security of tenure. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the Government gave a commitment to review the need for a mandatory property disregard when former carers continued to live in the properties of individuals permanently admitted to residential care. At that time, the signs were that progress could be made only if resources became available. Will the Minister update hon. Members on that commitment?

In its document "Caring on the Breadline", Carers UK identifies another disturbing fact—it is estimated that one third of carers in receipt of income support are cutting back on food to make ends meet. That is entirely unsatisfactory and is bound to have an impact on a carer's health. The same research found that nearly eight out of 10 carers aged 56 to 60 who were providing substantial care had given up work in order to care, which underlines my earlier point about the need to support carers in the workplace.

The carers and caring organisations that I spoke to all acknowledged the significant work done so far by the Government through the national strategy for carers. However, it is clear that, as the Government have said on many occasions, while much has been done, there is much more to do. I hope that the Minister will continue to stress that point, especially to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, with regard to incomes for carers. Every year, more than 3,000 people become carers, which is testimony to the continual need to monitor and review support for carers. As I said, the estimated financial benefit to society offered by carers equates to the entire annual cost of the NHS. That should be kept continually in mind. It is important that the amount is quantified, if only to show how public expenditure on care would increase if a tiny percentage of carers stopped providing support for any reason.

There are 14,688 identified carers in Pembrokeshire, and 376,000 throughout Wales. If only 10 per cent. of carers in my county alone could no longer carry on, 1,500 people would become totally dependent on the NHS and the local social services department. It is not difficult to understand the impact that there would be on public spending if that pattern were repeated across the UK.

Although a health Minister is present, I hope that she will accept that many of the issues under debate apply equally to other Departments, and I hope also that she will give an undertaking to discuss them with her colleagues. The Government have so far listened to what carers need and have implemented several of the requests that have been highlighted. However, with an ageing population in the UK, there will inevitably be more demands on carers, and those demands must be matched by continued government commitment and action. That action has been forthcoming, but as someone once famously said on another issue, such actions should be a process and not an event. It would be welcome if the Minister acknowledged that.

rose—

Order. There are fewer than 40 minutes of Back-Bench time left, and 10 hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that those whom I call will be mindful of the needs of others.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), not only on obtaining the debate and on her timing—it is national carers' week—but on how she presented her arguments. In many ways, she has said everything that can be said on the subject.

I, too, thank carers throughout the country for their dedication to a job that they have taken upon themselves voluntarily. We all know from personal experience of people who have devoted themselves to the care of another person, whether elderly or young. It is easy to pay lip service when thanking people for that work, and we must ensure that we do more than that. We must not take them and their work for granted. It is undoubtedly true that carers save various agencies a great deal of money—although that is not why they do it—but we must not let that be taken merely as a fact. We must give them as much aid as possible in the vital work that they do.

The hon. Lady mentioned many of the issues that strike one immediately, such as the need for respite care. Looking after someone with the dedication of carers is time consuming, emotionally draining and physically difficult. Many people have back trouble, for example, as a result of having to lift someone for whom they care who is not able to help to move themselves. Sadly, that often means that the carer soon becomes ill or disabled. It is not unknown for the carer to pass away before the person that they are looking after, such is the strain put upon them.

There is also the question of isolation. It is difficult for people who devote themselves to looking after someone full time to get out and about. The hon. Lady mentioned Crossroads, which does a superb job, as do organisations like it. However, that job cannot be left purely to some of the voluntary agencies. There must be more help, to enable carers to live as full a life as possible. Sometimes, they do not ask for it, but it is always vital.

Most hon. Members will have experience of something else that concerns me; the early release of patients—especially the elderly—from hospitals. It seems that hospitals operate like conveyor belts; they have to make room, because beds are needed. Therefore, patients are sent home when proper care is not readily available for them there. That puts great pressure on people such as elderly partners. We must always be looking into that.

Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will conclude. I offer heartfelt thanks to all the people who do the hard and dedicated work of the carer. It is not easy work, and although we all hope that we would be able to do it, we will he unsure whether we have the necessary backbone until the situation arises for us. It is easy for us to pay tribute to people in the House of Commons, and we often do that. However, we must ensure that that is not merely lip service; we must thank carers for the work that they do, but we must also act to ensure that their lot is improved.

I add to the congratulations that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate. I am sure that the Minister has noted that many hon. Members of all parties are present and hope to take part in it, and that, at the last count, more than 180 hon. Members had signed the early-day motion which is in my name—and in the names of other hon. Members who are present—in support of carers' week. These facts show that hon. Members are very concerned about the plight of carers; they appreciate the value of the work that they do, and they understand that they need additional support. I also congratulate all those who work with the voluntary organisations that have organised carers' week; it enables us to focus on and celebrate the work of carers, and to recognise their continuing needs.

The isolation that is felt by those who care for others has been mentioned, so I also especially welcome Carers UK's recently launched carers' online website. It is intended to develop it to become one of the tools that enable carers to overcome a sense of isolation, by the provision in their homes of information about their rights, and the benefits and services that are available to them, and of news that is of interest to them. Eventually, the website is intended also to enable carers to contribute to the debate about policy development, and for it to become a truly interactive service, so that it operates as a sort of virtual community of carers. As has been said, they often feel isolated from the real communities in which they live.

One of the aims of carers' week is to highlight the hidden carers—those who not only work in isolation in their own homes looking after relatives or friends, but who often do not think of themselves as carers, and therefore do not claim the benefits that are available to them, or ask for support. Perhaps they would do so, if they knew where to find them.

In the area that I represent—the city of Brighton and Hove—there will be several events this week, including one on Saturday that is being organised by our own carers' centre. It will bring together several organisations that work in our local community. I pay tribute not only to the organisations involved in organising carers' week, but to many others, and particularly the Alzheimer's Society, with which I have been connected. It is only in recent years that the full impact of dementia on family life and the need for support for those caring for dementia sufferers have been recognised.

I welcome the moves that the Government have made since 1997 to recognise the needs of carers. For the first time, we have a national carers strategy. Improvements have been made to the invalid care allowance, there is the carers grant and there will soon be the second state pension, a scheme that will provide support that has previously been missing to carers who have been unable to obtain their full pension entitlements on retirement because they left work early to take on caring responsibilities.

Many hon. Members would welcome some reassurance from the Minister about the future of the carers grant beyond 2004. We would also welcome some indication of how the Government will ensure that carers who are entitled to the second state pension but who might not claim it know that they can. What will the Government do to reach out to those people?

I also ask that the Government give some attention, although the matter does not lie within their responsibility, to the importance of paid care workers in providing respite for carers. Many organisations need such care workers to provide that respite and they are a vital group, whose pay is shockingly and scandalously low, especially for those who work through private agencies. As they have to pay their own travel costs, they often earn less than the national minimum wage.

I shall highlight one aspect of the work that is done in my constituency. I have mentioned our carers' centre, which brings together several organisations working with carers, including Crossroads—Caring for Carers. One of its most successful projects during the past few years has been its young carers project. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire has already mentioned the importance of acknowledging the needs of young carers.

The young carers project in Brighton and Hove works with youngsters between five and 18 years of age. It is currently working with 110 young people. Over four years it has worked with 250 such youngsters, and 50 per cent. of them have been of primary school age—children under the age of 11 who have a caring responsibility in their family. In our city, in a third of families dependent on young carers at least one of the parents has mental health problems, adding to the burdens faced by these youngsters.

The young carers project provides support for those carers in their homes. It works in our local schools to raise awareness of the importance of young carers and their needs. It works with teenagers, bringing them together for social activities that they might otherwise not have the opportunity to take part in because they are stuck in their home with a responsibility that they face day in, day out.

The project is working in many ways to overcome young carers' sense of isolation and to ensure that they do not miss out in terms of academic attainment and social accomplishments. I am sure that anything that the Minister can say to assure hon. Members that the Government are aware of the needs of young carers and the need to provide them with extra support would be welcomed.

The local chairman of Crossroads in my constituency points out that every Crossroads scheme that must be registered faces a 29-page registration document requiring a range of information not only about those working for the organisation but about its trustees. Often, documents such as passports and birth certificates are required, which he says adds to the bureaucracy faced by those organisations. We must be scrupulous in ensuring that the people who work for organisations such as Crossroads are able to go into other people's homes to help. I ask the Minister to consider the registration requirements again, and whether anything can be done to streamline them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing this important debate during carers' week.

From personal experience within my family and as a social worker, I know of the dedication of carers. It seems sometimes that the last people whom carers care about are themselves, and that they come at the end of the queue. We know of the long hours that carers put into their work. The requirement for invalid care allowance is that care should be substantial and regular, which is usually defined as 35 hours a week. When I say that, I hear hollow laughter the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, because 35 hours a week would be a lovely treat.

The value of carers should not be in dispute. What is lacking is sufficient support, proper services and, importantly this week, an organised opportunity for carers to contribute to the community and have that contribution recognised. From the documents that I have read in preparation for the debate, I have been impressed by the number of hours that carers put in by volunteering for community activities.

Recently, carers in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) held consultation days. The concerns raised were familiar and depressing, but constructive. They discussed benefits and noted difficulties in claiming disability living allowance and attendance allowance, including the formidable size of the application forms. They noted that invalid care allowance stopped at pension age, although the care role increased. I have had recent dealings with the West family in my constituency, who have cared for their daughter over a long period and now face difficulties as she turns 18. They will almost certainly face a cut in benefits after leaving work to give a large amount of selfless care.

In Wales, health is a matter for the National Assembly, but the carers in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and Caernarfon noted concerns throughout the UK, such as the lack of communication between hospitals, carers and day-care facilities on such basic matters as medication. They noted difficulties in the standard of care, such as the feeding of people with Alzheimer's, a lack of back-up staff in, for example, the memory group, difficulties connected with bathing in day hospitals and the intense transport difficulty that is significant in much of rural Wales. People are often taken to day care via several other communities and spend long periods in cars and vans. I will not go into detail about these problems, but they are avoidable and should be sorted out. They would be sorted out if we valued carers more than we do.

Mindful of the number of hon. Members who want to speak, my next point shall be my last. It is about language, which is something especially significant in Wales but also relevant elsewhere. It is essential that services fit the carer, rather than the carer fitting services. In Wales and elsewhere, that entails a choice of the language in which services are delivered. I would be interested to hear the Minister speak about the development of services in languages other than English throughout the UK.

The Welsh Language Act 1993 has gone some way to securing the availability of services in Welsh and English on the basis of equality, but much more needs to be done. Certainly, we do not provide services in languages other than English and Welsh, so we have some way to go when providing highly personal services in discussing people's deep problem. We must normalise proper, diverse linguistic provision throughout the UK. We must normalise the service, rather than the carer's place in it. The service must change, and language choice must be institutionalised. A manual called "They all speak English anyway" contains five principles relating to language and social work. The first is that language choice should lie with the user, not the provider, and I commend that principle.

I am delighted to be called in this important debate, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to pay tribute to those who act as carers, day in, day, out. It is important that those of us with no experience of such things recognise their contribution.

As a nurse for 25 years, I regularly worked 12-hour shifts and cared for people with carers at home. Caring for people with dementia-type illnesses for 12 hours was quite enough for me. It left me exhausted and strung out, and I can hardly imagine what it must be like to care for someone full time in one's home, even if one loves them very much. That must be extremely difficult.

Many hon. Members have spent time with carers in their constituencies in the past few days, and this is a time to celebrate being a carer. I had a fantastic opportunity on Friday to spend time with members of the Crawley carers' social club. They do not feel downtrodden or put upon, but they share a collective interest. Many hon. Members have talked about isolation, but such groups diminish isolation enormously. On Friday, we had lots of laughs, ate fish and chips and drank wine.

We also discussed issues related to caring. Members of the Crawley group said that we should not think of them as down-trodden, or assume that their lives are thoroughly miserable, even though caring is difficult and frustrating. One of them, Mrs. Kidd, told me some funny stories. She said that she had cooked some steak for her husband, who suffers from dementia. She went out, and when she returned the steak had gone. Her husband had thrown it in the bin, because he did not fancy it. They had to have chips and peas because that was all that was left, but Mrs. Kidd laughed about it. She told me also how difficult caring was and about how she had to sleep by the front door, because she was afraid that her husband would walk out of the house.

Each member of the group had similar experiences, and another carer, Rose, told me about caring for her mother and husband. The person who gets the group together, Yvonne Morris, cares for her mother and for a child with severe learning disabilities, but she makes time to go on day trips, and ensures that she is part of the community. She did not have the sense that things were wrong. The Crawley group shows how information is shared, that people can understand issues, and how isolated people get to know about the many advances that have taken place. There is no doubt about that.

The Government's carers strategy was an important step in ensuring that carers are properly recognised for their work, and it has made a massive contribution alongside the other carers package. Of course, carers still face enormous difficulties, and they feel strongly about financial insecurity. Why should they be disadvantaged because of their position as carers?

We have heard much today about the money that the state would lose if it had to care for people who are looked after by carers. The reality is, however, that carers will not walk away. That is not a primary argument for supporting carers. We support them because they want to do the job properly. They all want to hold up their heads and say, "I am doing this job because I want to do it, and I want to do it well." The Government's role, in which the House of Commons must play a proper part, is to ensure that that happens.

We have heard that early discharge can cause difficulties, but a proper discharge plan could deal with that problem. I should be surprised if anyone in a ward would say, "I am sorry, but you have got to have your carer back home because we cannot cope here." To me, as an ex-nurse, that would be unforgivable, and greater account should be taken of that. When carers eventually find that they can no longer continue their caring duties and when delayed discharge from hospital into the settled, safe and caring environment of a residential home is not quickly forthcoming, enormous despair can ensue. It is important that we continue to work on that. We know that caring is difficult work and that it can be extremely damaging for the carers, and we in this place have a role to play.

Like other hon. Members, I was glancing at information for today's debate. The Department of Health carers website, which was both interesting and helpful, highlighted some of the things that are happening. I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had written an introduction, and I am sure that not many of us would disagree with it. He wrote:

"What carers do should be properly recognised and properly supported—and the Government should play its part. Carers should be able to take pride in what they do. And in turn, we should take pride in carers."

I hope that everyone recognises the truth of that statement, and that we must move forward and celebrate their work.

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) for securing this debate. It is important, this week especially, to draw attention to the situation of carers.

Lorna Fish and Brenda Howlett, two hands-on carers, together set up a campaign called "A better share for those who care". They say that carers are the backbone of the nation's care structure and that many carers feel undervalued and, to some extent, exploited. I hope that everyone would agree with the Prime Minister's comments on the Department of Health website, but we do not yet provide adequate support. These women make two key points—first, that carers need improved financial support; secondly, that improvements need to be made to the infrastructure of support services.

On finance, they make the obvious point that any of us could face having to give up a well-paid job in order to care for a relative. At that point, one's income plummets and, as other hon. Members have said, one is left in the invidious position of having to work very long hours in order to care for a loved one. A good case can be made for a thorough review of the financial structure of support for carers.

They make a case for improving the infrastructure of support. My experience is of a rural area, and other hon. Members have spoken about isolation, saying that carers can be stuck completely on their own in a community but with no access to guidance, support or help on the services that may be available to them. Brenda Howlett told me that she had to fight for two and a half years to get two nights' care a week for her father-in-law. In order to look after him, she has to live separately from her husband for most of the week. That situation has alerted me to the fact that it is the articulate, those who know how to fight the system, who get the support that they need. What about the others who do not have those attributes? They are left sinking on their own, often suffering ill health, as we have heard. There needs to be much better and more regular respite care. Two weeks a year is no good; it needs to be on a regular basis. There must also be top-up care every week, to provide the support that such people need.

I am concerned about the carers of children and teenagers. I have come across some tragic cases of parents looking after autistic children and children with Asperger's syndrome. They are totally frustrated and in despair that the authorities and agencies push them from pillar to post. There is no co-operation between agencies. When they try to arrange education for someone with autism, they find that the health service will not talk to the education department—there is no joined-up thinking about how to provide a proper package of support for children who are being looked after by parents who are often in absolute despair.

Finally, I reiterate the point about the pay levels for paid carers. Norfolk county council is proposing an effective pay cut for the care workers that it employs by cutting their pay for unsocial hours. That is being proposed to a group of already very low-paid workers. That is how we treat people who are caring for others in the community. The attitude of authority and of society has to change. This week is especially important in terms of drawing attention to the needs of carers. I hope that it will lead to action from Government; it is much needed.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on having secured the debate and on her comprehensive coverage of most of the issues that we want to address.

I am particularly pleased to speak because, as my hon. Friend said, before I came to the House of Commons I was an assistant director for Barnardos and was involved in setting up schemes to provide respite care for disabled children throughout Wales, and support schemes for young carers. Thus, in my previous professional life, I had a lot of experience with carers.

I am also a carer—I look after my mother, who was severely disabled by a stroke two years ago. Since that happened, I have become so well aware of the vast number of people—men and women, as has been stressed—who care for relatives or friends in their own homes and who do not always recognise themselves as carers. They are doing a tremendous job and make a huge contribution to society.

I, too, want to mention paid carers. It is important to recognise what a skilled job they do. Consider what they do when they come into a home, often entering a difficult and sensitive situation. They might spend the night caring for a member of the family and acting in a way that could require years of training—yet we know that many of them have not had such training; they have learned on the job and are not paid the rates that they deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and others have made that point strongly, and I want to stress it. We must value the paid carers who come in to help the carers. It is often only because of people like that that carers, who otherwise suffer broken sleep, getting up two or three times a night, are able to keep going. The health needs of carers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, is an important area to consider. In this carers' week, it is important to emphasise the sensitive way in which many paid carers work to help carers.

I shall refer briefly to young carers. The Government have started to address the problems in that area, as have the Administration in Wales in the Welsh carers' strategy. Youth is an important time in the lives of young carers. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen the look in the eyes of young carers whose parents are suffering from alcoholism, when they are waiting to see in what state they will come home at any hour of the day or night. I have seen that wary look. We must recognise that those events are happening at a time when that child or young person is developing and should be having a good time, enjoying social activities and developing their school work. Many young people are missing out on that or doing it halfway, because at the back of their minds they are worrying about their parent, who may have any of a range of disabilities. I have worked with children whose parents have mental health problems, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire highlighted the issue of young carers.

I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. It is important that we all have a chance to have our say on this important subject during an important week. In the debate, we have recognised the achievements of carers, who want to do their work. As elected politicians, we must ensure that they have as much help as possible.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence). I shall keep my remarks brief, but I want to draw on the experience of the Milton Keynes carers project, of whose work I cannot speak too highly. It supports carers by ensuring that they have access to information about the services and benefits available to them and by providing incredibly effective support and networking. I am sure that there are many other equally effective organisations in other areas.

The Government must recognise the important work that is done by such organisations and ensure that they have adequate finance to do it properly. Five years ago, the Milton Keynes project was in touch with about 400 carers. It is now in touch with about 850. That is a substantial number, but it is still only 4 per cent. of the estimated total number of carers in Milton Keynes. The project could do much more and reach many more people if it had more funding.

I shall draw attention to two groups of carers with specific needs. The first is young carers, to whom many hon. Members have already referred, and I emphasise the importance of supporting them. One young carer in Milton Keynes is quoted as saying that the peer support provided by the young carers' group let him know that he was not alone in the world.

The second group is forensic carers, whose relatives are not held in high regard. A group has been set up in Milton Keynes for people who care for mentally disordered offenders currently or previously resident at Marlborough house, a local secure mental health facility. I know that the Home Office is interested in the work of the group. Such carers face enormous problems but receive little support because other people are scared of the relatives for whom they care.

The Milton Keynes carers project asked me to stress the need for real joint working between health and social care staff and day-by-day involvement with carers. It is extremely important that professionals acknowledge that carers should be equal partners in supporting the people for whom they care, and that social services and health care workers should take every opportunity to listen to and work with carers. I quote a carer with an adult son with a learning disability who, after a review meeting, said that she felt that "it was the two of us against the seven of them. I felt it was them or us." That is terrible and should never be the case.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate. I, too, am a carer and have much experience from caring for a young daughter.

In Scotland, the situation is slightly different because many items affecting carers are devolved. One item that is still reserved to Westminster is benefits, and I hear many complaints about that subject in my surgeries. People such as myself do not have the financial difficulties that are suffered by many carers, some of whom are desperately poor and rely on benefits. The Carers National Association estimates that half of Scotland's 620,000 carers have no savings and that a third struggle to pay utility bills. As many as 23 per cent. cut their food bills and buy out-of-date food, and many cannot afford to pay their rent or mortgage. That is a desperate situation.

Angus carers recently held a conference, during which we heard much about the benefits problem. Many carers said that they had to tread through a minefield to get benefits, and that what they received from one hand was taken away by another. If they received income support and claimed invalid care allowance, the allowance was deducted from the support, so they were no better off. One of my constituents gave up her job to look after her mother and, as a result, became far worse off. That is not unusual.

Hon. Members have said that carers save the state a large amount of money each year. A recent report from "Carers Week" showed that in Angus alone, which is not a large area, carers saved £106 million per annum.

There are further inequalities in the system. If the cared-for person does not live in the same home as the carer and the carer claims invalid care allowance, it is deducted from the benefit of the cared-for person. That creates an immediate problem for a carer who wants to ensure, as he or she gets older, that the cared-for person has a chance of an independent life when they have gone. That is a factor that faces all of us who care for children—at some point we will no longer be there. We have to ask ourselves what will happen to the child then.

In a recent debate on carers in Scotland, the Minister referred to changes in pension arrangements for those over 65 who receive the ICA. Carers are confused, however, as to whether that will be paid in addition to the retirement pension. Will the Minister clarify that point?

I would not like to give the impression that carers are concerned only about money. Many other issues affect constituents, especially in areas such as mine. One of my constituents raised the problem of travelling to benefits appeal hearings. In my area, the appeals are heard in Dundee, which is a considerable distance from many places in my constituency. For a carer to get to an appeal hearing, he or she must first find someone to look after the person who is being cared for before travelling a considerable distance from Montrose to Dundee, for example. That is not easy or cheap without a car. The carer is away for the whole day, causing considerable stress to the carer and the cared-for person. Will the Minister consider the possibility of holding appeals nearer the home of the carer rather than in central locations?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate on this particular week and giving so many hon. Members the opportunity to take part in it. It is a great pity that it is impossible for everyone to have their say in a debate of an hour and a half, so the Government may arrange a debate on another occasion.

Thanks to the carers' centre in my constituency, I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to shadow carers over the past four years. It has been a real eye opener. Life changes when a person becomes a carer. Things that he or she took for granted stop. It is hard work suddenly to find that one's husband or wife is in need of support, and no longer able to give support. The carer is alone even when the person for whom he or she cares is around. Getting started as a carer always seems to be a challenge. Obtaining help from the national health service, social services and other agencies can prove time consuming. It is not so much that such help cannot be provided, but that the agencies take so long to get their act together.

Unless people are carers, they cannot begin to put themselves into the shoes of carers and understand the mixture of emotions that caring day-in, day-out, stirs. No matter how deep the love that binds people together, caring 24 hours a day grinds a person down. That is certainly the experience of the carers whom I have met. Should society expect people to carry on caring in that way? If carers want to, that is fine. However, if such action is taken out of a sense of obligation and because the alternative is degrading and unacceptable, it is wrong.

Surveys show that most of us want to carry on living in our own homes for as long as possible. I support that view, but we must make sure that those unsung heroes who are carers do not shoulder an unbearable burden. Earlier this week, I again had the opportunity to shadow a carer, something which relates to part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. I spent time with Jenny, who cares for James. James is nine years old. He has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autistic spectrum disorder. Jenny is full of praise for the support that she has received from health, education, social services departments and others, particularly the carers' centre in my constituency. Her story has been one of struggle to have her son's needs met. Were it not for her persistence, a move back to Sutton and her decision to seek a private diagnosis of her son's condition, the agencies that rallied round to help might still be arguing over what the matter was, what help was needed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, who was responsible for providing that help.

Like so many carers, Jenny feels isolated. She has a second son, Lewis, who is at infant school. No allowance is made and no support is offered to him by his school, yet he is a young carer—supporting his mum, making her laugh, keeping her going and looking out for his brother. Will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills about the possibility of Ofsted, in its inspections, examining how policies are being developed within schools to turn the packs that are given to them into a practical reality? Perhaps such action can be a positive initiative.

School holidays can be particularly isolating for such families. The development of regular, supervised holiday activities for children, with opportunities for parents to meet others in a similar situations, could do much to overcome isolation. Just having an adult conversation can make a difference. If we set Jenny's story against the fact that three in five of us could become carers, it is clear that there is much more to be done to improve the lot of carers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk said, carers are the backbone of the care system. Without them, the NHS and social services would be overwhelmed.

As the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, it is estimated that 6 million carers save the United Kingdom a staggering £57 billion a year. In 10 years, the proportion of carers providing between 20 and 49 hours of care a week—and probably many more—has more than doubled. In the past five years, the number of people receiving home care, which was formerly provided by social services, has fallen by 100,000. The burden on carers has increased at a time when social services departments are increasingly rationing access to care, especially when an informal carer is already on hand. What assessment has the Department of Health made of the impact of the increasingly restrictive eligibility criteria on carers? The consequences of the rationing of care will be to store up problems for the future.

Research clearly shows that half the people who become carers sustain an injury. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to back injuries. Similarly, many carers will require treatment for stress-related disorders. A survey that was carried out last year by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers UK suggested that one in four carers in the United Kingdom had suffered health problems. The report suggested that lack of help—two out of three received no support at all—was having a significant impact on their health.

That brings me to the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which was meant to give every carer the right to an independent assessment of their needs. Like all carers' legislation, it was a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. In the Labour party's general election manifesto, there was a promise to examine the development of a fund to help local authorities to meet the needs found through those assessments.

Resources are dearly needed; indeed, the Local Government Association's survey of this year found that one in four councils did not have the resources to implement the 2000 Act. They estimated a modest shortfall of £40 million. What is the point of an assessment if there are no resources to follow it up? Will the Minister tell us whether the examination promised in the Labour party's manifesto has begun, when it will be concluded, and with what results? When will the Act be backed with resources?

Investment in carer services is as much about preventing the carer from descending into disability, ill health and dependency as it is about sustaining the cared-for person in his or her home. Research shows that despite the national carers strategy and the carers' grant, which are welcome, it is the experience of too many carers that the agencies are going through the motions when it comes to consultation, and that lip service is paid to the need to recognise carers, but that such recognition is still not deeply ingrained in the culture of public service organisations.

I hope that the Minister can tell us what is going to be done to change that, and I hope that she will take from the debate an important message: that national carers' week should be every week. Carers are undervalued, overlooked and overloaded, and unless we change that, not only the Government but the wider community will lose out.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate and on her timing. Not only is it the beginning of carers' week, but she has made sure that the overtime in the England match did not sprawl into the debate. Perhaps that is why so many hon. Members are here and have made it such a good and worthwhile discussion, which has included a vast array of individual experiences.

The hon. Lady is competing this week with men's health week and volunteers' week, but carers are important members of our constituencies of whom all of us have personal experiences. Those experiences may be of the many carers' organisations that hon. Members have mentioned. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) commented on how important it is that those organisations are supported, and are given the resources to support the carers that they represent. I am sure that many of us have experiences of family members who have been carers.

The debate gives us all the opportunity to say thank you to those carers and carers' organisations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, it is important that they should not be taken for granted, as they so often can be. I should like to congratulate Carers UK, too. The "Adding Value" report that it has just brought out has been quoted extensively and considers the extent of carers' involvement in supporting other carers. I think that that is particularly interesting. It estimates that the value of carers' involvement amounts to at least £1 billion per annum in community activity, excluding the wider value of the impact of their support on reduced health costs, for example.

The study found that one in four carers had helped to set up new services in the voluntary sector in the past 12 months. The respondents had contributed an average of 18 hours per month to their local community, often on top of full-time caring responsibilities. "If you want to get a job done, ask a busy person" could not be truer than it is in that case. More than half of those surveyed were driven to become involved and set up organisations by their frustration at the lack of services for disabled people or carers in their communities. That is an important point because as everyone agrees, carers perform an invaluable service in their communities and in the country as a whole. We need to make their job as easy as possible, not put hurdles in the way of it.

The hon. Lady gave an array of figures; there are almost 6 million carers in the country. That is one in eight adults. In particular, it struck me that 51,000 carers are young people under the age of 18. They are missing out on a social life and on a child's normal development into adulthood. There are particular pressures on them, and they need especial support. More than 2.5 million carers have to juggle their caring responsibilities with paid work. Over half of carers look after someone who is older than 75, and 18 per cent. of them care for more than one person. Perhaps the most alarming statistic is that more than half of all working carers suffer from health problems as a result of caring. They suffer not only from back problems and other physical injuries, but from mental stress. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) said, that is particularly the case with regard to looking after people with dementia problems such as Alzheimer's disease. That can bring enormous stress to family environments. Many carers also suffer from financial stress, as hon. Members have mentioned. We need to address that in a sensitive and sensible way. In short, carers do not suffer only from physical injuries.

Recently, on television, I watched the story of a woman in her 70s who was a carer for her disabled husband and for her two grown-up and educationally challenged sons. She had also been waiting 15 months for a knee operation. She was hobbling around. We need to be much more sensitive to individual carers' needs. That woman was looking after three family members, as well as coping with her own severe difficulties. Such people need the maximum help. Given such examples, it is no wonder that Carers UK calculates that carers save the Government £57 billion per annum, which is an enormous increase compared with 10 years ago. We should pay particular attention to the illness and stress that is caused to carers themselves.

The costs of caring will further increase, as will the number of carers who are needed, and the number of older people who require care, because of demographic trends—more than 2 million of the 6 million carers in this country are older than 60, and a fifth of them are older than 75. A lady came to my surgery recently; she was 77, and she had been looking after her 95-year-old mother for many years. She said, "Look, I've been a pensioner for the past 17 years. I cannot go on like this. I need help." She had done that work with dedication, and we need to give such people much more help. These problems will become worse.

Despite the progress that has been made as a result of the Government's national carers strategy, problems remain. "Adding Value" mentions that 63 per cent. of carers did not feel that their caring role, or their expertise, had been properly recognised, or that their contribution had been properly supported. Too often there is a problem with regard to giving proper recognition to the valuable role that carers perform. Being a full-time carer is not regarded as a proper job, but it is, of course. Carers often have problems with financial services, and accessing bank accounts and other simple matters, because they do not have a conventional job. We are placing extra financial stresses on carers who already have enough stress and problems.

Almost all of the hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned respite care. In that context, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made an important point about travelling to benefits appeal hearings. Just trying to get respite care to be able to do that results in a catch-22 situation. If carers cannot get to those appeals, they cannot get the benefits, which means that their job becomes even worse. More respite care cover is also needed so that carers can go to local social service departments, or wherever, to get better training. However, it is extremely difficult to get respite care for training cover.

We know about the pressure on social services because the subject comes up virtually every other week in debates in Westminster Hall. Many social services departments are experiencing large funding gaps, which means that they are retrenching many of the services that they might offer. That has led to a shortage of home helps, and that problem has been exacerbated by bed blocking problems. Too many people are being forced out of hospital beds early. That is a false economy because many of them have to return to hospital within a couple of months of their early discharge.

It is no good sending an elderly person home when their broken leg—or whatever—has been patched up if that person cannot look after themselves at home. That is a false economy. If carers do not have the resources to do that, we are only storing up problems for the future. Carers commonly complain that families and carers are not consulted prior to a patient being discharged, and there must be much more sensitivity in the health service.

The low pay of private care workers was also mentioned. That is especially a problem in the south-east, where there is a great shortage of such workers. Buying in private care workers is subject to value added tax, which adds to the problem.

I shall leave several questions with the Minister. Will she tell us about the future of the carers grant, which is guaranteed only up to December 2004? How many assessments of carers' needs are carried out annually? What improvements have there been since the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 took its place on the statute book?

Also, can we encourage employers? It is good employment practice to take account of a worker's needs, if they care for people at home. Companies such as Centrica offer their employees greater flexibility, enabling them to switch their hours to take an afternoon or day off to look after a relative at home.

It is right that we should help carers. We should give them far more support and encouragement because there is a demographic time bomb—by 2037, an extra 3.5 million carers will be needed to cope with an estimated increase of 3 million in the 75-year-old plus population. We must give carers greater respect and pride in their important role and help make their jobs as easy as possible. They are some of the most vulnerable people with the most acute needs. We must give them help and support, not hassles and hurdles. There are too many institutionalised hassles and hurdles in the system, and I urge the Minister to do more to help.

In the relatively short time available to me, I hope to respond to as many points as possible made by hon. Members in this excellent debate. The number of hon. Members present, the range and depth of knowledge and experience of personal matters brought to the debate have helped it to come alive. I shall be taking away all the issues raised in order to inform our policy and ensure that it is more responsive and accessible to the carers in our community.

This is a timely debate. Not only is it carers' week, which raises the issue all the way up the agenda, but we have also seen the publication of important reports from the Office for National Statistics, which updates the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence). It is now estimated that 7 million adults are involved in caring. The number of carers is growing and they are becoming an increasingly substantial part of our community.

A report directed specifically at the health needs of carers identifies that, in terms of mental health, carers who are caring for more than 20 hours a week are more likely to report mental health problems, and that women carers are more likely to report mental health problems. Women are, perhaps, more willing to report health problems, but huge numbers of men are carers and are under similar stresses and strains as a result of their responsibilities.

My hon. Friend set the scene in an excellent speech. She covered a range of issues on which action has been taken, although I am the first to acknowledge that much more remains to be done if we are to provide the type of support mechanisms for carers that are required.

Although the Government support package for carers is welcome—especially the carers grant—given that there are 7 million carers, it amounts to about £20 per carer per year, as against about £10,000 that each individual carer saves the country in terms of professional services. Little respite can be bought with £20 a year, and local authorities are cutting back on support for carers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that support for carers is slipping back rather than developing?

My hon. Friend makes an important point: we must put as much resource as we can into supporting carers. However, he must acknowledge that, although there have been substantial increases in personal social services over the past few years, there is always a need for more. In the Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out that there will be increases for personal social services of 6 per cent. over and above inflation over the next three years, which should enable local authorities to begin to meet more needs, not only of carers but of personal social services in general.

My hon. Friend is right to keep up the pressure for services for carers. However, some of the practical examples that hon. Members will have seen in their communities this week show how the carers grant is beginning to provide much more respite. That speaks for itself.

One issue highlighted by all hon. Members is the need for services for young carers. A range of projects in communities tries to support young carers. An example that I should like to highlight is that in Gloucestershire, where for the past few months a project has been implemented to try to help young carers who are preparing for their GCSEs and who have not had time out for study and training, to ensure that they have the chance to get the qualifications that will be so important for them in future. They have had a residential weekend away, with support and respite—a real break from their day-to-day responsibilities. Such projects are being implemented throughout the country. Several projects deal especially with the needs of black and ethnic minority groups. Hidden carers are a top priority for the Government.

Hon. Members mentioned culturally sensitive services and ensuring that services are provided in languages that people can understand. The services are extremely personal, and we must ensure that they are as culturally sensitive as possible. In Kensington and Chelsea, a night-sitting service is available, especially for Bangladeshi, black African and Caribbean, Chinese, Indian and Pakistani families. Such services were not in place years ago. There is real innovation and support in the field.

Lincolnshire has a hospice-at-home project, whereby carers care for terminally ill friends and members of their families and communities to try to ensure that at a desperate time for many people, care and respite is available. Indeed, many voluntary organisations, such as Crossroads—Caring for Carers—have a night-sitting service in Wigan, which provides a huge amount of help to people with dementia, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) mentioned. We must be aware of the huge stresses and strains on people.

One of the top aims of carers' week and of the Government's priorities is tackling the issue of hidden and young carers, who have never before been on the agenda. For young carers, we have the quality protects programme, which is designed to ensure that we consult young carers in devising policies. We must ensure that the structures put in place reflect the needs that they tell us that they have. We want not a system whereby the Government or local authorities provide a one-size-fits-all service, but one that is flexible and responds to communities' needs. We now have learning mentors in schools to help young carers get the most out of their education and the early years, when they should be enjoying making friends, having a social life and doing all the things that children in other families sometimes take for granted. We have the Connexions service, with personal advisers for 13 to 19-year-olds, which is again designed to involve young carers.

The matter involves not only the Department of Health and local government but the Department for Education and Skills and important benefit issues, which are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions. I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues in those Departments to ascertain what we can do with Government and the voluntary sector working together in partnership. It is one of the key areas in which services in silos will never support the incredibly valuable work of carers.

Another important aspect that many hon. Members mentioned is supporting carers in employment. The measures that we have introduced to enable people to have time off work for family emergencies are a real innovation. We must ensure that employers are aware of carers' needs, and we have a mountain to climb. Our £1.5 million project on work and family life balance is designed to ensure that employers are sensitive to carers' needs and can adapt their working practices to fit in with people's family demands.

Work is also being done to provide a new national helpline for families with disabled children, which many hon. Members mentioned, and a system that can put them in touch with all the different agencies that can provide a package of care and support, whether relating to education, health, support in the community or transport. We are funding Contact a Family to the tune of £500,000 a year for the next three years to set up that national helpline, which will be a huge step forward. We are also match funding Carers UK's employment project to support carers in work. The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced the new ONE series, which is designed to get carers back to work and to give training, support and advice.

I pay tribute to the tremendous work that carers do. We have made significant progress on the strategy, the carers grant and practical projects. However, I acknowledge that we have much more to do to ensure that we give carers the right support, information and care for their health. We must ensure that they keep well so that they can do their fantastic work. I look forward to a continuing dialogue with carers on these important issues.

I declare an interest. I am a member of the Musicians Union and of the Performing Right Society, I have been contracted to Chrysalis Records, EMI Records and Sony Music and I receive an ever-diminishing return on my recorded work. As a Scottish nationalist and part-time member of the tartan army, may I offer my most sincere congratulations to England on qualifying for the second round of the World cup?

I find it astonishing that this is the first House of Commons debate to be held exclusively on the music industry, because it contributes some £3 billion to our economy and employs 122,000 people full time throughout the United Kingdom. We are second only to the United States as a source of repertoire, and the UK market is the third largest for recorded music in the world. Although the rest of the world, including the United States, recently experienced a decline in record sales, there has been growth of some 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

Our music industry is a UK success story—it is something that we do well—and I believe that we lead the world in creativity and innovation. The history of UK popular music is littered with all-time greats of world pop and rock music. Our consumption of music is massive—greater than that of any other nation—and we buy four units of either CDs, cassettes or our old friend vinyl per person per year. We bought 226 million recordings in 2000. Music extends to all genres, but we must be clear about the fact that the majority of music bought in the UK is popular and contemporary: pop, rock, dance and soul music. That accounts for some 80 per cent. of all albums sold in the UK.

Years ago, there might have been a reluctance to discuss the music industry, because perhaps we fuddy-duddy politicians should not raise a subject that is primarily focused on young people. However, popular music and the industry that supports it have been with us for some 50 years and they are involved in all our lives. Popular music has formed at least part of the soundtrack to the lives of everybody in this Room.

I was in London last week when the extraordinary concert from Buckingham palace garden took place. If there was ever a question whether popular music has arrived as part of our mainstream culture, it was answered that evening. When Ozzy Osbourne plays in Buckingham palace garden —he did not quite receive royal approval, but maybe royal assent—we know that we are once again at a defining moment in the history of popular music. Politicians must play a role to ensure that our music industry becomes the most competitive and successful in the world. It is our task to ensure that we remain brand leaders in something in which we excel.

As a new Member of Parliament elected last year, I was keen to bring my 15 years' experience in the music business to an all-party music group, so I was surprised to discover that no such group existed. I set about establishing a new group and I met key figures in the music industry. We now have a successful and viable all-party music group, which is chaired effectively by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), who is present. I hope that he contributes to the debate and that the all-party music group continues to engage meaningfully with the music industry and to be an effective forum for the exchange of ideas between us—the politicians—and the key players and representatives of the industry.

In addition to being a great success story and contributing so much to our economy, the music industry faces key challenges, not least that presented by the illegal recording of recorded pieces of work. That might threaten the viability of the music industry's future more than any other issue.

The music industry is at the cutting edge of new technology and e-commerce. Music exists in a digital and online world, with products easily cloned and available for download on the internet. Unfortunately, the pirates and criminals who look to profit from the creative works of others have been able to exploit that new environment and marketplace. The legal framework to protect our artists and creators is insufficient. At best, it is patchy and it is certainly applied inconsistently across the European Union.

Compact disc piracy loses the music industry millions on millions of pounds each year. Yesterday, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry released its new figures, which show that 1.9 billion pirate recordings have been sold, and it is estimated that one of every two CDs in this nation is a pirated and illegal recording. That is simply unsustainable for any business. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that the legal framework is in place and that we make the laws to protect our creators and artists. We must also stress to the public that such piracy is a serious criminal activity.

Piracy threatens the well-being of our music industry and when a pirate CD is sold, money goes to criminals, not to the artist, the musician or the creator of that music. Many of those criminals are linked to organised crime, such as drug trafficking and money laundering. Piracy affects every level of the music business, from the top acts to aspiring musicians in its many cottage industries. Only a few weeks ago, the top artist Eminem made the unprecedented decision to rush-release his album by two weeks, in a vain attempt to beat the pirates.

It is not only artists such as Eminem who are affected by piracy, however. For example, the excellent singer-songwriter Dougie Maclean lives in my constituency. Dougie runs his own record business from his base in highland Perthshire, and he recently took the extraordinary decision not to put his new album into retail or distribution, such is his fear of piracy. His livelihood is fragile, and piracy threatens the well-being of such people.

The Government can do more to protect our industry, and some key measures are before them. Those measures are technical—they might be said to be boring—but they are important. Most notable are the draft electronic commerce regulations and the European copyright directive. On both, the Government face choices that will either enhance or undermine the industry's ability to maintain and build on its position on the world stage. What they offer and what the industry wants is the development of technical measures that will increase flexibility and choice for consumers while protecting creators from theft.

Before the recess, progress was made in the other place on the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill, the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who unfortunately cannot be here. That useful and helpful Bill would harmonise the law relating to intellectual property. Importantly, it would also increase the penalties on some copyright offences from two years to 10. I know that the Government support it, so there should be no reason to assume that it will not be on the statute book before too long. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that and on the implementation of the EU directive.

However, even if the Bill becomes law and we have the best possible result from the EU directive, there will still be serious concerns about enforcement. Trading standards services are woefully underfunded and under-resourced. Provisions exist to deal with certain crimes under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but so often the pirate and the counterfeiter evade the law because there are not enough personnel to deal with such crime.

The music industry earns the Exchequer £300 million a year in VAT receipts, so I believe that it is justified in reminding the Government of the money from it that boosts the economy and in asking for money in return to ensure that the laws are enforced and that the pirates and counterfeiters are brought to justice.

We must tackle the culture as well as enforcement and the establishment of the legal framework necessary to protect our artists and creators. If we are successfully to stop piracy and the illegal counterfeiting of music, we need the support of the general public. We must ensure that they understand that the crime is serious. The message that we must put across is that stealing somebody's intellectual property is the same as stealing their video recorder or car cassette player.

A culture has grown up that music has no real ownership and that anyone is free to use and abuse it in any way they want. Concepts such as the freedom to use music whenever and however anyone wants are usually mentioned in debates on the subject, and that attitude is usually accompanied by the belief that some bureaucratic, remote, faceless, well-endowed industry will pay. That is not so. The artist, creator and musician pay and they ultimately lose out; their livelihood is threatened. We must ensure that that message is understood by the public, especially young people.

Many young people know how to download music from the internet, but we should stress to them that they could become creators or songwriters, turning their leisure skills into careers. Our vision of a dynamic online society, which is one of the Government's key objectives, will be achieved only if we educate young people as to the responsibilities as well as the opportunities offered by the online world. Education remains vital to increasing young listeners' awareness of the value of music and of incentives to be creative. If, at an early age, young people valued their own creations, their own pieces of art, as much as they value their skateboards and their Game Boys, we would begin to make progress.

Record sales in the UK have grown while sales worldwide have declined. Although we may be relatively satisfied at the robustness of the UK industry, there must be concern about that worldwide decline. We are a net exporter of music, which has consequences for the UK industry in a worldwide slump. EMI provides the most notable evidence of that, as restructuring has meant the loss of hundreds of jobs.

There is also justified concern about UK penetration of the US market, which is by far the largest music market in the world. The UK market share has fallen from some 32 per cent. in 1986 to a measly 0.2 per cent. in 1999. That must be of great concern to the music industry, not least the artists who rely on US success for part of their international profile.

US business infrastructure has changed, and UK acts are failing because they are struggling to keep pace. The British Council report on the performance of UK acts in the US was released last week. I was surprised that it made the UK news, but, for the first time ever, there was no UK act in the American top 40. That is a monumental development. The report concludes that the UK music industry in the US does not depend only on the personal choice of the American record-buying public; its troubles are due to a lack of a musical business infrastructure in North America. The report argues that trading conditions for UK music companies in the US have become considerably less favourable in recent years.

The report ends with a good suggestion—the establishment of an office in the US to act as a musical embassy for creators, record companies, artists and managers. It could be used to re-engage more positively in the American market. That initiative is looking for Government support. Would the Minister's Department be prepared to support it?

We must consider the future. As well as challenges, the new technology offers many exciting opportunities for the industry and artists. If we can put the necessary legal framework in place and provide the protection that musicians, artists and creators need, there is no reason to believe that the online world will not enhance our music industry. For instance, the ability to put work on the internet is an incredible way for unsigned, new artists to get an audience.

When I started my musical career, I was told that the future of music would involve the selection of pieces from a wire in my living room. Although that dramatic, brave new world has not exactly arrived, I believe that customers look for flexibility and increased choice in music purchasing.

Many superb initiatives have emerged recently, especially in the independent sector, allowing fans the flexibility that they desire to purchase their favourite music. They also give labels secure digital distribution. We must consider how we can best exploit such opportunities and we must move beyond the siege mentality that considers new technology to be a massive threat. There is no escaping the future, so we must make the future work for us if we are to be successful.

I do not have time to touch on a number of issues that are crucial to the music industry. If I were to deal with everything that affects it, such as education and tuition, the work of the Brits, the two-in-a-bar law, which is the Minister's favourite, and the live music scene, which has experienced difficulties and challenges, I would be here all day. I hope that other hon. Members mention those aspects.

I know that the Minister supports our music industry, and the Department has been receptive to its concerns. I hope that the debate shows that the music industry is a grown-up industry that deserves our understanding and support. The House should be aware of the contribution of our music industry not only to our economy, but to the cultural well-being of every single part of the United Kingdom.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). I was going to say north Teesside, but that would be slightly wrong, given his accent. The debate is today's second most important event, after England's qualification for the next round of the World cup a couple of hours ago. Our elation at that victory has probably taken something from the atmosphere here today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, despite his political beliefs, congratulates the England team on their great achievement. I congratulate him on securing this wide-ranging debate. As he said, he could not raise every issue, because that would have taken several hours, and I appreciate his leaving time for other hon. Members to put their points.

As chairman of the all-party group, I was delighted by the enthusiasm that Parliament showed in setting up the group and, subsequently, in getting involved with the music industry. As Members of Parliament, we represent people throughout the country, and our enthusiasm for the industry reflects the general view. Music is an important part of everyone's life, and we all have our favourite songs and pop groups. We all recall favourite memories and special occasions involving listening to music, and we all had heroes when we were younger.

Like football, the music industry is loved in this country, because of the memories, enjoyment and entertainment that it gives us. However, the industry is more important than memories and favourite songs, and we must remember what it does for the UK. It is a UK flagship, which fosters international relations like no other industry does. We have seen the problems of football and violence, but there is never violence when the music industry goes abroad. It does great things for the UK, and it promotes the use of the English language like no school or education media could. UK stars are household names throughout the world.

Hon. Members have mentioned the industry's important input to the national economy. I have seen the figure of £4.5 billion, £1.5 billion of which is exports. The industry has 122,000 full-time employees, and we cannot laugh at such a figure when jobs are so important to all our regions.

I want to concentrate on trading standards capabilities and on stamping out piracy while ensuring that money stays with the industry and, of course, the UK taxpayer. I pay tribute to the work of trading standards departments throughout the country. As local Members of Parliament, we all work with them, and we know that they play a vital role in protecting consumers from rogue traders of all kinds. Their expertise will be vital if we are to take piracy seriously, and we must use their capabilities to stamp it out.

I hope that trading standards departments see our efforts to give them extra powers and extra duties not as a burden, but as a professional opportunity. It would be wrong not to appreciate their concerns about any additional powers, however. Departments are understaffed, and there is a shortage of trading standards officers. They also lack the resources to carry out their duties, although that is not the Government's fault.

Every year, there is a budgetary round in local government and a scrap over who gets the money from the pot. Nine times out of 10, trading standards departments come out worse off, because the more attractive services, such as education and social services, get the greater share of the money. However, we appreciate the departments' problems. As well as considering giving trading standards departments the additional duty of stamping out piracy, we might consider ring-fencing money when it is provided, as the Government have done through the modernisation fund, to ensure that trading standards departments get it and can use it to combat piracy in the music industry.

My hon. Friend knows that the £30 million that was made available—while I was the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible, I might boast—is there to be bid for by local councils. It is not to be spent on anything else and it is up to the local authorities to show the imagination and the initiative to start tackling the pirates and the gangsters. The money is there for them if they bid for it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I appreciate, but my general point is that although trading standards departments do a great job, they have to battle against other local government services for their share of the money. If we are considering introducing additional powers, we should try to give trading standards departments a lead and propose new initiatives to enable them to compete for the modernisation funds.

There is no doubt that illegal CDs and piracy in general are causing a major problem. They are being sold in their thousands, not only in shops, but on the internet and at car boot sales. Profit margins for the criminals engaged in that trade are huge and the risk of capture is minimal. The Government have recognised the importance of stamping out piracy, because they have increased the maximum penalty to 10 years' imprisonment, but the departments' lack of statutory powers or duties to enable them to act renders that meaningless.

Piracy in the music industry has a Del Boy image in the UK. It must be tempting for somebody who does not earn a lot of money to buy a top 10 CD for £4 or £5 from somebody who comes into their local with a suitcase full of them. We must get away from that image, because such CDs are not as good as the genuine article and consumers often receive shoddy goods. Being undercut by that criminal activity costs UK workers their jobs in the music industry and it costs the taxpayer, because money goes not over the counter in reputable and proper shops, but from hand to hand. That makes taxes rise, which affects the national health service and other services, and revenue is lost to the music industry itself.

I recognise the serious impact that such crime has on all walks of life and that the Government appreciate the problems experienced by trading standards departments and are making extra money available, but I ask the Minister to address the specific problem of piracy. In particular, will he comment on the fact that local trading standards departments have real concerns about getting involved in such work, not only because of a lack of resources, but because of manpower issues and their knock-on effects?

I, too, am delighted that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has secured the debate, but I want to pull in a slightly different direction from him and other Members who are interested in the subject.

Of course, the music industry is phenomenally important to the United Kingdom. Whether one is a republican or a monarchist, one must acknowledge that last week was an enormously significant event in terms of public relations for this country. Generations of British musical talent performed at Buckingham palace in classical and pop concerts, showing a cultural breadth and excitement about Britain that will have been attractive to tourists around the world. I congratulate the Department on its involvement in the jubilee weekend, which provided perhaps the best piece of PR for the country in many years.

The music industry has been especially important to the Celts among us, and I reckon that about 50 per cent. of those in the Chamber are English and 50 per cent. are Welsh or Scottish. [Interruption.] All right, the Celts have the majority.

The Minister is to visit my constituency on Friday, travelling a great distance from Pontypridd to Rhondda, to see one of the most interesting innovations in a traditional, post-industrial constituency. The Pop Factory is where Corona—"Every bubble's passed its fizzical"—was originally made. Now, it is where pop music is made and where all the greats of British and Welsh music over the past few years have played. Television programmes are made there and young people are encouraged to get involved in the music industry, not just in its traditional forms, but in new online and digital versions of music. That is all very exciting, because it brings economic opportunities to an area that was associated solely with decay following the closure of the mines.

Historically, the Government and the law have protected the rights of artists and the recording industry through copyright legislation. Almost all the discussion over the past few days in anticipation of the debate has centred on the economic rights of rights holders—those who make the music—but moral rights are equally significant. People should have the right to say, "I wrote this piece of music and no one else can use it without my permission. If they use it, they must attribute the music to me."

Many people do not think of copyright as dramatically affecting their lives, yet how we consume music, television and theatre is affected by copyright law. For example, we never hear "Happy Birthday To You" sung in a movie because copyright must be paid to use it. Invariably, one hears "For He's A Jolly Good Fellow", even if it is a woman's birthday, because no one wants to pay the extremely expensive rights for "Happy Birthday".

Similarly, one reason for our strong church music tradition, which does not exist elsewhere in the European Union, is the exemption for such music under British copyright law. That exemption has allowed the Church to invest significantly in music, which can then be used in every other church in the country without additional moneys being paid to the composer when it is used in a church setting. That caused complications for Princess Diana's funeral, due to uncertainty about whether the music written by John Taverner, which was subsequently made available on CD, was exempt. Much of the preferred music for the funeral could not be used because of copyright law.

"Top of the Pops" has been so successful in this country and around the world partly because British copyright law enables broadcasters to reach an easy resolution of copyright issues with the recording industry. Furthermore, a French, Spanish or German satirical television programme that uses a song that takes the mickey out of someone renders it exactly whereas in Britain a version is used—for example, a song that sounds like a Sting song. Other countries have exemptions for music used for satirical purposes.

Copyright law goes to the heart of whether we enjoy our music and television programmes. It also affects news broadcasts. In Belgium, there is no exemption for showing public works of art and buildings, which means that one cannot film a news clip in front of the European Parliament building, for example, without obtaining permission from the architect. There is such an exemption in the United Kingdom, which is why it is unnecessary to obtain permission from Richard Rogers or any other architect involved before filming in front of the Lloyd's building. I happen to think that the exemption is right, but others in Belgium, France and other EU countries take a different view.

There are also exemptions in the United Kingdom for the blind and throughout Europe for copying for libraries. The nub of my argument is private copying, and a different resolution of that issue has been arrived at in each EU member state. In the United Kingdom, it has been accepted that individuals might legitimately record a television programme or a CD on to tape for use at a different time, on the condition that they bought the original CD.

That practice is written into the life of British society, as thousands of people record television programmes on a Friday evening and watch them the following week. The law presumes that they will then wipe the tape. We would certainly enter interesting territory if every Member in this Room who has kept a tape of a television programme recorded several years ago declared themselves pirates. However, the assumption is that every private copy of a CD or a television programme is in some sense pirated.

We must establish a clear and balanced position that benefits the artists, the recording industry or broadcaster and the consumer. Governments should be wary of responding on the rightful claims about privacy by saying that all private copying must stop. In Germany, there is a blank tape levy under which video and audio tapes are more expensive, with the extra money going to the recording industry. There is provision in the EU copyright directive for the United Kingdom to take or not to take that option. Politicians should be wary of treading on consumers' toes in respect of such issues.

Although I have heard a lot from the recording industry about possible damage to artists—that industry is one of the most effective lobbying organisations in the world—I also hear from artists, who say that their rights are often not protected by the recording industry. Nina Simone is unable to be with us today, but if she were here she might point out that she has not received a single penny for the song that plays in every bar in the country—I cannot remember its name. Many recording artists get a bum deal from the recording industry.

The song is called "My Baby Just Cares For Me".

I thank my hon. Friend. Everyone in the Room knows the name of the song apart from myself—I feel very inadequate.

When the Government implement the copyright directive later this year through a statutory instrument, I hope that they continue to allow for private copying when it does not lead to commercial use. That is the nub issue.

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views. How would he make a distinction between private copying for individual use and illegal pirating for sale? What distinction would he draw between the rights of those who make private copies and those who undertake illegal mass production of CDs?

The issue is complicated, and many battles were fought in the European Union, the Commission and the Council over the wording. In fact, all parts of the industry are happy with the wording in the copyright directive on that issue. I am simply worried that the Government may be pushed into being more restrictive than the copyright directive allows for. When they implement the copyright directive, the Government should consider allowing some of the additional exemptions in this country that would have no commercial significance and that are available in other countries. Harmonising copyright throughout the EU would be in the interests of all concerned, because many of those issues are not purely national. People can pirate from one country to another. I hope that Ministers will be keen to point out that although not all copying is piracy—one can be a legitimate copier—we need to put an end to illegitimate piracy.

It is worth pointing out that an MP3 does not provide a perfect copy. It has been said that digital copies are always perfect, and that that causes many more problems than in the past, but that is simply untrue. Embedded phonographs—music used in television programmes—should be treated as a legitimate form of copying and not immediately submitted to harsh restrictive practices, otherwise broadcasters in the UK would find it difficult to sell programmes abroad that provide a good showcase for British talent.

The UK recording industry faces a few substantial challenges, one of which must be finding a new revenue stream. I doubt whether more trading standards officers or more restrictive copyright laws will be able to stem the tide in the change of the revenue stream. It is up to the music industry to find that alternative source. I know that many recording artists have chosen to bypass the recording industry in an attempt to achieve that. The recording industry must establish better contractual arrangements for artistes. Many artistes get a bum deal, and they need a better deal. It needs to find a way of building long-term talent, and not only the "Pop Idol" style of talent that we have seen during the past few years.

Shame.

I supported "Pop Idol" and watched every programme, but—[Interruption.] I voted for Will. I always support the winning team.

It is important that we make use of the slow-build talent; it may be more costly for the recording industry, but in the end it may prove far more beneficial for it and for the country. Some of the biggest names associated with UK recording are those who have been around the longest—the Stings, the Elton Johns and others—who would not have got to the top if they had been judged only on their first album.

My final challenge to the industry—it is one that the Select Committee has issued to the recording industry several times—is to make CDs cheaper, because that is the best way of ensuring that people buy more of them. It is disgraceful that CDs are still dramatically more expensive in this country than in the United States or Canada. Despite much special pleading from the recording industry, responsibility for that still lies with industry itself.

Before I call the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I remind hon. Members that if they are brief I should be able to call everyone who seeks to catch my eye before the wind-up speeches begin.

I start by congratulating the England team. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I watched the match on the Terrace, and we are delighted at the result. [Interruption.] That was on our Terrace, not theirs. Anything that gives Sir Cliff Richard an opportunity to rush out another version of "Congratulations" as England win the World cup is good.

It is good to take part in a debate that might even get clipped on MTV—who knows?—and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing it. Part of the problem is that people treat the music industry as if it were peripheral and unimportant, and as if it can take care of itself. The music industry is important to the nation. It creates billions of pounds-worth of revenue, and hundreds of millions of pounds, if not more than £1 billion, of tax revenue flows from it. It also creates employment.

When we talk about jobs in the music industry, we all think of the musicians themselves. Of course, they are vital; without them, the many other jobs would not exist. Those involved in selling CDs and DVDs are important, as are those involved in holding concerts in venues such as theatres, pubs and clubs throughout the country, although I know that there is a licensing problem, which I hope the Minister will address in his speech, and those who manufacture and sell the merchandising that goes along with music, and the music press.

When I was involved with the original all-party group on music many years ago we went to Abbey road and walked across the famous zebra crossing, and we put out a press release saying that we had walked in the footsteps of the Beatles. My researcher was not as au fait with the spelling of their name as I was, and we were ribbed in the New Musical Express for not being able to spell the name of the most famous group in the history of music. One has to take the rough with the smooth.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the music industry is vital. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) about "Pop Idol" and how important that was. It gripped the imagination of the entire nation, and I understand that the format is being sold all over the world. Undoubtedly, royalties will accrue from that as well. More people voted in "Pop Idol" than voted Liberal Democrat at the last general election —which I am sure we all understand. It is absolutely amazing how that gripped everyone, and it is not just Will Young who has done well out of it, but Gareth Gates and several others. I went into the pub the next day and just said "Will or Gareth?" to people at random, and they knew fairly well what I was talking about, and were able to say who they had voted for.

The music industry is enormously important. Of course, "Top of the Pops" has been mentioned in the debate, and rightly so. That programme has been sold all over the world. I was in South Africa this week and managed to watch on BBC Prime editions of "Top of the Pops" and "Top of the Pops 2", which featured some of the bands that I grew up with. The format has been sold in a number of other languages, which is important as well.

Just because we are supporters of the music industry, it does not mean that we support every type of music. That is clearly not the case. There is some music that I do not like, and I understand that there is some that the Minister is not so keen on at times, but I suspect that we will not hear too much about that today. We have preferences, and as vice-chairman of the all-party music group it was great to go with the chairman and the Minister to the Ivor Novello awards and see people such as Kate Bush—I was at university when she became very popular—and the enormously talented Sting receive awards.

The jubilee concert was mentioned and I understand that it has raised £150 million between the classical one on the Saturday and the popular one on the Monday. Rights have been sold all over the world for that absolutely enormous showcase for British talent. We have heard about Ozzy Osbourne, but of course several great British musicians have already been knighted, and Mick Jagger may be the next in line to get his knighthood and hear the words "Arise, Sir Mick." He has made an enormous contribution to the music industry.

I have to declare an interest. I grew up with two brothers, one of whom played the guitar, and the other of whom played the drums. Despite that, I still appreciate music. The guitarist actually got a record into the shops in the 1960s as part of a group called the Outer Limits. People see how much the most famous musicians earn, and think, "Those musicians are OK, aren't they?" I am not sure if the hon. Member for North Tayside wants to intervene at this moment. The vast majority of people who play in clubs on a Saturday use the money that they earn to pay for fuel to get to some of the clubs that are many miles away. At times, they are a bit like a social service. They appreciate the music in its own right, while hoping that at some time in the future somebody will recognise their talents and they will do very well out of it.

It is important that we have mentioned the new technology today. When I was growing up, even CDs were not available. Now we have CD burners, the internet, Napster—well, not any more—and other look-alikes on the horizon. Who can say what will be developed during the next five to 10 years? Digital radio used not to be available, but is now becoming more popular in this country and throughout the world.

We have heard about some of the initiatives that the Government may take, such as putting a levy on blank video and audio tapes. There is, however, an opportunity, through the work of scientists and the industry, to use the technology that produced the opportunities for people to pirate music or access it for nothing to rectify that problem. There was a time when any software for computers could be downloaded from the internet, but Microsoft developed a technology that prevents the copying of particular pieces of software. As downloading times become faster and faster people will want the convenience of downloading music and the music industry will, I hope, be able to harness technology to allow them to do so. However, the industry must not lose out because people are not buying music in the traditional way in a shop or store. It needs to get money through subscription or some other means to allow it to make the profits that it needs to invest in new talent.

I offer my congratulations on the jubilee concerts and also congratulate the BBC on the proms, which it organises every year. They are an enormously successful showcase for classical music and are incredibly popular throughout the country.

Small music festivals provide an opportunity for both more and less well-known talent to have an airing. The Ribchester festival in my constituency starts on 26 June and finishes on 30 June. George Melly and John Chilton's Feet Warmers are opening the concert, and they will be followed by opera and quartets. It is superb that a small village is able to put on such a festival with the support of sponsors. We should not forget the enormous sponsorship required by music festivals. It is important that businesses of all sorts are able to create profits in one area and share their wealth with another, such as the arts, while taking the opportunity to grow.

I hope that the Minister will say something about schools and education. It is important that youngsters are given an opportunity to learn to play musical instruments, and that should not be pushed out of the curriculum because of the intense pressure on youngsters to concentrate on core subjects. It is important that we give talented youngsters the opportunity to learn to play musical instruments, as is the case with the Brit school.

A number of small and medium-sized enterprises rely on Britain having a healthy and vibrant music industry. I started by saying that the industry is seen as being hugely successful in this country, second only to that of the United States of America. That is not an excuse, however, for turning a blind eye, walking away and thinking that it does not need nurturing to ensure that it will prosper and flourish in the future. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to say how the Government will encourage the music industry to flourish in this country.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing it. I was afraid that we would all come along today and say exactly the same things, but it has been exciting to hear other Members' views about the diverse issues that face the music industry.

I should like to declare an interest in that I am the secretary of the all-party group on music, which was relaunched earlier this year to give MPs and peers an opportunity to become aware of the issues facing Britain's multi-billion pound music industry by meeting its representatives who include both performers and producers. This debate is just one example of the high profile that the industry rightly holds in the minds of politicians. As many hon. Members have said, Britain's recording industry accounts for about 15 per cent. of the global market and Britain's domestic market for music sales is the third largest in the world.

Since I took over the job of secretary of the all-party group on music, I have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of people. Outside politics, music is my greatest passion. A long-term constituent of mine in Mitcham and Morden told me that in the mid-90s he put up one of his most important clients for the night on the settee; the postman was given the surprise of his life the next morning when he bumped into Stevie Wonder leaving a small terraced house in Courtney road, Colliers Wood—who said that Mitcham and Morden in south-west London suburbia was boring?

Stevie Wonder.

No, I think that he came back.

My main concern is the lack of opportunities for new bands to make live music. Through my teenage years from the age of 17, a week had not ended properly if I had not had the opportunity to see a live band in some small pub or club not far from where I lived. Many of those venues have now gone, and people now in their late teens will not be able to see the equivalent of the Jam, or say that they saw them in a small pub in Croydon on the Sunday night that their first single hit the charts. Many such stories have built my love for music, and I should like young people to be given the opportunity to attend concerts at little cost and to watch bands thrive and develop.

It is a tragedy for live music in this country that many venues have gone. It is also a tragedy for live music of the future—there are fewer places where bands can start out and learn the craft of live performance. It is not the fault of the Government's new deal for musicians, which has been welcomed by the Musicians Union, and which has given a hand-up to more than 9,000 young musicians; nor is it the fault of the union learning fund, which is a small grant scheme that was set up by the Government in 1998 to encourage unions to help their members develop their talents. The decline in small music venues is largely the fault of local authorities and their public entertainment licences, and all the Government's good work will be stymied without positive licensing reform.

For a nation that rightly takes pride in the global success of its music industry, it is strange that licensees commit a criminal offence if they allow three singers to perform in a pub, or in any other premises covered by the Licensing Act 1964. Even spontaneous singing—which I have been known to do, particularly in the Strangers Bar—is technically an offence. [Interruption.] Yes, my singing is an offence. Such activity is an offence unless a special permit called a public entertainment licence has first been obtained from the local authority. Last week's BBC Music Live community sing-a-long was therefore an act of mass civil disobedience for most of the pub customers who took part.

Without a public entertainment licence, premises may provide unlimited recorded sound, and radio, live satellite and terrestrial television broadcasts. The maximum penalty for unlicensed public entertainment however is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison—a bizarre state of affairs. The two-performer exemption from public entertainment licences is understandably derided by musicians who call it the two-in-a-bar rule. Only 5 per cent. of 111,000 liquor-licensed premises in England and Wales hold an annual public entertainment licence, which is why the word "rule" is more appropriate than "exemption." It means that a live gig tonight performed by more than two musicians would be illegal in more than 100,000 bars, pubs and other liquor-licensed premises.

The low take-up of public entertainment licences is largely due to rising costs and red tape. Home Office circular 13 published in April 2000 warned councils against excessive conditions and asked them to consider lowering fees for public entertainment licences. Few have taken any notice. Annual public entertainment licence revenue for local authorities in England and Wales rose by about 20 per cent. a year between 1998 and 2001; for the record, the figures are £11.005 million between 1998 and 1999 and £16.067 million between 2000 and 2001. That data comes from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. In fact, the totals are almost certainly higher, because a small percentage of councils do not provide CIPFA with such information.

To me, revenue from public entertainment licensing looks suspiciously like a music and dancing tax. Local authorities argue that public entertainment licence fees are justified on the polluter pays principle, but since alcohol sales of some £30 billion a year generate some £12 billion in VAT and duty, perhaps some of the money should be available to local authorities to underwrite the legitimate costs associated with regulating music and dancing premises. Surely, that would be better than a locally set tax, which often bears no relation at all to the polluting capacity of the premises.

The two-in-a-bar restrictions on live performance are ludicrous by any standards. In Ireland, whose team has also had significant World cup success in the past few days and which many of us support, a pub without a live band is the exception. No entertainment licence is required in rural areas, although a permit costing £24 a year is needed in towns. In Scotland, most pubs can provide live bands before 11 pm without a public entertainment licence, and Scottish pubs—indeed, all workplaces—are regulated by UK-wide safety and noise legislation, which begs the question whether a public entertainment licence is the only way to address safety and noise concerns.

On the face of it, the rationale for public entertainment licensing is eminently reasonable. Public entertainment licences are supposed to ensure public safety and minimise noise nuisance, and prevent crime and disorder. However, if it is deemed safe for pubs without a public entertainment licence to entertain customers with live sport on widescreen television, as they are doing with the World cup, surely it is safe to provide a folk band, a jazz trio or, in the case of some restaurants, a string quartet.

It would be mistake to assume that noise from live music is a major problem for local authorities. According to the Noise Abatement Society, 81 per cent. of complaints are caused by noisy people in the streets outside premises. The remaining 19 per cent. of complaints relate to noisy neighbours, noisy machinery or loud recorded music escaping from bars and nightclubs. Loud amplified bands may be a problem, but there is effective legislation to address it, as the Scottish example shows. Licensing justices have the power to attach noise conditions on the grant of liquor licences. It seems that the power is not widely used, but it is there.

According to the Musicians Union, in Finland, Denmark and Germany there is no separate licensing requirement for live music. Its provision is assumed when the equivalent of a liquor licence is granted. As one would expect, the premises are subject to noise-limiting conditions, particularly if they are open after midnight. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced that the Government do not intend to require live television sport in pubs to be licensed under the proposed new alcohol and entertainment Bill. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that. Yet the Government propose that, in future, even one amplified guitarist in a bar will be illegal, unless such entertainment has been declared when applying for a premises licence and subsequently approved by the local authority.

I recognise that the Minister publicly acknowledged in his Department's press release of 12 April that simply abolishing the two-in-a-bar rule was not enough. Indeed, the licensing White Paper "Time for Reform" carried a risk assessment that musicians could lose work as a result. So how exactly do the Government expect that live music will benefit if the starting point for all licensees becomes none in a bar? Sweeping away red tape and making licensing simpler and cheaper will undoubtedly benefit the licensed trade. The Government are to be congratulated on the scope of their proposed licensing reforms, but surely a thriving musical life at all levels in society is somewhat more important than the potential for 24-hour drinking.

Setting licence fees centrally may help, but only if the levels are low. The Government have an obligation to explain more clearly how their reforms will not just stop but reverse the decline of grass roots entertainment. Pop icons such as Elton John and Dave Stewart have recently complained about the lack of talent and depth in the contemporary pop scene. Composer and performer Big George Webley, who wrote the music for "Have I Got News For You" and won Sony Music broadcaster of the year last month, said:

"Over the past two decades this once great musical nation has lost its breeding ground for talent. Pre-packaged lightweight muzak fodder has replaced grass roots entertainment. If the Beatles, Queen or Dire Straits were starting their careers today, they would never get on stage, let alone make a record or get on the radio."

When the title of this debate came up on the Order Paper, I thought that it would be fun and informative, and it certainly has been. We have had an excellent debate and I have learned a great deal about the music industry. I feel apologetic that I do not have a regional accent and only come from Hampshire. It is interesting that so many contributions have come from the Celtic fringes.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). For a moment I thought that I might be responsible for some of his royalties—I must check my record collection, but we passed notes and I may have had the wrong band in mind earlier. He rightly said that this important industry is an incredible success story with a turnover of £4.6 billion, 10 or 15 per cent. of the world share, and employs more than 100,000 people in this country. We are rightly proud of an industry that I believe sets us apart from many other countries.

As we have heard, however, the industry faces important challenges. I disagree with several hon. Members—I spoke in advance of this debate to people in the industry whom I know, and the message that came across is that it is indeed successful. It has problems, but for goodness sake, let us not panic. Let us not have the Government ploughing in and over-interfering—many in the industry think that that would be the kiss of death.

What, then, should be done about the issues that have been raised? The most important problem, which was touched on by the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), is that of piracy. We must split that issue into the different forms that it takes, because different responses are required from the Government. The first and most difficult, which requires tough regulation and tough action, is organised criminal activity. Countries such as Mexico now have their own music awards for the best-selling artist, which is based on piracy sales. Clearly, the system has got completely out of hand. Unsurprisingly, the artists are never there to receive the awards. The Government must take tough action to tackle that type of industry, which has many criminal undertones.

There are other forms of piracy, such as CD burning—sales of blank CDs have been soaring. CD burning is the kind of thing that people's mates do for them. As the hon. Member for Rhondda asked, do we really want to clamp down on individuals who do that? Another is e-piracy, which involves the internet. Again, I am concerned about over-regulation in that area. We know that it is phenomenally difficult to regulate the internet and that those involved in the industry say that they do not favour a heavy-handed approach. It is practically impossible to track down the source of the music, and although we may be able to regulate in this country, can one regulate if music on the internet is sourced from Spain, Italy or Australia? It is virtually impossible to tackle some of those issues.

Although about 17 per cent. of people who use the internet have admitted downloading and using music, I think that we should be relaxed about that, and accept that that is the new world that we are moving in. We should be relaxed about CD burning, but very tough indeed on organised piracy.

We know that piracy has an impact on the music industry. In 1999, if an album went into its second week its sales would dip by about 20 or 25 per cent. We know that sales are now dipping by about 40 per cent., which demonstrates that people are not going out to buy records in that second week. Things cannot have changed so much that all artists are producing bad records two or three years down the line.

Although there is clear evidence that piracy is having an impact, I would question how hard the Government's response should be. The Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) examines copyright issues. We should be exploring issues such as that rather than over-regulating the internet.

There are other reasons why such problems occur. Reference has been made to the high cost of CDs. We were promised that, with new technology, prices would fall. That has not happened, and the problem must be tackled. We cannot blame some of the problems of the music industry purely on piracy or the cost of CDs. Other issues are involved, such as trying to get products of our music industry into America. As has been said, for the first time in 38 years we do not have a record in America's top 40. Is it likely that a Government initiative, in line with the British Council, can solve that problem? I do not think that it can. The success of music is based on what happens on the street, not what happens in Downing street. A Government endorsement of a record would be the kiss of death. After all, the most successful popular music has been about rebellion, not Government endorsements.

I accept the concept of the embassy providing backup and support in America, but I would be worried if we were entering into a new Labour, cool Britannia phase trying to over-promote British records. That would be counter-productive. We must think about the quality of music. The best and most effective way to break into the American market is to have better records. The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to "Pop Idol". I also watched it and became interested in how the Hear'Say band was developed. It has been successful in this country, but we will not break into the American market with artists like that. Robbie Williams is the sort of artist who could have broken into the American market—but there comes a point when such artists may not want to go to America. They do not want to start on the bottom rung, play at venues where no one knows who they are, and have to graft away to break into the industry.

I appreciate the financial imperative behind United Kingdom bands wanting to make it big in the American charts, but could the explanation not be that most of the music in the American charts is absolute rubbish, and our music is superior, but does not appeal to the mass market in the States? We should not necessarily beat ourselves up about that.

The evidence from the charts shows that a lot of big American hits get to No. 1 and No. 2 over here, so British people do like American music.

As for other ways in which the music industry could develop, we must encourage new bands: those that start from the grass roots, from the streets, and are not a product of high-level marketing. The Government could become involved in that. For example, they have helped the film industry, especially by giving tax breaks to individuals who have invested in small film companies. Similarly, there may be a case for giving tax breaks to individuals who invest in smaller record labels.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about ensuring that live venues go on being successful, so that artists can have an early opportunity to hold gigs. there is been much discussion about the "two-in-one-bar" law, and I hope that the Minister will mention that. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has tabled an early-day motion on the issue, and that has attracted 94 signatures.

Since yesterday, my early-day motion has now attracted 133 signatures. There is enormous support for a change in the licensing law. The Minister unfairly castigated Somerset folk singers and, although he will become the subject of the first Somerset fatwa since Judge Jeffreys, I still believe that he wants a change in the law. There will be enormous disappointment throughout the country if there is not a licensing Bill in our next Session. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that suggestion away with him and tell the business managers that there is a need for a change to what he agrees is a daft law.

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the Minister will come out with a glowing endorsement of folk music when he responds to the debate. The law is illogical. The previous Speaker was fond of holding musical evenings and performances at Speaker's House. Did they have to be licensed?

I shall end by raising the issue of live music outdoors, such as pop festivals and concerts held at open air venues. The Homelands event is a very successful concert that is held in my constituency. It is organised by the Mean Fiddler, and about 40,000 people come to Winchester to attend it. Winchester is, perhaps, not what one would think of as the normal kind of venue for such an event, but it has been extremely successful for the past four years.

However, for pop concerts there is a particular problem with ticket touts. I understand that ticket touting is illegal for football matches, for example, but not for pop concerts. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that issue.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate. The House benefits greatly from his musical talents and experience, and the fact that he is here with us shows what a big country the UK is.

I turn to today's football match. As a Celt, I was delighted to see England qualify, but as my team, Scotland, is out of the World cup, I will have torn loyalties when my mother's home country of Denmark plays England in the next round—so that is one match that I might miss.

I welcome this opportunity to recognise the important contribution that the music industry makes to the UK economy, and to our cultural life. There has been much talk in the debate about the contribution that our musicians and creative artists make to the US, but nobody has yet mentioned that the economic downturn that the industry—especially its retail and distribution sectors—suffered after 11 September was particularly notable in the US market. That event has had a major impact; it is not that our music is bad, but the US market is particularly difficult to penetrate at present.

I also wish to praise the pop and classical concerts that were held for the golden jubilee, which were hosted by Buckingham palace and put together and broadcast by the BBC. As the hon. Member for North Tayside said, it is especially noteworthy that the Black Sabbath day came, because Ozzy Osbourne was invited. We should give special congratulations to those who organised that, and recognised heavy metal music in this way—[Interruption.] I cannot be the only person here who listened to Radio Luxembourg and Radio Caroline in my youth. The singles chart was extended to the top 20 in 1954. That was a particularly good year, and we have never looked back since.

I recognise the problems of piracy, which have been referred to by many hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for North Tayside, who is closest to the industry. As recently as 15 May, I received a written answer from one of the Ministers who has managed to maintain her place at the Department of Trade and Industry after the reshuffle. It says:

"Accurate figures for losses due to internet piracy are difficult to gather and distinguish from other misuse of copyright material on the internet."—[Official Report, 15 May 2002; Vol. 388, c. 635W.]

I gather that for the year 2000, a £20 million loss was estimated for the music industry alone. That is very damaging to the industry in terms of lost revenue, drain on business and a brake on investment in new music talent, development and promotion.

I vigorously state that in no way would we, as the official Opposition, wish to be seen to be discriminating against young people in this debate. However, it happens to be the case that young people have a special penchant for adapting new technologies in imaginative ways, and it is because of that that this loophole has been exploited.

Many young people enjoy enormous work opportunities in the creative industries—or in their retailing and distributive sectors—and I pay tribute to the work done by BARD, in its entertainment retailing yearbook of 2002, in recognising the unique opportunities that are offered to talented young people either as creative artists or in the retail and distribution sectors.

As for trading standards and the extra resources that are required, I seek a commitment from the Minister. We must see whether we can take some positive measures and provide trading standards departments with extra resources from the Government to enable them to do the work that they seek to do.

We robustly support the recent private Member's Bill, the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill, which enjoys cross-party—indeed, all-party—support. I learned on 8 May from the same Minister, in answer to a different question, that the Government

"will be strengthening copyright law relevant to online use and misuse of copyright material in regulations to implement the EC Directive on copyright".—[Official Report, 8 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 247W.]

That is in addition to the Government's support for the copyright Bill.

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to update the House on when the Government expect to finalise the implementing of the measures, particularly the EC directive. He might also like to comment on whether the EU competition rules always make as positive a contribution to the music industry as the industry would like. I realise that he may be in some difficulties because most of the issues that we have raised relate to the Department of Trade and Industry, but I am sure that the two Departments often speak to each other.

I recognise, as have several other hon. Members, that the figures that we got this morning from the IFPI are horrendous. Internationally, piracy increased by 50 per cent. last year alone. The EC copyright directive extends copyright protection to sound recordings, particularly in an online environment. We need effective implementation, and we look to the Government to secure that for us.

The IFPI sets out the recording industry's four key priorities, which are: that copyright law be brought into line with international standards; that optical disc regulations to control pirate CD manufacturing be secured; that there be proactive and effective enforcement by police and customs; and that there be aggressive prosecution and deterrent sentencing of such crime under judicial systems. What is the Government's response to that? The Minister might not have had time to consider the matter, but I would welcome a written answer about those four priorities.

I was amused by many of the contributions, not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I shudder to confess that I am the proud owner of a Spanish guitar, but I am not yet as fluent on it as I should hope to be. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for hosting the Radio 1 party two years ago, which was greatly enjoyed by all, and for which I say yet another big thank you to the BBC. She raised the serious matter of the decline of small music venues. All of us are deeply concerned about such subjects as they affect our constituencies. Bearing in mind where that most famous group, the Beatles, started from, we do not want to lose those facilities completely.

The British Phonograph Industry—BPI—has set out a shopping list of key issues for the British record industry. I should welcome the Minister's response on the subject. The BPI's No. 1 priority is copyright protection for sound recordings. The second is

"Promoting a legislative framework that encourages investment in new technology and encryption services".

The third is

"Supporting and promoting self regulation for content",

and the fourth is

"Promoting a level playing field for the US/European tax regimes".

Many who have contributed this morning would welcome a more level playing field in respect of tax, anti-trust and competition regimes on both sides of the pond.

The BPI goes on to ask for support for

"multi-platform delivery of public service broadcasts"

and

"Improving awareness of the role that intellectual property plays in enabling creative industry to flourish".

Finally, it asks for support and effort in fighting piracy and cyber crime, and concludes that the important progress on the adoption of the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill is most welcome.

It is important to recognise the phenomenal amount—the hon. Member for North Tayside said £4 billion—that the British music industry contributes to the national economy. The industry generates significant exports, with estimated overseas earnings of £1.3 billion, and provides 122,000 full-time jobs in the UK; 13 per cent. of the UK record industry's turnover is reinvested in artists and repertoire to discover new talent.

The Government have a pivotal role to play in delivering a regime that is light in touch and not over-regulatory, and will lead to an environment that enables business, culture and artistry to flourish. We are committed to that. Do the Government share that commitment?

I add my congratulation to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing a debate on the music industry. He was right to say that it was long overdue. This place rarely debates successful industries; we usually debate failing industries. By the way, I hope that that is not a harbinger for the music industry; I do not think that it is.

I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for the debate, but for his work, with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and others, in setting up the all-party music group. I was privileged to attend the first meeting, which was a great occasion. I welcome that move to raise the profile of the music industry, which is arguably the most obvious manifestation of cultural life in this country. I also thank other hon. Members for contributing to the debate.

Music is rightly a very important part of British culture, and it has endless variety. I am dreadfully sorry that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) did not have the chance to stick the knife in a bit further on the question of folk music. When the Wurzels ambushed me subsequent to my outrageous comment, I was delighted when one of them whispered, "Oi married a girl from Pontypridd, you know." The cameras were all arrayed around us as I held up a copy of the Wurzels' Christmas CD, called "Come On Santa". Another member of the band then mentioned an icon of jazz—I am an unashamed jazz fan. He said that he believed that Acker Bilk was the brother-in-law of the great Adge Cutler, who was the leader of the Wurzels. That shows that music is an entirely integrated and wonderful form of cultural expression.

I hope that some of the predictions of gloom that we have heard—not this morning, I may add, because the debate has painted a positive picture—are ill founded. The UK record industry experienced a growth of 5.3 per cent. in 2001, which bucked the global slowdown. However, there are still problems, and I shall discuss those.

I agree entirely with the hon. Members who mentioned what a wonderful showcase the concert at Buckingham palace was. It was a tremendous advert for Britain. By the way, the tourism part of DCMS has managed to get some money out of the Treasury to sell Britain abroad. However, we could never have bought such a wonderful advert for this country as the incredible images that we saw last week. It was absolutely wonderful. However, I grew up thinking that rock music—I could not use the expression "pop music"; I was never interested in that—was about rebellion. Seeing knights up on the stage—well, I will not go into that. Ministers are not supposed to have opinions, by the way. If one expresses them, one gets in big trouble.

We are at an important point with regard to legislating on the music industry. Almost everyone who has spoken has said how desperately we need a new regulatory regime for venues—that is absolutely vital. I share the view of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that the industry is successful largely because the Government have kept their sticky fingers out of it. I am not in favour of heavy-handed regulation or, God forbid, an initiative from the Government—we have had enough of those. However, I am keen for us to tackle the real problem of the diminishing number of venues, which I have seen in my own constituency. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) comes from Swansea, which had a wonderful music scene. It still does to some extent, but the number of venues is way, way down on what it used to be. I hope that we shall get this right. We have some good proposals to present.

I hope that the licensing Bill will feature in the Queen's Speech, but that entirely depends on whether adequate time will be available in the view of the Government's business managers. It is vital—and it is not rocket science to reform that law. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that the last thing that I want is a reform that would drive groups out of pubs, which would be the worst of all worlds.

The "two-in-a-pub" rule is idiotic. Its origin lies in a different age. Just last week, I went with one of my brothers to a pub in Aberdare, which is not in my constituency, but is where I come from. We were totally deafened by one guy with two massive amplifiers, singing drivel. However, I shall not talk about that now.

There is a problem not only with performance venues—the Minister is right about what needs to be done to reverse that—but with practice and rehearsal venues. It is important for young people to have the opportunity to play without causing a nuisance to people, in a way that will take them off the streets and, perhaps, away from trouble, too.

Absolutely. We do not talk about that issue enough. The number of rehearsal venues is diminishing even faster than the number of live performance venues, partly because rehearsals often take place in the day. For those growing up in a small town and putting a band together, the opportunities to practise in the day with at least some volume are likely to be restricted.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned one reason for the current situation when he said that we have never taken the industry seriously enough. It is not regarded as mainstream. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) was right about the real integration between musicians, performers, singers, writers, music companies and retailers. She might have added those who run venues, such as pub landlords and dance hall owners, who are also extremely important. They constitute a network that is critical not only for the future of the music industry but for creativity in general.

Several hon. Members mentioned schools. The ability to learn music in schools is vital. I have gone on record before—and have got into trouble for it—as saying that I believe that successive Governments, including the one of which I am proud to be a part, have been far too utilitarian in their priorities for education. Education is not just about reading, writing and arithmetic, vital though those basic skills are. Some of our most important exports, among which we must include music, are based on skills that are not taught in that way. We need music teachers, including peripatetic ones, and we need instruments to be available for children. Most importantly, we need to understand the importance of music. It is not a peripheral but a central activity—and of course, we could spend the rest of the morning discussing the rest of the arts, too, in that regard.

The EC directive on copyright and related rights in the information society was formally adopted on 9 April last year. It needs to be transposed into the national laws of EU member states before 22 December 2002, and we are confident that we can do that. There will be an opportunity to debate many of the issues raised by hon. Members this morning while it is being implemented, when we consider the statutory instrument or other legislation.

I welcome the opportunity to initiate the debate. I do not know if this is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's first Adjournment debate, but it must be among the first debates to which he has replied as a Minister.

indicated assent.

It is his first. I congratulate him on his appointment, and I look forward to him engaging in the debate. I have no doubt that he has a long future as a Minister, and I hope that he can help in the matters that I intend to refer to this afternoon.

The nation is currently preoccupied, largely, by football. If we put that to one side for a moment, the national debate is about the national health service and health in general. Derek Wanless was asked to examine the health of the nation, the state of the health service and its future funding. The debate about the report focused largely on the pressures of expenditure, but is more significant than that. It also deals with supply and demand for the health service.

I want to talk about demand. I am afraid to say that Mr. Wanless described an unhealthy nation. He introduces the appalling concept of premature mortality and PYLL; the potential for years of life lost. We discovered that we live in an extremely unhealthy nation, where people die at a younger age than they should. We compare badly with countries in western Europe and elsewhere in the advanced industrial world. In the UK, women die at a younger age than almost anywhere else in the industrial world, which should trouble us all. The life expectancy for men is 25 per cent. lower in the UK than in Sweden.

Parliament and the nation focused on how we will fund the provision to take us up to the European average. How we can make the nation healthier so that there is less demand on our health service received less consideration. Mr. Wanless's interim report considered a range of issues. Paragraph 3.42 of his final report refers to expected scenarios for the next 20 years and the possibilities of continuing as we are, a mild improvement, or a vision of a much healthier nation. He also refers to the fact that not smoking, nutrition and physical activity can contribute to a healthier nation. He holds out the vision of enhanced life expectancy within 20 years, and of an improvement in the quality of all our lives by being healthier. It is clear in all the work done by specialists and non-specialists working in the health service that a more physically active population is key. Two thirds of our population may be following football as we speak, but they are non-participant observers. We want people to participate in sport and exercise to improve their general health, reducing the demand on the NHS and the taxpayer and generally promoting a much healthier and physically more active nation.

I admit to a genetic predisposition to cardiovascular problems. I come from a family who have had heart problems. I have high cholesterol and other factors that led me to the conclusion that I am in a high risk category. My GP came to that conclusion too, which worried me rather more. My father had his first heart attack when he was 47. I was in my mid 20s. At that time, I still thought of myself as an athlete but I had become extremely sedentary. I was probably drinking too much and having far too many fry-ups and other unhealthy things.

I decided that I did not want to spend the rest of my life like my father, who has gone in and out of hospital with continuing heart problems for 28 years; he is now 75. First, I wanted a better quality of life and, secondly, I did not want to be a drain on the health service. I wanted to contribute in an economically useful way to the nation. Having said that, I ended up as a Member of Parliament, so I am not sure that I am doing that. I suppose that I am paying taxes and national insurance, which is a small contribution.

I decided to exercise and to change my diet. I have not—touch wood—been affected by the chronic problems facing my father and many others like him. Far too many lives have been wasted and lost through chronic heart disease, strokes and other problems. Also, I have had a wonderful life in terms of my sporting activity. I am proud of my sporting prowess but I will not share it with the House this afternoon. However, I believe that my personal experience can be extended to the nation as a whole.

When I arrived in Hemsworth, the health of my constituents was obviously very poor, compared even with inner-city Leeds where I had come from. I had travelled a few miles but the level of ill-health in the constituency was striking. The Government recently produced various indices of deprivation. We all know that there is a correlation between socio-economic factors, status and health. The differences between the social classes in our country, notwithstanding the fact that we are an unhealthy nation, are clearly shown by the massive propensity to ill-health and to long-term limiting illness in those lower socio-economic groups; what we used to call the working class.

The wilful destruction of the mining industry by a Government who attacked the communities whom I represent, together with the traumatic events surrounding the strike, led to enormous psychological disorder and stress in Hemsworth. In any event, there would have been a link between ill-health and the kind of industry on which my constituency depended; men were not designed to work underground and to breathe coal dust for generation after generation.

The long-term ill-effects of the mining industry—together with the way in which the industry collapsed and the long-term unemployment that, sadly, has continued well into the period of this Government—mean that my constituency has one of the most unhealthy populations anywhere. As I mentioned, the Government produced indices of deprivation, which show a particular cluster of health-related factors. Unsurprisingly, Hemsworth is one of the 25 most unhealthy constituencies. I have three wards where there are massive health problems and they come in the bottom 1 or 2 per cent.

I suppose that because of my personal interest in fitness and health and the characteristics of the community that I represent, I took a particular interest in health centres and health activities, especially the creation of sports and exercise facilities in the area. One centre is in Hemsworth high school and another is in a small village called Hovercraft—sorry, Havercroft. That will give some fun to the Hansard writers. It is an isolated village with an extremely unhealthy population, some of whom are facing long-term unemployment. We could not fundamentally tackle the problems of deprivation, but we funded a new sports centre there and also exercise equipment in Hemsworth high school.

That was the start, I hoped, of engendering the feeling that promoting healthy lifestyles and activities was important. However, I was slightly disappointed at the take-up by the local population. Both centres are well used, but often not by the unhealthiest people. We should reflect on that problem.

Several barriers impede people from the sort of communities that I represent from frequenting sports centres. Both of the centres to which I referred, incidentally, are located within a single electoral ward; the 100th most unhealthy out of 8,500 wards in the country. Health problems there are both chronic and acute.

It was relatively easy to gain the capital to provide the facilities and equipment, but it was not easy to gain the revenue necessary for supporting the centres. Cultural barriers can be important. If someone feels unfit or obese, they are unlikely to enter the centres, which would reinforce their negative feelings. Another cultural barrier stems from the fact that GPs are often not trained to encourage exercise as a means of tackling ill-health. Other barriers stem from the absence of health and fitness providers in the centres with the requisite skills to deal with unhealthy or obese people who are perhaps at risk of cardiovascular problems. Finally, there are financial barriers, which stem from the pricing policy of some centres. Sadly, my constituency does not contain private sector providers—the money is not there—but even public sector providers have to charge fees, which can deter people from joining and participating in the centres.

My next step was to establish whether a local partnership would allow sports facilities to be opened up to the communities, and that was the context in which I first encountered the subject of this debate; GP referral programmes. I found that someone had already invented the wheel that I was trying to invent. Prompted by the excellent work of the Fitness Industry Association, the Government are taking an interesting step forward. I am grateful to Andree Dean, the FIA chairman, for the advice and information he provided.

Effectively, the scheme allows exercise on prescription. It allows GPs to allocate some NHS funding to local populations for preventive work. Engaging people in the facilities available in their communities and neighbourhoods should enable them gradually to adopt more healthy lifestyles.

It was wonderful to find that someone else had invented a wheel that I was trying to invent in my own community, and I am grateful to the FIA, the Department and everyone else involved. The scheme is at an early stage, but is working well. A register of exercise professionals has been established, and I understand that 13,000 people are already registered, which is an excellent step forward. It started only in January, so we have made great progress, but I must sound a note of caution. We need to ensure that the register is extended and that the process does not exclude people who are involved in providing sport. Some people feel that this is the professionalising of sport. I think that sport and exercise need to be professional, but the register must operate openly and not be a barrier. I have spoken to the FIA and to the acting registrar, Cliff Collins, and I am confident that the register will operate as I have described; I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agrees.

There has to be a "but" somewhere in this good news story about the good work being done by the Government, and it is this; where is the GP referral programme in my constituency? There is the possibility of creating a coalition of providers that extends from health and primary care providers through the primary care trust to the health and exercise industry and sport in general. We have a wonderful vision of a healthier nation that costs the NHS less and enjoys a better quality of life. Admittedly, we are at an early stage, and I do not want to be critical, but the scheme has not yet been rolled out. Indeed, we do not know—unless the Under-Secretary can enlighten us—exactly where the scheme is working and where it is not working. It is patchy and fragmented.

My experience of public services, which goes back a long time, is that the middle classes tend to know how to manipulate the various programmes that we establish. The lower socio-economic groups are frequently excluded even from good ideas such as the one that we are discussing, but that must not happen. I fear that the exercise referral programme is being captured in middle-class areas, which is a way of putting revenue funding into the equipped provisions that I have described, thereby enabling them to operate. The programme is not reaching into the unhealthiest neighbourhoods. I may be wrong, but I think that we must establish exactly where the programme is working and ensure that it is rolled out as quickly as possible to the rest of the nation.

I shall conclude by talking about how we might profitably move forward. The scheme is excellent, but I would welcome confirmation from the Under-Secretary that the Government accept that there is a clear link between the benefits of exercise and health. It is important that the Government say that clearly, frequently and loudly.

We should perhaps ask the industry to provide us with the information that would allow the Government to ascertain how the scheme is used, how it is rolling out and how we can ensure that it reaches all neighbourhoods. Some form of general audit of provision and of where the lacunae are would be welcome, because we must find out which elements are missing and fill in the gaps.

As I have taken an interest in the issue, the FIA has said that it will help me to try to identify practitioners who will come into my constituency and provide facilities, and we will encourage GPs to be involved. However, that depended purely on the random fact that, as the local MP, I was interested in health and fitness. We should not leave these matters to individuals.

I would like the Government to ensure that PCTs understand the scheme, that money is available and that they facilitate GPs' involvement. That would require a large-scale programme, but an intermediate step may be to consider health action zones. These are located where there are concentrations of poverty, deprivation and ill health. The first step may be to ensure that at least every health action zone area has a facility to provide the exercise referral programme. The Under-Secretary has powers and can use the national quality framework to ensure that the scheme rolls out. I hope that he will do so.

My final point is that a cultural shift is required to ensure that health and exercise professionals and the general population recognise that health and exercise go together. That can be done by conducting a long-term study that monitors the operation of the referral programme and studies people who are at risk to find out whether their health improves during a certain period. That information could come from the industry and the Government could monitor it, perhaps referring it to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which, in turn, could produce a learning report. That itself could be used as a propaganda weapon to encourage people and GPs to get involved.

There is much to say, but I have spoken for 20 minutes. I hope that the Under-Secretary has time to set the general scene as well as to reply to my particular points.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for raising this important debate and for giving me the opportunity of my first Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall as a Minister. It is a momentous day on which to have the debate. This morning I visited probably the best football club in London—Tottenham Hotspur—with some local pupils. We were at its learning support centre to watch the England game and were all delighted that, despite the sweltering heat on the other side of the world, England got through to the second round. I was particularly pleased that young people from my constituency were getting such a positive message about sport.

Like many other hon. Members, I am both a barrister and politician. I have only nine minutes to address my hon. Friend's important points, so I hope that he will forgive me if I rattle on.

There is now substantial evidence to support the role of physical activity in promoting good health. Research has shown that physically inactive people have roughly double the risk of coronary heart disease, and it was instructive that my hon. Friend referred to his family experiences of that disease. Physical inactivity is also a risk factor for obesity, colon cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and mental health problems. Those diseases have a significant human and economic cost.

My hon. Friend was right to refer to the Wanless report and its points about health inequalities and the need to move to a fitter society. We have seen a threefold increase in obesity in the past 20 years and, if the trend continues, more than a quarter of adults in England will be obese by 2010. A recent National Audit Office report outlined the significant costs of obesity to the NHS and the economy. In 1998, obesity accounted for 18 million days of sickness absence, 40,000 lost years of working life and 30,000 deaths, of which 9,000 related to obesity, before state retirement age. In response to my hon. Friend's earlier point, I recognise that there is a problem. Both diet and physical activity play a role in obesity, and we are taking action to address both factors. We already have a comprehensive action programme to improve diet.

Physical activity can help in the prevention and management of obesity and other chronic diseases, but physical activity rates are low across the adult population. About six out of 10 men and seven out of 10 women are not active enough to benefit their health, while among children, four out of 10 boys and five out of 10 girls are not meeting the recommended one hour of exercise a day. My hon. Friend is right to refer to inequalities that exist in our community; these occur in parts of his constituency and in constituencies such as mine. Rates of inactivity are particularly high among older people, some ethnic minority communities and those living in rented council accommodation.

I accept my hon. Friend's point about the middle classes, but he will appreciate that, as the economy grows and people have more leisure time, it is important that that leisure time is used and accessed by everyone. Indeed, one of the second or third things that I said to my diary secretary on taking up my new role was that she had to ensure that I got to my gym early in the morning so that I did not pass out in the Chamber at some future date.

The NHS plan makes a clear commitment to local action to tackle physical inactivity. I hear my hon. Friend's point about GPs being equipped to refer people for exercise. That is in the NHS plan and we must ensure that we roll that out and communicate it to all our medical practitioners. That is also emphasised in the national service framework for coronary heart disease, along with the national service frameworks for older people, mental health, and diabetes.

The national service framework for coronary heart disease, in particular, contains a number of milestones to which physical activity is central. Standard 1 requires all NHS bodies to work closely with local authorities in developing a local programme of effective policies on physical activity, being overweight and obesity. The standards for primary care and cardiac rehabilitation also contain milestones that require action on physical activity.

That is where exercise referral schemes, as my hon. Friend pointed out, play an important role. Research has shown that referral programmes can be effective in behaviour change. The Department of Health funded two reviews by the former Health Education Authority that specifically considered the progress and effectiveness of exercise referral schemes. The research showed that better designed referral schemes could lead to small levels of increased participation in activity, but that practice across the country was highly variable.

To address that, the Department published a national quality assurance framework on exercise referral systems in April 2001 to improve standards of existing schemes and help the development of new ones. The framework focuses primarily on the most common model of exercise referral system, where a GP or practice nurse refers a patient to facilities such as leisure centres or gyms for a supervised exercise programme, commonly called exercise referral schemes or exercise on prescription.

The document was sent to primary care trusts and leisure services in local authorities, and GPs were notified of the quality assurance framework through the GP bulletin, which is sent to all GPs in England. The guidelines were also promoted at two regional seminars for primary care and leisure professionals held last summer.

I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that fitness instructors have the appropriate training and competence to work with patients in a referral scheme. I therefore support the work of the Fitness Industry Association and the National Training Organisation for Sport, Recreation and Allied Occupations in this area. In particular, the development of the register of exercise professionals, launched last year, played an important role.

My hon. Friend says that he wants the programme to be rolled out across the country, but it is important to emphasise that the national service framework for coronary heart disease requires primary care trusts to develop local programmes and effective policies on physical activity. Referral programmes present only one option for local action to tackle physical inactivity. It is for local primary care trusts to reach their own view about how to promote exercise and make progress on this issue.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate issues that are discussed throughout my constituency, including overcrowded roads, the lack of proper rail services, the shortage of rural bus services, noise pollution and environmental blight from heavy traffic, and the poor state of repair of many of our roads.

Those topics are of great concern throughout Oxfordshire, and they are close to my heart, too, not least because I shall be supporting the two-wheeled fraternity on Friday, when I shall travel between Witney and Oxford on the back of a motorcycle. I own a moped, so I am not frightened. I am always impressed by the local branch of the Motorcycle Action Group, which always makes its case with great vigour, whether the issue is more motorcycle parking bays or changing laws on, for example, the use of bus lanes by motorcycles.

To turn to the issue at hand, some people may think that congestion is a problem for only our bigger cities and that Witney is a predominantly rural constituency. They would be wrong, however, and the journey to work or to school is little short of hellish for many of my constituents. The A40 between Witney and Oxford is particularly bad, but other routes are also congested.

I want the Under-Secretary to help our county in three major respects, but let me first set the scene. Almost 75 per cent. of Oxfordshire is designated as green belt, as an area of outstanding natural beauty or as an area of high landscape value. We value our environment and our countryside. Our population and economy have grown rapidly, and continue to do so. Between 1981 and 1996, the population increased by 11 per cent., and another 43,600 houses were built. Another 35,500 are on their way before 2011, with even more envisaged by 2016, as the Under-Secretary knows.

We are facing the problems of success, and many of the long-term answers to congestion must be found in the planning system. This is not part of the debate, but we simply cannot go on building so many houses in the south-east without ruining the environment in areas such as that which I represent. The sooner we end centrally driven targets for new homes and give local authorities powers, the better. Those authorities could then focus more on the twin aims of affordable housing and environmental protection. However, those are issues for another day.

We must tackle the transport problems that we suffer today, and railways are the number one problem. West Oxfordshire is poorly served. The Great Western main line is quite far to the south of the county, and the old line that connected Witney with Brize Norton and Fairford is a distant memory. Fortunately, we still have the Cotswold line. The part that serves my constituency runs from Oxford to Moreton-in-Marsh, via Hanborough, Charlbury and Kingham, with trains running direct to Paddington. It is a vital link to part of West Oxfordshire, and there should be plans to expand it. However, there was little to excite commuters and other rail users in the Government's much-vaunted 10-year plan, so perhaps I can make some suggestions.

The line has desperately limited capacity, because it is single track for much of the way between Oxford and Moreton-in-Marsh. If a train going one way is late—I am afraid they often are—the knock-on effects and hold-ups can be disastrous. Dualling the line should be part of the Government's long-term plans.

Those stations that still serve rural communities need investment and, in particular, better platforms and more car parking space. The parking problems at Charlbury are particularly intense, with cars often parked on the road into the town.

The number of train services is not limited simply by the capacity of the track. Recently, Thames Trains had to cancel an afternoon service, which stopped at Finstock, Combe and Ascott-under-Wychwood, because it was—wait for it—too popular. The company could not replace the two-carriage train with a three-carriage train, because the platforms at the stations were too short. "Why not just open the doors adjacent to the platforms?" I hear hon. Members ask. The answer is that there is no selective door-opening facility and, under health and safety rules, passengers apparently cannot be trusted to know not to get out of the train when there is no platform next to the door.

The answer must be to extend the platforms and ensure that all new trains have selective door opening. The cost of extending the platforms has been estimated at £600,000. I have asked every available body to dispute that figure, but apparently the health and safety rules seem to be the cause of the expense. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could make some further inquiries to see what can be done. The franchises of Thames Trains and First Great Western both have only a few years left to run and those companies are, understandably, cautious about investing heavily. I see some merit—I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be able to comment on this—in encouraging them to bid jointly for one franchise, which would unite the Cotswold line and reduce the number of operators running services out of Paddington. That would end one source of fragmentation.

I also see merit—I am straying here into national policy—in handing responsibility for the track, stations and signalling to the same company. If we give the train operators responsibility for providing all the aspects required to deliver a good service, perhaps they will rise to the challenge. At the moment, we have a "BSE culture" and blame someone else when something goes wrong; "It was the signals", "No, it was the track", "No, it was the other operator" and so it goes on. Improving the Cotswold line can be only part of the solution because, however good we make it, the two biggest towns in west Oxfordshire, Witney and Carterton, which have a combined population of some 40,000, will still not be served by a railway.

The recent feasibility study on reopening the Witney to Oxford railway, with an extension to Carterton, was disappointing. It found that heavy rail would cost more than £100 million. Light rail is slightly more promising, at £79 million, whereas a guided bus or tram route would cost £75million. My plea to all concerned is to keep hope alive for the railway, whether light or heavy rail. Perhaps a tramway would help to improve matters, but I have yet to meet anyone who, if they could wave a magic wand and bring back the Witney railway, would not do so.

The second major problem, a consequence of economic success and the lack of a rail link, is the dreadful state of the A40 between Witney and Oxford. Witney is bypassed with a dual carriageway, but for the 10 miles between our county town and the city of Oxford, the traffic has to cope with a single carriageway and terrible congestion. In the morning and evening, commuters, those going to school and others are stuck in long jams. The journey can take well over an hour. The knock-on effects are also significant. The A4095, which passes through Long Hanborough and the picturesque village of Bladon—Churchill's burial place—is heavily congested, often with big lorries, and the environment suffers as a result. Additional use is also made of the A44, which cuts through villages such as Begbroke and Yarnton, but more on that later.

The problem of the A40 must be grasped. I am pleased that the bus lane proposal has been shelved for the moment. To many of my constituents, it seemed to be an urban solution to a rural problem. Little evidence was produced for how it would work and there was real concern that it would add to congestion, not reduce it. Comparisons were made, not surprisingly, with the famous Prescott bus lane on the M4, and, at a cost of £10 million, it would have provided very poor value for money. It is certain that we need a link from the A40 to the A34, so that some pressure is taken off the Oxford roundabouts. The situation at the Wolvercote roundabout is especially bad.

Dualling the A40 between Witney and Oxford may be part of the long-term solution, and I hope the Government will consider that as part of their roads programme. The guided bus or tramway proposal, using part of the old Witney to Oxford railway, may also help to tackle the problem of congestion. It would certainly be an improvement on the original proposal for a bus lane on the A40. I hope that the county council will make a speedy review of that option, and that the Government will stand ready to provide funding to ease that serious problem.

In any event, the A40 is the biggest single transport problem that we face. Perhaps, if he has some spare time, the Under-Secretary would like to come with me one morning, using whatever form of transport he prefers, and drive against the traffic from Oxford to Witney during the rush hour. Then we shall see how bad the problem is. In west Oxfordshire, we have some of the best and brightest businesses in the country, but the gridlock on our main road is like a hand pressed against their windpipes. Business in west Oxfordshire must be allowed to breathe.

The third problem that I should like to raise with the Minister is the environmental effect of traffic, especially heavy lorries, using minor roads and the A roads that pass through small towns and villages. The A roads have caused the problem. I mentioned the A44 going through Begbroke and Yarnton; it cuts those villages in two. There is no speed limit there apart from the national one, so crossing the road is hazardous.

For years, a great man called Ron Perry led the A44 action group with great force and vigour. Sadly, he died recently. I gather that a 50-mile an hour limit—something that he would have seen as just the start—is to be introduced. I pay tribute to the highways department at Oxfordshire county council for that. The department always responds promptly to letters. Better still, after sixteen years of a hung council, we now have an effective administration at county hall, led by the Conservatives. More is being done under the energetic leadership on the transport front of councillor David Robertson, who is well aware of the problems that we face in the west of the county.

My reason for raising this matter is to ask what steps the Government propose to take to empower local authorities to do more and do it quickly. We are often told by county hall that something would be "unorthodox", "against guidelines" or "not usual practice." Does the Under-Secretary agree that it is not always necessary to have the same road policy in every part of the country? Many communities face the problem of heavy lorries using relatively small roads that pass through towns and villages.

I have mentioned the A4095. Two other examples are the A361, which passes through the middle of the beautiful town of Burford, the gateway to the Cotswolds, and the A415, which goes straight through the village of Standlake. In Burford, which must be familiar to many hon. Members, heavy lorries thunder down the high street and over a bridge that is more than 600 years old. I recently chaired a meeting of residents, county and district councillors and officials, the police, the town council and others. Residents are desperate for more to be done. Consider the lovely Windrush valley, in which Burford is set; the siting of a bypass either side of the town would in many ways be a tragedy. We must do what we can to deal with the problem of heavy lorries on the A361 so that such a step does not become necessary.

Recent planning decisions, like that to allow the expansion of the airfield at Rissington—the decision was appealed against unsuccessfully—have so far only managed to make matters worse. Residents in Standlake on the A415 have complained about walls shaking, pictures falling down and even lorries stopping to bend their wing mirrors inwards so that they can pass each other. They believe that those lorries should use the A34 and the A40 rather than that short cut. They, like those in many other communities, are asking for an HGV restriction.

Everyone accepts that heavy goods vehicles must be able to go about their business and everyone knows that A roads will always be used. The fact that the HGV restrictions cannot be used everywhere for fear of diverting lorries on to even more unsuitable roads is perhaps less well understood, but people want to see something done to ease the burden and they want to know that the Government are considering creative solutions. Can more be done to guide, to encourage and to exhort lorries and their companies to use more suitable routes? The county council is undertaking a review of the county's major routes. Can the Under-Secretary explain what steps the Government are taking to help in such situations? I want to leave him time to respond, although I may intervene to add some questions to his packed list.

I end with a series of pleas. The first is to the new Department for Transport, shorn of regionalism and other things and so able to focus purely on transport; work with the county to deal with our problems. Secondly, please make representations to ensure that the area cost adjustment for authorities in the south-east stays, or at least that a successor recognises the costs in our area. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider the difficulties that local bus companies have in recruiting and retaining drivers. Costs in our part of the world are high.

Thirdly, it must be ensured that transport and planning march together rather than separately. Witney, the heart of my constituency, is still marked out as a growth town in the county structure plan. We are in danger of changing its nature as a pleasant market town for ever. Some will say that improvements to the A40 can come only if we are happy to have even more development. I say that improvements to the A40 are needed even if Witney is no longer to be considered a growth town. We need those improvements today to cope with the problems of today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on securing this important debate on transport in Oxfordshire. I am glad to hear that his constituency suffers from the problems of success. It is wonderful to think that, throughout the country, economic activity has been considerably enhanced since the Government were elected, which has led to some of the problems of success, such as more people wanting to use public transport and the roads. I am glad to hear him endorse some of the success that we have so clearly brought to his constituency. I think that I am right in saying that it has the lowest employment in the whole country. Oh that you and I, Mr. O'Hara, could say that, although I think that unemployment in our constituencies has been considerably reduced as well.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether practice on roads policy should be the same throughout the country. On our trunk roads and those managed by the Highways Agency, there clearly has to be consistency. Local highway authorities have wide discretion as to how they run their roads. The other measure of the success of our economy is that we have put so much more money into local transport plans, so that authorities can attain their ambitions for their people.

I want to pick up on one of the latter points that the hon. Gentleman made, which was about lorries. Solutions can be reached locally, so local authorities need to consider difficulties to see whether they can resolve them. He will know that we generally have a policy of trying to move traffic from road to rail or even to water, which may not be appropriate in his constituency. Considerable funds are available for that. On those matters, it is often for the local highways authority to find local resolutions to problems where possible.

The hon. Gentleman spoke in detail about the transport problems in Oxfordshire, but it is important that we consider the positive side of transport in Oxfordshire as well. The county enjoys good road and rail links. The M40 passes through Oxfordshire, connecting it to the M25 and the midlands. I am familiar with that stretch of road, as I travel on it not infrequently. There is a network of strategic A roads, including the A34, which provides access to the coast and to Southampton, and the A40, which provides links to the west. Several major railway lines pass through the county, including the First Great Western main line, the Birmingham-Didcot line, the Chiltern line and the Cotswold line. I have used some of those recently, to visit the Oxford area and others.

The county council has produced a strong local transport plan, which has been endorsed by all the district councils in the area. We have designated the county council as a centre of excellence for transport planning. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to endorse that. The authority also won the national transport award for bus policies in 2001 and is short-listed for the 2002 award for the local authority of the year. Much that goes on in Oxfordshire is positive. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention it all, but I thought that the subject was worth mentioning.

Again, the hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention the extra funding that the Government made available to Oxfordshire county council. In 2001–02, we allocated over £18.5 million to the council for local transport schemes, which represented an increase of some £7 million compared with the previous year. One does not need much of a facility in arithmetic to realise that that is a substantial increase in percentage terms.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has some facility in arithmetic because he was formerly an adviser to the noble Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor. He must have assisted the Chancellor greatly in his deliberations. I thought that he might argue today that if VAT on fuel had been retained at 17.5 per cent, people would have paid £1 in every £8 extra on their fuel bills, which might have contributed to transport schemes. At any rate, we have found the extra money. For the current financial year, we have provided a further £18.6 million. It is the first time that a Government have provided funding consistently and predictably over a period of at least five years, so that highways authorities such as Oxfordshire can plan ahead, rather than having to chop and change from year to year, as was necessary in the past.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a cyclist and that, last year, he completed a sponsored cycle ride to all 85 parishes in the Witney constituency, covering 220 miles in five days. He will be aware that cycling is a key component of the transport strategy in Oxfordshire. The census tells us that the county has above-average cycle use in the journey to work. One might expect that for the city of Oxford itself, but it is also the case in Abingdon, Didcot and Witney. Leisure cycling is well supported, with three national cycling network routes converging on Oxford. There is also the Oxfordshire cycleway, which offers a quiet circular route along rural roads.

The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the elements of the Oxford transport strategy, which is a groundbreaking approach to urban transport that has succeeded in increasing bus use by 50 per cent. since 1991. Air quality has improved in the centre of Oxford, which was a considerable problem, and the pedestrianised streets are much more pleasant for shoppers.

The county and city councils have ambitious plans for the future and want improved public transport for Oxford. I would be happy to accompany the hon. Gentleman down the A40; he suggested using a motorbike or a car, but if a bus were available, I should be happy to travel on it with him to see what progress it made at busy times. The councils are introducing a system of premium routes for quality bus corridors around the city and working on the concept of the guided transit express or GTE. If approved, that system would provide a network of public transport routes within the city, linking park and ride sites with outlying towns such as Witney. That would bring enormous benefits for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the county and district councils are working to review the Witney integrated transport strategy. A draft revised strategy is expected to be published for consultation in the autumn, and work has already begun on some measures. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see several new pedestrian crossings, as well as the Shores Green to Newland cycle route and Cogges footpath and cycleways improvements. There will also be improvements to roundabouts for cyclists and pedestrians and traffic calming on Moor avenue.

The hon. Gentleman has recently become a father and I congratulate him on the birth of his son, Ivan. I am surprised to see him here today, because I thought he would be busy changing nappies and doing all the other things that new fathers must do these days. In the near future, he will have to think about journeys to school; I can assure him that that creeps up very rapidly. The Government are determined that travel to school should be safe and sustainable. The daily school run in the family car may be seen as the safest option, but it does not teach children road sense. It creates considerable congestion at certain times of day and does not have the health benefits of cycling and walking. The school run also adds enormously not just to congestion, but to pollution. We believe that children and parents deserve the chance to choose more sustainable modes of transport where practicable. Local transport plans provide the opportunity for Witney and other towns in Oxfordshire to look at improved facilities to solve some of the problems of congestion to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I am glad that the Under-Secretary's reply shows that his Department is not following the rules on not digging up information on the Member concerned. His contribution is colourful and I thank him for that.

If Oxfordshire county council decides that the answer to the pressing problem of the A40 is a guided tramway system using part of the old railway, will the Government support that and help to fund it? Do they share my view that the problems of the A40 between Witney and Oxford are a major transport issue that needs attention to prevent our county from choking?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department has not been digging up information about him or anyone else. My knowledge of him is just part of my interest in new Members and their background.

Any local authority scheme faces hurdles and must be shown to be feasible, after which appropriate funding can be applied for, but the initiative must come from the highways authority; in this case, Oxfordshire.

The hon. Gentleman referred to railways and the 10-year plan. We all agree that our railways have suffered from massive under-investment for a very long time and we are now seeing, for the first time, a substantial increase in real-terms investment in our railways. However, I must tell him, as I must tell my constituents, who are less well served with road and rail services, that we cannot do everything with the limited funds available. He listed some improvements that could be made—for example, at railway stations—and some of them could be tackled through rail passenger partnership funding. It is for the highways authority to work with the SRA on schemes for better linkages with other public transport, to improve parking, to make stations more attractive for passengers and so on. Matters such as these can be discussed urgently by the hon. Gentleman and by the highways authority.

The hon. Gentleman suggested a vertically integrated train system. It is a pity that his advice was not given in the mid-1990s when the rail system was privatised and broken up. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the "Prescott lane" on the M4 and was a little churlish. The lane was controversial initially, but the reports that have passed my desk since have shown that it has improved the flow of traffic—[Interruption.] I The hon. Gentleman may scoff, but if the statistics show that it has improved the flow of traffic—I often use that stretch of road myself—we must accept that.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points and it will be difficult to cover them all in the time available. However, I can tell him that the local highways authority has received substantial extra funds. Perhaps he ought to see what schemes the authority can work on to improve his constituency. If there are matters that are my Department's responsibility that we have not had time to cover today, I should be happy to cover them in correspondence.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament a matter that is of great importance and relevance to my constituents, in view of recent events at Lincolnshire county council where the question of standards of conduct of county council members has become the focus of public debate.

In securing this Adjournment debate, I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary his first opportunity to respond in his new role. In wishing him well in his new ministerial responsibilities, I hope that restoring public confidence in local democracy in Lincolnshire will be an early hallmark of a long and successful ministerial career.

As clearly stated in the public interest report into Lincolnshire county council, to which I will refer in some detail, a member of a local authority occupies a position of trust. They are individuals entrusted by Parliament and the electorate with making decisions and deploying resources contributed by others to their best effect. As a person holding such a position of public trust, a member of a local authority has an obligation to act lawfully, carefully, reasonably and with due regard to the interests of those required to fund the authority's activities. That trust imposes a duty on a member to ensure that, as far as they reasonably can, the local authority acts reasonably and complies with the law.

The vast majority of councillors comply with those expectations. They work hard for their constituents and deserve both recognition and appreciation. I also want to pay tribute to the officers and staff of Lincolnshire county council, who work diligently to serve my constituents, whose quality of life is linked closely to the services that they receive. I have long pressed the case for the public interest report into allegations of wrongdoing at Lincolnshire county council to be made public, and I am glad to say that KPMG, the council's independent auditors, agreed to make its findings public.

There has been widespread and deep concern about the disturbing nature of the published findings, and in particular the auditor's severe criticism of the unacceptable standard of conduct of the Conservative leader of Lincolnshire county council, councillor Jim Speechley. However, the open availability of the findings of an investigation of considerable public interest is only one part of the equation. Decisive action to right the wrongs of guilty councillors must also be taken and it is that for which I look on behalf of my constituents, because it is still wanting in Lincolnshire.

As the Conservative group and its leader have failed to follow the correct course, action needs to be taken. If questions exist about the conduct of county councillors, they must be made accountable to those who voted for them. The public interest report is damning, and I should like to highlight some of its main points. The auditor made it clear that

"it would be wrong to see this report as a condemnation of the overall workings of this authority."

However, he remained concerned that

"left unchecked the dynamics set out in the report will destabilise the Council and damage its reputation."

It is also important to note that

"the matters reported on are not isolated incidents".

The ball started rolling when Councillor Rob Parker, whose persistence is to be commended, wrote to the district auditor about his concerns that a payment had been proposed to a local company, QV Foods. In addition, the chief executive had raised his concerns about a number of other matters with the auditor, who found that

"in light of the seriousness of the issues raised…it was necessary…to commence an investigation".

Under the heading,

"Improper pressure and misuse of power in staffing matters"

he said:

"With regard to councillor Speechley I have come across examples of behaviour, which can only be categorised as both improper pressure, and misuse of power. This is most evident in his involvement in staffing matters."

He also found that other members were similarly lobbying or seeking to exert pressure with regard to personnel matters, and concluded that Councillor Speechley continues to be overly powerful in Lincolnshire county council.

Those points are illustrated by the case of former chief executive Jill Barrow, who received £160,000 of severance pay, and former director of education, Norman Riches, who received £250,000 of severance pay. Both cases arose from a misuse of severance powers. Negotiations were conducted as if the council was entitled, when making severance payments, to take into account simply what needed to be paid in order to get rid of the chief officers, and to get them to agree to quit; a particular desire driven by Councillor Speechley and the then deputy leader, Councillor Mawby, regardless of whether particular payments were lawful.

A further example of abuse of power relates to the then director of highways and planning who was instructed to appoint an individual to a particular post, or find that his own position would be in jeopardy. Interestingly, Councillor Speechley told the auditor he could not remember meetings, nor any threats to dismiss the director. Even more interesting is how such memory lapses from the leader are peppered throughout the report.

The auditor, having seen a note of the relevant meeting prepared by the then chief solicitor to the council, concluded that Jim Speechley did indeed threaten to dismiss the director, which was improper and unlawful. The auditor comments:

"Cllr Speechley had no authority or justification for acting as he did."

He goes on to say that councillors present at the meeting

"ought to have disagreed with Cllr Speechley's conduct there and then, or at the very least, disassociated themselves from his comments. Their silence whilst Cllr Speechley spoke will have lent support to his words. I find Cllr Speechley's threat to be totally unacceptable behaviour which fell below the standard that is expected of local government councillors."

A further section of the report concerns the grading of the principal officer with responsibility for the offices of the leader and chairman of the council. The auditor concluded that Councillor Speechley and the then deputy leader sought to interfere and improperly influenced the outcome of the principal officer's regrading claim, such that she was awarded a higher salary than she was properly due. In his conclusions on improper pressure and misuse of power, the auditor says

"certain majority group councillors, in particular Cllr Speechley and former Cllr Mawby have stepped beyond the proper bounds of conduct for members in staffing matters".

However, a further illegal payment has come to light of £150,000, which came in the form of a grant to QV Foods. Shortly after a site visit by Councillors Speechley, Croft and Taylor, there was a meeting between those councillors, the owner of QV Foods, the then deputy leader Councillor Mawby and the then director of highways and planning. At that meeting, the owner of QV Foods was told that the policy committee would be asked to agree to a payment of £150,000 towards the cost of a road improvement.

Warning was given by a DTI official who wrote to the council, stating that the proposed payment would be in breach of state aid rules, would be deemed unlawful and would be liable to repayment. Nevertheless, that payment went ahead. The public interest report says:

"The payments to QV Foods were unlawful…The whole exercise was no more than a device in order to circumvent the State Aid rules…The payments were unlawful both in terms of domestic and European Law."

In the same vein, certain majority group councillors let officers know that they preferred certain matters not to be aired in council, committee or sub-committee.

"The PIR notes that as a result officers relied upon the former Chief Solicitor's delegated authority when they ought to have advised members that the matter did need to go before Council, Committee or Sub Committee."

That gives a flavour, albeit rather distasteful, of the standards of conduct of the leader and some other councillors at Lincolnshire county council. In the wake of the public interest report, a number of things have happened. First, the county council set up a standards committee. At the time, it was the only county council that decided to set up its standards committee without any representation from the opposition groups. However, I am pleased to say that, because of external pressure, including pressure from the Under-Secretary, the council reviewed its original decision to appoint a one-party standards committee and has now put that right.

An action plan in response to the public interest report has been drawn up, and credit must go to the officers and councillors who seek to be positive in such a difficult environment. The matter is not just one of individuals but the culture, the very essence of which needs to be changed.

Councillor Jim Speechley has been re-elected as leader by the Conservative group, although a recorded vote at the full council meeting showed that 11 Conservatives were not in agreement with the action. It is that that has most shocked and outraged my constituents, and rightly so. I am repeatedly asked how such a thing could happen. The crux of the question about county councillors' standards of conduct is how the leader of a council can be found guilty by the council's independent auditor of involvement in the illegal use of council taxpayers' money, of bullying and of systematic abuse of power, but still remain in post, not only as a councillor but as leader, a post that is reaffirmed by his political party.

Political parties should put their own houses in order. We all have a responsibility to police the conduct of our elected representatives and to take action if that falls short of expectations. Not only has the Conservative group on Lincolnshire county council failed to grasp the nettle—albeit that there are many dissenting voices—so has the Leader of the Opposition. On a visit to Lincolnshire earlier this year, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be very happy to see the results of the investigation and act upon them. However, he has had access to the public interest report, and we are now told that the matter is best dealt with locally.

Finally, to add confusion to inaction, the office of the Leader of the Opposition has advised that the party chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), was having discussions with Councillor Speechley, but both parties say that no such thing is happening.

Unison has strongly advised its members not to attend any meetings with Councillor Jim Speechley unless accompanied. It is a sad day when a union believes that it has to do that. As leader, Councillor Jim Speechley has personally appointed the members of the executive who will run the council and has appointed each of the 19 special interest members. There has been no apology, no recognition of unacceptable conduct and no change at the top; just a wider and deeper hole of political management into which decent standards can fall.

I applaud the action that the Government have already taken to improve standards of conduct for county councillors: a code of conduct, which must be observed and signed up to; a standards board, which can oversee the implementation of the new ethical framework; and acceptance of the Nolan committee's proposals—most notably, a new criminal offence of misuse of public office, which I urge the Under-Secretary to introduce as a matter of urgency. That robust framework will help restore public confidence in local democracy and help protect and promote the role of councillors.

This is a time of tremendous change, and I am pleased that we can and will look forward to better things in Lincolnshire. However, I look to the Under-Secretary on this point; because the events outlined in the public interest report into Lincolnshire county council predate the new regulations, they do not apply. Therefore, they are of little comfort or use to my constituents, who have been taken for a ride by unscrupulous county councillors who should hang their heads in shame, and not deny, defend and reinforce their own positions.

It will take a long time for Lincolnshire county council to regain the public's trust, and it has now become clear that that will happen only with external intervention. Council tax payers, service users and staff need to be reassured that the conduct of county councillors is decent, legal and in the interests of the people of Lincolnshire. I urge the Under-Secretary to do all in his power to ensure that that happens.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to debate standards of conduct in local government, especially county councils.

I start by setting out strongly my belief that the vast majority of members of local authorities observe the highest standards of conduct. We are privileged to have such a large body of men and women who are willing to devote time, energy and enthusiasm to the service of their communities. All hon. Members, not just those who have served on local councils, will be aware of the commitment and the high standards displayed by council members in every part of the country.

The strength of local democracy, the delivery of effective local services and the vitality of local communities depend heavily on the commitment and the willingness to serve shown by elected members, who speak up for their communities in council debates, take tough decisions on local priorities and the allocation of large budgets and lead partnerships to tackle many of the country's most difficult social problems. We should not take that commitment for granted; we are lucky to have high standards of probity, accountability and propriety in this country.

However, we cannot disguise the fact that failings sometimes occur. There have indeed been cases, albeit rare, in which elected members have fallen short of the conduct expected of them and it is all the more serious that such misconduct has an impact that goes far beyond the damage done to the particular local authority in which it takes place. Misconduct by councillors, when it occurs, harms the community they are elected to serve and the wider reputation of local government in the rest of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln referred in great detail to some extremely serious matters relating to the auditor's report in Lincolnshire. I appreciate her concerns about the county council. I echo hon. Members' feelings about the need to identify and challenge poor performance in local government.

The auditor for Lincolnshire county council recently issued a public interest report in respect of the council, which identified a breakdown in corporate governance at the authority and the failure of legal and ethical safeguards. In the auditor's view, that led to unlawful payments being made to council staff and to a private company. The auditor made a number of recommendations to the council to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place for the future.

I understand that the council accepted that it acted unlawfully in various areas. A committee of the council has recommended the setting up of a framework of measures to address the auditor's concerns, which we welcome. The auditor's role is to consider the adequacy of the council's response to his report, and to take decisions on follow-up action. Such action might include issuing a further report on the council's position.

Auditors are independent officers, appointed by the Audit Commission. The issuing of a public interest report, as in this case, is a matter for the auditor. It is then for the council to consider action in the light of the recommendations made. The Government expect all public servants, whether they are officers or elected, to uphold the highest standards of integrity in carrying out their duties.

Although I have no remit to intervene in the auditor's role in this case, I fully recognise the concerns expressed in the debate on the need for action to be taken when poor performance by authorities has been identified. Authorities who do not uphold high standards of integrity let down the people they are supposed to represent and to serve. In the case of Lincolnshire, the auditor has put the ball firmly back in the council's court. It is now for the council to demonstrate to local people that it is prepared to take vigorous action to address the concerns identified. The auditor, and the Government, will look closely at the council's response. The council accepts that it acted illegally, which should serve as the starting point for its action.

The auditor will base his decision on the next steps to take on the willingness shown by the council to tackle the problems, and on any evidence of progress in putting an action plan in place. The Audit Commission may take into account the auditor's assessments of such authorities when it carries out its comprehensive performance assessments. The assessment process for Lincolnshire will begin in July. Information from the assessments will identify councils that are failing and provide a vehicle by which action can be monitored and shortcomings addressed. Where a council is identified as failing and there is little or no prospect of improvement, the Government will not hesitate to apply intervention measures if necessary. We are determined to tackle poor performance by authorities, and are prepared to intervene in cases where intervention is needed.

I want to highlight measures that the Government took before my appointment to improve the new ethical framework that applies to county councils and local governments. Promoting high standards of conduct in local government is an important objective for the Government. If we are to re-invigorate local democracy and enable councils to provide the local leadership that communities need to deliver the services they want, we must establish a high degree of trust in local councils.

The White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", was published in July 1998. It proposed a new framework to support high standards of ethical behaviour. The new framework is an integral part of the modernisation agenda, and is no less important than the need to modernise constitutions or to provide the right mechanisms to support service delivery. It must provide a robust, efficient, fair and effective means of investigating misconduct allegations and dealing with any councillors found to have misbehaved. It must also demonstrate clearly to the public that misconduct will not be tolerated, that the highest standards are expected and that investigations will be thorough, consistent and not influenced in any way by party politics.

The Local Government Act 2000 put the framework into effect. Two of the most significant provisions of that Act are the introduction of new codes of conduct and the creation of the Standards Board for England. I will return to those provisions in a moment. In accordance with the Act and following consultation, the Government made an order in April last year that sets out 10 general principles that should underpin the conduct of members of local authorities: selflessness; honesty and integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; personal judgement; respect for others; the duty to uphold the law; stewardship; and leadership. Those principles summarise what is expected from local councillors, and provide a yardstick against which their conduct can be measured.

In November last year, again following significant consultation, the Government laid before Parliament a set of model codes of conduct which draw on those principles and lay down more specific requirements. They build on earlier national codes of conduct and include some familiar provisions. They require, for example, the registration and declaration of interests. They also provide a more sensible and simple framework for handling personal interests, which should ensure that councillors can take part in more frequent discussions in which they have expertise but no prejudicial interests.

The codes have been generally welcomed, especially by counties and other larger authorities. There have been some complaints from smaller parish and town councils, especially about the registration requirements that are being introduced to parishes for the first time. I am confident that many of the concerns, especially those based on exaggerated press reporting about the detail required, will be eased as councillors grow familiar with the new codes. It is important to mention that within two months of the adoption of a new code of conduct by an authority, its members must make a written declaration that they will observe it. Failure to do so will mean that they cease to be councillors.

I understand the concerns expressed today about the need to take decisive action where the conduct of elected members does not meet the highest standards. The Government have recognised the need for more robust and effective mechanisms to allow cases of misconduct to be investigated and dealt with. We have put in place the Standards Board and other elements of the new ethical framework, which will ensure that complaints can be investigated independently and thoroughly. In the most serious cases of misconduct, the adjudication panel that has also been established will be able to disqualify members from holding office for up to five years. I am confident that the new framework will provide a sufficiently rigorous mechanism to address the general concerns that have been raised today.

From 5 May 2002, the provisions of the new codes have applied to all councillors. Any allegations that the code has been breached can be reported to the Standards Board for England, which decides whether to investigate. The board, under the chairmanship of Tony Holland, to whom I pay tribute, includes members with considerable expertise and experience of local government and of wider ethical matters. Since the creation of the board last year, a good deal of work has been undertaken to appoint ethical standards officers who will be responsible for investigating cases, and to set up systems needed to support their work. I know that the board has already received a small number of allegations and is conducting investigations; I am confident that its procedures will be efficient and rigorous.

In addition to its responsibilities for investigating misconduct allegations, the Standards Board has the wider role of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct in local government. Last month, the board held a successful first assembly of standards committees in Birmingham, attended by around 1,000 members, officers and others. I have no doubt that the board will prove to be a strong force for promoting greater confidence in local democracy. It is worth noting that councils, other than parish councils, are also obliged in law to establish their own local standards committees that will take responsibility for standards issues in local authorities.

As we conclude this very welcome debate, it is worth emphasising once again that the new ethical framework was not introduced by the Government because of any systematic corruption in local government or widespread failings in the behaviour of elected councillors. The reverse is the case; we believe that the vast majority of local councillors are fundamentally honest, selfless and committed to the service of their communities. The framework is necessary because we need to convince others of that fact. In particular, we must demonstrate to local communities that their councillors have signed up to the highest standards of conduct and that the machinery is in place to deal with any shortcomings. The old conduct framework had too few effective means of dealing with acts of misconduct that were not necessarily criminal or likely to involve financial loss, but which were nevertheless damaging to the standing of local government.

It is regrettable that genuine cases of misconduct arise. However, the new framework with the Standards Board at its heart will be well placed to handle such cases, and to demonstrate the priority given—in local and central Government—to tackling misconduct.