With permission, I shall make a statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of negotiations at ACAS.

The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should

"bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side would seek to rule any issue in or out".

Despite that, the FBU executive decided yesterday to go ahead with further strikes, and at 9 o'clock this morning the FBU walked out for the fourth time. It will be on strike for 48 hours and at present it is scheduled to walk out again for a further 48 hours on Saturday morning.

While we sit here, the armed forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained firefighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking firefighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me yet again in expressing our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute. I have made it clear that the armed forces will have the resources that they need. As I said when I made my last statement to the House on 20 January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the green goddess fleet. For the first time during these strikes, we now have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The armed forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.

The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt: the switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one-day and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on behalf of the FBU; far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.

It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety, and we will continue to do so. The House should be aware, however, that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million, and costs will continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues, whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve; it has come from programmes in my Office, many of which are designed to help the most needy in our communities.

The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the fire service rather than pay and modernisation as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service. The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better fire service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for fire service employees. The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is now before the House and is recommended by the Bain inquiry. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation.

The repeal of section 19 will do no more than put the management of the fire service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is one that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on fire service priorities and plans. That has not changed. Let no one be in any doubt: the FBU's claim remains, as it has for the past nine months, a 40 per cent. pay rise for firefighters and a 50 per cent. pay rise for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatsoever—no change, no compromise, no modernisation.

Talks at ACAS started on 4 December. There have been days and days of talks about talks, yet the FBU has walked away from any substantive negotiations. I have had numerous discussions with the general secretary of the FBU, and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt, but this latest strike, coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed, leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.

The latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and local authority employers want a fully modernised fire service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that. The employers are now rightly insisting that in light of the past two months of strike action, talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU shows, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.

The fire service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute. We all want a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. That is the only basis for negotiation. But the Government have to be prepared if the FBU continues to refuse to discuss modernisation. Against that background, I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.

As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the fire service. Those powers will, I hope, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations. I will discuss, through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way to introduce the legislation. I will draw on the provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947 that were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed a Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the fire service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the fire service on its objectives and the use of facilities and assets. Legislation itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take those powers to use, if necessary, to help to reach an agreement.

The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the fire service employers, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda; we will continue to resist the strikes; and we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety, especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and our armed forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.

It will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultations that I have proposed. Meanwhile, the House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table in the remaining weeks available.

May I begin by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement and for prior warning of it? I should like to add our support to his calls for the FBU to call off its irresponsible strike action. May I also take this opportunity, as he did, of offering the thanks of the House to the armed forces, the other emergency services and, most particularly, the retained firefighters, without whose service the safety of the public could not be guaranteed?

Sadly, we are becoming all too familiar with hearing a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on fire strikes. Today we will continue to look for answers to the questions that are still unanswered. By taking this opportunity to raise a number of practical matters with him before dealing with the substantive new announcement, I hope that I will give the House time to digest the full import of his proposal.

Throughout this action, we have tried to extract from the Government commitments in several areas, including transitional funding and the effects that modernisation will have on the fire service. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told a Select Committee that this 48-hour strike would cost the taxpayer £6 million; that is on top of the £70 million cost of the strikes to date. Will he confirm those figures to the House, and, given that this is such a large sum of money, precisely how he will meet the transitional funding required? Also, exactly which of the public services that he referred to will be reduced, or eliminated from his departmental budget, as a result of the union's needless strike action? Will he also confirm that those fire authorities that have already modernised will not be hit financially as a result of any budget shortfall?

As the Deputy Prime Minister said, throughout this action the Fire Brigades Union has repeatedly claimed that modernisation will mean job losses and the closure of fire stations. The best way to dispel lies is with the truth. Will he tell the House what job losses and station closures he expects as a result of modernisation? Since it is in everybody's interests to ensure that members of the union return to work as soon as possible, can he refute union claims that his plans for the fire service will result in 4,500 job losses and the closure of 150 stations? If he cannot refute those claims, can he tell the House how he will maintain high service levels throughout the country and especially in rural areas, and—as I have asked him before—halve the level of deaths, as has been done in other countries?

Given the FBU's irresponsible action, members of our military are yet again on the streets of the United Kingdom, protecting the public from fires. The cover they have provided throughout the action has been excellent, and we thank them for that. Everybody wants this series of strikes to come to a rapid end, and that means persuading the firefighters that Bain is a good deal, and that they should persuade the FBU to accept the deal.

The dominant and immediate issue, however, is that of public safety, particularly given the combination of possible terrorism at home and war in Iraq. Last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister specifically about the cover provided by 16 Air Assault Brigade, and how it was going to be replaced when that unit was committed elsewhere. I am afraid that he tried to bluster his way out of the question. As column 26 of Hansard shows, he said:

"I should point out that most of the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave came from the press. I am not as confident as he is about press reports on these matters".—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 26.]

I suspect that his civil servants gave him a talking to after that, because a day or two later he had to write to me. The key sentence in his letter was:

"For strike action on 28 January"—

today—

"16th Air Assault will be replaced in full."

In the past two weeks, the Ministry of Defence has failed to give an answer on this, and last week the Deputy Prime Minister refused to give an answer. Can the House of Commons now have a straight account of exactly how the Government are going to protect the public, with troops being deployed to Iraq?

Of course, the Opposition have faced this lack of response from the Government before on raising public safety issues. First, the Government deny the significance of the issue, then they rubbish the feasibility of the proposal, and finally they try to claim credit for doing what we called for in the first place. We saw this with the red fire engines, and I suspect that we will do so again with the use of the law in this dispute. As we agreed last week, the risks of strike action increase every week with the combined threats of terrorism and war in Iraq. This week, the prospect of resolution of the strike looks as far away as ever. So the House can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's frustration, and his probable belief that these negotiations will get nowhere in the foreseeable future; indeed, that is pretty much what he said today.

As I understand the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal, he will take to himself the right to impose a conclusion of the negotiation process, and to decide the firefighters' terms and conditions. What is absolutely unclear is what he will do if they continue to strike, against his decision. We will look at this proposal carefully, and if we are persuaded that it will work we will facilitate its progress through the House; however, we do not know that it will stop the strike. It may well end the negotiations, but it will not stop the strike, and doing so is the key issue.

Throughout the strikes, the Deputy Prime Minister has rubbished our calls for an injunction, calling them inflammatory. Does not the action that he has proposed today inflame the situation without necessarily providing any prospect of a resolution? This morning, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions rightly said that the strikes are

"completely pointless, would not achieve anything … and put the public at risk."

He was right, but if that is not a public interest argument for an injunction stopping the strike, I do not know what is.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister once more whether he will request the Attorney-General to seek an injunction against the strike on public interest grounds. We all know that the final decision will be made by the courts, but that will not happen without initial action by the Deputy Prime Minister. We will look carefully at his changes to the 1947 Act, but action to stop these dangerous strikes is what the public want.

At the beginning, I should express appreciation for the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation and support for the emergency services, which everyone on both sides of the House fully endorses.

On the cost of the dispute, I told the Select Committee that I thought that it was about £5 million, although there are other estimates. However, it is probably something like £1 million a day, but we have to pay more if we are using troops during the dispute, so it may well be £2 million a day. There are negotiations between different Departments, and various costs are involved, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot be precise. However, I have said that the net cost to the Department is £70 million; if other Departments are included, it is about £100 million, which is a considerable sum. I pointed out to the Select Committee that I therefore face some difficult choices, as that cost will not be funded from reserves but from my Department's budget. Sometimes, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, Departments underspend and sometimes they overspend, and I have to make a judgment about where that money will come from, but it will come from the Department. The more money that is used for the dispute, the more difficulties are created—do I cut back programmes or, indeed, do I find transference money necessary for the two or three-year deal proposed by Bain?

I shall have to deal with those difficulties as they arise, but we cannot be certain that they have been resolved until negotiations have been concluded. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we would like the dispute to finish. I would like the negotiations to result in a settlement with as little bitterness as possible. The longer disputes go on, the greater the difficulties. It is far better to have an agreement, which is why I fundamentally believe that it is far better to provide opportunities for an agreeable negotiated position than to impose a solution. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether legislation will in fact secure what he wants—the ceasing of a strike if he made it illegal or the Attorney-General took action. The situation is difficult, but the evidence does not necessarily lead one to accept that by introducing such legislation the dispute will be ended. I do not believe that that is the case, and my own experience shows why. One has to make a judgment, and I have sought to do so.

If I can just deal with the role of the Attorney-General, I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the Government's job to make a judgment about the Attorney-General. I notice that every time a statement is made in the House, the shadow Attorney-General is never here to give his view.

I will bring him next time.

Well, do that so I can ask him directly for his advice. It will be the same as the advice I get from the Attorney-General—he has to make a judgment. He consults, takes various matters into account and makes judgments about public safety, but it is he who makes the judgment—the Government cannot direct him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Attorney-General keeps himself fully informed of the situation. We are therefore at odds about the best way to use legislation. I have proposed intervention and the possibility of an imposed solution, which allows an awful lot more time while discussions are under way in the House and consultations are conducted for negotiations to continue. I would like a negotiated settlement—let us be clear about that. I want the employers and the employees to work to find a settlement themselves.

My proposal almost suggests an end-date for the negotiations that have been going on for nearly 12 months since the first announcement of strikes. In any reasonable assessment one would assume that a negotiated settlement could be achieved within a 12-month period. I hope that that will be done in a shorter time but, quite apart from the extra costs involved, we are in special circumstances and are reaching a stage where public safety is a concern. Everyone in the House praises the emergency services currently in operation but we all accept that they are not as good as having full-time firefighters. I am therefore obliged to bring the situation to a conclusion, hence the reason for my judgment today.

As for jobs lost, the Bain inquiry makes it clear that there is no need for compulsory redundancies, even through the modernisation proposals, and refers to the number of early retirements through the pension scheme. The situation faced by those in the union is quite different from that which was faced by the miners, who were told, "We're closing 100 pits and 100,000 workers will be redundant from tonight." That is not the position that is facing the fire workers, and it is wrong for them to suggest that it is.

The closure of fire stations is unjustified. Again, I refer to the Bain inquiry. At the end of the day, we have to strike a balance between intervention and prevention; that is what the new risk assessment is about. Risk assessment is not new to the fire service—it has constantly undertaken it in relation to the siting of fire stations. That should continue, and it is not proposed that it should change, but the balance between intervention and prevention that Bain talked about is an important part of it.

As regards public safety concerns and the use of armed forces, whenever there is a deployment of whatever divisions of whatever parts of the Army, the armed forces have told us clearly that there will be no reduction in the numbers of people deployed and that full cover will be provided. All that I have to do is to accept the word. of armed forces representatives that they have the same amount of people, that the trained personnel are in place and that they can maintain the same level of service. I have no reason to doubt that, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was doubting it. He played around with which regiments are here and which are there. That is fair enough—he might find it interesting—but for me the reality is whether the same amount of troops are deployed in the same way and whether they possess the same skills. We are giving them extra equipment. That is good enough for me, and if it is good enough for the armed services, I accept their word on that.

In all such matters, Secretaries of State are accountable for making a balance of judgment, and I have given the House my best consideration of that. Apparently, the Opposition would rush into making legislation to ban strikes or to give directions to the Attorney-General. That would not help the situation. I have struck a balance that means that there is an end to the time in which negotiations can take place. I shall take powers, with the consent of the House, to implement such an agreement. If it is not implemented, I can implement it through the power that I am seeking today. The important point is that there is time to continue the negotiations. That is what we want—for both parties to get back to the negotiating table.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and join him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in expressing our thanks to the armed forces, to the other emergency services and to the many retained firefighters who are working to help the public during strikes.

As he will know, Liberal Democrat Members have agreed with him on many of the actions that he is taking during the dispute, including the need for a fair pay settlement linked to real modernisation along the lines of the Bain review. However, we cannot agree with the statement. Does he not realise that rushing the proposed emergency legislation through the House will be seen as a measure that is designed to inflame the dispute, not to solve it? Throughout the dispute, the Deputy Prime Minister has worked hard to win over the hearts and minds of firefighters. Why, then, is he now seeking to alienate them with this panic measure? Will he acknowledge that rushed emergency legislation has a very chequered history in this House? Does he recognise that if rushed legislation on dangerous dogs was flawed, rushed legislation on fire services could be fatal?

The Deputy Prime Minister claims that yesterday's decision by the FBU executive was the trigger for today's statement. We share his regret and anger that the FBU has pressed ahead with strikes and appears to have decided to turn its back on ACAS, and we share his view that the Government could not leave that decision unanswered, and did indeed have to act. However, surely now is the time for compulsory and binding arbitration. Why have the Government not announced that they will require the FBU and the employers to attend talks at ACAS, forcing both sides to the negotiating table? The Deputy Prime Minister says that he wants the involvement of the independent arbitrator, and that is the most sensible way forward.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise what a dangerous precedent he is setting? Who will be next on the Government's hit list for imposed pay settlements without negotiation or independent arbitration? This is a huge centralisation of power. Will the Government's next target be health workers or teachers, or will Ministers reserve such treatment for the emergency services, including the ambulance service? The Deputy Prime Minister rightly tells us that his top priority is public safety. Does he not realise that if Ministers were to intervene in two-hour stoppages, however frustrating, the practical effect could be to reduce public safety, as firefighters would be likely to withdraw their labour completely?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is reported to have said that transitional funding for modernisation could be cut if strikes go ahead? Does he realise that far from punishing the firefighters, that would punish the British public and local communities? Will he also explain his astonishing revelation that the cost of the strike is coming not from the reserve, but from his own Department's budget? How he can justify that decision, which he himself admits will hit those most in need?

Throughout the dispute, Liberal Democrat Members have given the Government the benefit of the doubt. We completely agreed that the FBU's 40 per cent. pay claim was outrageous and that any fair pay settlement must be linked to real modernisation. Yet we also believe that today's statement is a major mistake by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister is in great danger of losing the support of the public and of the House.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for offering the typical support that Liberal Democrats provide in such difficult situations.

As I understand his case, he believes that there should be fair negotiations connected to modernisation, and that both parties should be involved. We can all put our hands up in favour of that—for nine months, we have been trying to get the two parties to do precisely that. His solution appears to be to force both sides to go to arbitration. Presumably, that would require some legislation to direct them, but he is telling me that I should not use legislation in that way. At the moment the firefighters are refusing to go to ACAS, and I do not think that they will change their minds simply because the Liberals get up and say that they should do so or that I should not introduce legislation. Does he accept that I would require legislation to direct them to go in as a negotiating team? Does he think that that is an easy process? It certainly is not. He is not jumping up to correct me, so I assume that he accepts that we need legislation. Curiously, the Liberals have supported similar legislation—the Fire Services Act 1947. Admittedly, there were not so many of them then, but nevertheless they supported the essential principles of that Act. In various disputes, the Secretary of State has to make decisions in areas where public safety could be threatened, and that is presumably why such provisions were included in the 1947 Act.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I am rushing the legislation, but that is not so. I have to consult everybody, including the Liberals—I have started that process, and perhaps they will rethink their position—and I must then make a proposal to the House, which will debate the primary legislation. I suspect that there may even be a statutory requirement to lay an order, so that the House would have to debate the matter again. That is not a quick process. It will take several weeks for the House to discuss the proposals, which means that there are many weeks in which the negotiations can continue without any enforced situation. It is a matter of judgment, and I have decided to take this course of action, which allows for negotiations, but says to both parties, "You cannot continue to have deadlock in this situation without facing possible intervention with the agreement of this House."

Would my right hon. Friend join me in expressing his condolences, and those of the House, to the family and friends of Sidney Lennon, who was affectionately known as John Lennon, his wife Linda and his son Paul, who tragically died through fire at their home in my constituency, in Hill Road, Kennoway in Fife, at 3 am on Sunday morning? Sadly, in those tragic circumstances, the issue of the Bain report cropped up in the media. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that there are no proposals by the Government that would weaken public safety during the early hours of the morning, which are known by fire brigade staff as the dead hours?

I can tell my hon. Friend that I read of a tragic case—I think that it was in the Daily Mirror—in which people died during the evening in terrible circumstances in a fire that occurred at their home. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to express their support and deepest sympathy, through my hon. Friend, for the family that is facing such tragedy.

1 can give my hon. Friend an assurance that public safety will be maintained at the highest level. He mentioned the Bain report—the point of that was to increase fire coverage. It is not always a matter of intervention. The tragedy of many deaths that occur as a result of fires at night is that although the firefighters are quick to get there, a fire that might have been prevented by fire prevention techniques of some kind is often already well advanced. I do not know whether that was so in the case my hon. Friend mentioned. There is a great deal of evidence to show that we should emphasise prevention rather than intervention and achieve a better balance between them. That is precisely what the Bain inquiry proposed, and I want to discuss with the FBU how we can achieve that.

As the last Secretary of State who had to face prolonged public sector strikes, may I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that he continues to take a firm stance on the firefighters' strike? Will he tell the House when, according to the latest Government estimate, the continued need to use the armed forces in the dispute will start to impact negatively on national security in the context of Iraq?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support. As regards the armed services, we would take their advice. They tell us that the use of troops in the present dispute does not impinge in any way on the contribution of the armed forces to the situation in Iraq or to fighting the fire dispute. I am sure that they will make it clear if it does impinge on their capability. Obviously, these matters are assessed from time to time. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be better if we brought the dispute to an end, preferably by negotiation. What I have done today is to set an end date to the negotiations.

I have a lot of sympathy with my right hon. Friend's suggestion in his statement that there is a need to reform the employers' side of the negotiating structure in the fire service. I understand the need for change in that respect, but may I prod him about his intentions in a situation where the Secretary of State imposes a settlement? Will there be an implied no-strike clause included in the legislation whereby in the event of a union not accepting the Secretary of State's position and taking industrial action, an injunction would be sought to bring the union and its members back into procedures?

My hon. Friend is aware of the sensitivities involved in such matters. He is right to point out the responsibilities of the employers in these circumstances. That was pointed out by Bain, who proposed radical changes for the employers as well as the trade unions. We have already set in hand a number of changes on the management side, which require Government action. I have indicated to the House that we intend to do that.

With regard to the Secretary of State taking action in the way that I described today, it is not an imposition on the unions; it is an imposition on the fire authorities, which have the responsibility for the payment. That is how it was envisaged in the 1947 Act, and that is how we envisage it. If the employees refuse to accept the payment through their banks, I assume that they can send the money back. The more serious point is whether they decide to continue to strike. That is a judgment to which the FBU will have to address itself. It should make that judgment soon, rather than maintaining for a number of months the threat to public safety and the expense. The matter needs to be drawn to a conclusion. Any idea of guerrilla tactics going on for 12 months or so, which some have advocated—holding odd strikes from time to time—is unacceptable and does nothing to help public safety. I have made it clear that that will not be tolerated.

At the Kineton army base in my constituency, with the British Army's ammunition dump, the defence fire services have two modern, fully equipped fire engines. In the normal course of events, one of those fire engines is made available to assist in local emergencies, but they have received an unequivocal order, which I have seen, that in the present fire dispute, neither of those fire engines should in any circumstances be made available to help with emergencies. Apparently that order comes from the Ministry of Defence and therefore, presumably, there are similar orders to defence fire services across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister is not exactly famous for fighting his battles with his hands tied behind his back. Why is he doing so in this case?

I do not know the details of the matter, but I will look into it. It is right for the Ministry of Defence to make decisions about the use of its own equipment in these circumstances. I do not want to prejudge the issue; I will investigate it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

I met the chief fire officer of Dorset on Friday last week to discuss the dispute. He told me that some of the modernisations that are mentioned in the Bain review have already been implemented in Dorset and other authorities in the south-west, and savings have been made accordingly. Will the employers, and will my right hon. Friend, when he takes new powers of direction over the fire service, assume that modernisation savings can be made evenly across the country?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am well aware that in a number of brigade areas some changes have taken place—some with FBU agreement nationally and sometimes with disagreement. One of the difficulties that I have experienced is that when one negotiates with the FBU one cannot assume that what it proposes will be carried out at brigade level. I have found that to be a problem in Gold command, for example. I will certainly want to look at all the modernisation measures, which should apply to all areas. The brigades that have gone ahead and implemented some of the measures should not be disadvantaged in the settlement simply because they have carried out those proposals. We will take that into account.

Since the last time that the fire service was effectively nationalised was during the second world war under Herbert Morrison, the Deputy Prime Minister will appreciate that he is proposing a fairly draconian measure. Does he accept that it seems to fly in the face of the Bain report, which explicitly stated that the fire service cannot be run as a central command function? If the devolved Administrations indicate that they do not want to go down the centralising route, will he allow them to retain the existing arrangements? Finally, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), can the Secretary of State explain what possible advantage there is for the FBU in entering into negotiations, when it is repeatedly told that there is no room for negotiation and that the Government will veto any deal and impose their own will?

That does not seem to fit with the events, which I have watched closely. Before the FBU goes into discussions, it wants to lay down all sorts of conditions. The union stated in December that it wanted to go to ACAS and that nothing would be ruled in or ruled out, but it still will not walk in and talk. It has had days and days of talking, and a few minutes of face-to-face negotiations. That is not a good way to deal with matters. I always understood that each party went in and put its case to ACAS without ruling out any other party going in. The parties sat in different rooms and ACAS officials shuttled between them to try and find some agreement. It is not unusual for demands to be made of other parties. The role of ACAS is to try and find a way forward. The FBU has announced that if there is no prior agreement, it will not go to ACAS to discuss the matter. That is stupid. It is not acceptable and casts doubt on the union's real intentions.

With regard to the decentralisation of powers, curiously one of the problems that I have is that I am trying to decentralise by taking powers away from me as Secretary of State under section 19, and the union is against that. We need to achieve a proper balance. I have said, and Bain said, that the Fire Services Act 1947 should be reviewed. I have informed the House that my judgment about many of the recommendations and the balance between them will be in the White Paper that I will shortly publish.

We understand my right hon. Friend's predicament. He may well bring in legislation to compel arbitration, but he cannot compel agreement. That is the nub of the problem. Does he intend to impose Bain through arbitration or through legislation? Again, if he cannot get agreement, he will stack up major problems and create a great deal of bitterness. I say that with a great deal of sympathy for my right hon. Friend. I appeal to him to think carefully before he brings any legislation before the House.

My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of common sense. I have wrestled with the thought for a considerable time. I have been pressed from some parts of the House to introduce legislation immediately. I have never felt from my own experience, and neither does history teach, that legislation can force free people to do what they do not want to do. It is a human right to withdraw one's labour, and we have reinforced that in legislation in the House and under European conventions. We have to find a balance between all those considerations, particularly with regard to emergency services such as the fire service. Even there, if we try to force a deal on the fire service and it will not accept it, we will have another problem. I recognise that, but in my judgment people will come to the view that it is better to settle the dispute by negotiation.

All I am asking is for the union to sit down and talk. I am not asking it to accept any details, nor are the employers. We just want to sit down and talk. All reasonable people would expect that. I am trying to provide the conditions for it to take place. There will be a number of weeks before we begin to discuss possible legislation, which gives the continuing possibility, after nine months of dispute, that some kind of agreement can be found. What I am doing is indicating that we cannot continue to tolerate the continuation of the dispute with tactics that are deliberately designed to drag it out, cost a great deal more and cause the greatest of inconvenience generally with the least inconvenience to the fire workers. In those circumstances, I have to say on the Government's behalf that that is not acceptable practice.

The Deputy Prime Minister rightly referred to the fact that retained firefighters have continued to work. Indeed, as he well knows, in my part of Cambridgeshire and many parts of the country, the retained service normally provides all cover, regardless of strikes. The Retained Firefighters Union does not have negotiating rights, so negotiations are carried out on behalf of retained firefighters by the FBU. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, during the autumn, a provisional agreement was made on retained pay that would have resulted in a considerable reduction in income for a large proportion of retained firefighters? Given the sterling work that the retained service has continued to do in providing cover, does he agree that it would be astonishing if it were made the sacrificial lamb in the outcome of the talks?

The Government's view is that there should be a fair deal for everyone. Many of the retained firefighters are members of the FBU, which would claim the right to negotiate for them, but I am aware of the difficulties faced by those who are not members of the FBU and are not represented at the negotiating table. That was pointed out by Bain, who makes a number of recommendations about changing the structure of negotiation and discussions in the industry. We are considering those issues and I shall make a statement in the White Paper when we have reached our conclusions.

If people decide to go on strike, it is their right to do so. People who decide not to do so—in this case, they belong to another organisation—have the right to work at their workplace, and we should express our appreciation. That is a judgment for individuals, but I am aware of the difficulties and we will address the issue in the White Paper.

I recently received a letter from a firefighter at Edlington fire station in my constituency in which he rightly pointed out that there has been modernisation in South Yorkshire, including the use of defibrillators and work with the community. He wanted reassurance that the Government acknowledge that there has been modernisation in certain parts of our fire service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to that firefighter, to the public and to everybody in the House, that prompts the question why, if it can happen in South Yorkshire, it cannot happen throughout the rest of the country?

One of the difficulties that we face is that different judgments can be made in different areas, whether on the central emergency control centres or defibrillators. That raises an important issue. Such matters should be subject to national decisions. The use of such equipment should be agreed in the industry between the unions and employers and implemented. As the general secretary has pointed out, sometimes a recommendation is made, but brigades do not implement it because they have a certain amount of authority. We will have to address that question. If we get a national agreement but a brigade says that it will not implement it—one of the problems that the process involves—we will have to do something about that. We will consider those difficulties in the White Paper. We want to reassure and thank those who have adopted modern methods that we think should be advanced in all areas and brigades. We should have a system in which that applies automatically, rather than in which single brigades make a decision about those important issues.

Those of us from Northern Ireland will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and give the legislation sympathy and scrutiny. Will he please give a commitment that the matter will be kept on a national level, not a decentralised one? It is important that it is debated, discussed and solved nationally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a firefighters' strike in coming weeks and months could seriously endanger life in this country? If we are going to war, one of the immediate reactions may be an increase in terrorism against the United Kingdom. The impact and threat of such an increase while firefighters are involved in a dispute will be to endanger life nationally. Will he try to solve the matter as soon as possible?

The Deputy Prime Minister might like to know that I met the FBU on Friday. Its members on the ground are reasonable men whose own worst enemy is their leadership. The matter needs to be settled as quickly as possible and that needs to be done at a national level, as we are moving into very dangerous territory in terms of the possibility of war and the threat of terrorism.

I have made it clear to the House that I should like the dispute to end as soon as possible on agreeable terms. I am making an appeal that serious negotiations should take place and lead to conclusions. I have proposed that other actions be taken if that does not happen over time.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about the national issue, I referred to the Fire Services Act 1947, which was a United Kingdom measure. Indeed, at that time, the devolved Administrations did not exist and powers were not given to devolved authorities in different areas. The 1947 Act introduced a national requirement and I have to talk to devolved Administrations as much as other bodies to see how they feel about these matters. I have given them very quick notice—it is natural that I should do so—but I have reassured them that I will be having discussions. How we deal with the matter is a national issue, but if devolved Administrations feel that they want to deal with it differently, I must seek discussions with them.

The Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer explicitly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), so may I be more explicit in asking it? If he takes the power to impose a settlement and the FBU continues to strike, is he now considering taking the power to withdraw the right of firefighters to strike? If so, many will see this as an attempt to provoke an all-out strike and an attack on trade union rights in this country.

That is quite the opposite of what I intend, but the hon. Member is known for exploiting different statements made in the House to bad effect. Let me make it clear to him: I have said time and again in this House that I do not think that the dispute can be resolved with legislation. I have resisted many of the claims that have been made by those who say, "Why don't you use anti-strike legislation or instruct the Attorney-General?" The hon. Gentleman is not always here, but if he reads the record, he will see that I have been saying that from time to time, and I believe it. All that I am doing today is saying that there must be an end to the negotiations. The dispute has now run for nine months, and I hope that it ends quickly, but if it continues, that will not be acceptable. In such circumstances, I will have a responsibility to say, "If you cannot come to an agreement and there is a deadlock, we cannot sit here and whine." I have a responsibility for public safety and to see that a deal is implemented. I hope that those circumstances do not come about and that we will not need the legislation that I am talking about. The matter might be settled tomorrow and I might not have to talk about it again. That would be good.

If the hon. Member is asking, "What would happen if?", I point out that that is always the big question in politics. I hope that reasonable people will take into account the fact that we are trying to find a negotiated settlement and are providing more room for that to happen, but those involved will have to see that there is a timetable. If they choose not to do so, I will have to consider the circumstances. I know from my own experience that free people cannot be forced to work if they do not want to do so, but this is a matter of balance. I heard the same argument about prison officers, police and so on. [Interruption.] It did not lead to the circumstances to which he refers, although, presumably, that is what he predicted, as he does from time to time. In those circumstances, a judgment has to be made at the appropriate time. I am still ever hopeful that he will make a reasonable statement to reasonable men, rather than inflaming the situation, as he does from time to time. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr. McDonnell should be quiet.

Members rose—

Order. I can call every hon. Member who stands, but they must be brief and ask only one question.

Having sat in a green goddess for the first time on Friday in Plymouth—I admired it in a classic car kind of way, but saw that it was prehistoric, unsafe and completely unsuitable for firefighting work—may I press the Deputy Prime Minister to try to ensure that many more red engines are made available? After all, they are owned by the people of this country and not the striking firefighters, and he has repeatedly said that public safety is one of his primary concerns.

I had a similar experience when I rode on a green goddess in Leconfield in east Yorkshire. One admires the skills that are deployed in manoeuvring such old vehicles. We must give our armed forces the best facilities that we can for the job that we have asked them to undertake. Approximately 177 red engines are being used. There must be a balance between their deployment and that of the green goddesses. That is achieved in the way the armed services consider best and sufficient. We shall always try to fulfil their demands, but we currently have the balance that they requested.

As a trade unionist, I am bitterly disappointed that we have reached the point of my right hon. Friend considering legislation. I ask him again not to listen to Conservative Front-Bench Members. They clearly want to do nothing but take the dispute to court to break it. It is interesting that they use phrases such as "stopping the strike." That can happen only through a negotiated settlement.

I implore my right hon. Friend to look beyond the dispute at the Fire Services Act 1947. Does he agree that it bears no resemblance to the operation of the modern fire service?

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. I take no pleasure in coming here to discuss such a move; indeed, I do so reluctantly. Agreement about work and conditions should be between the two parties.

At the time, people perceived the 1947 Act not as anti-trade union legislation but as a means of arbitration when two parties could not agree in the special circumstances that applied. It was fully supported by Labour and Conservative Members. However, that was more than 50 years ago, and people may feel differently now.

Our recognition of the right to strike lies at the heart of the matter. I would think very carefully before taking it away from people. However, it is important that people who get into a dispute reach an agreement in negotiations. We have had nine months of negotiations, if they can be described as such, yet the claim is still 40 per cent. That is unacceptable and people must sit down and negotiate seriously.

I am here today because there appears to have been a change of tactics—rather than a change of mind—and an attempt to drag matters out. In that case, I have to make a judgment and come to the House to present it. It is not a happy judgment for me, but I am doing what I believe to be right. I always told hon. Members that I would do that.

I spent Friday with two watches at Newark fire station. As soon as the evening watch came on, there was a shout and the fire crew were out in an amazing and admirable 45 seconds. They got on to the A46 very efficiently. However, the town and the firefighters believe that there will be job losses and that Newark will become a day station with no night cover except for retained firemen. As far as I can ascertain, there is no basis for that in fact. I therefore beg the Deputy Prime Minister to dispel those rumours in as clear English as he possibly can, and to try to clarify matters without exacerbating the problem.

Another ex-Army type—they have always brought to the House some arrogance, which we enjoy from time to time.

Local committees will decide matters that affect fire stations. Repealing section 19 of the Act gives responsibility for such decisions to local committees. The people in the area will therefore have maximum influence on them.

Fire risk cover must be taken into account, and a proper balance must be struck between intervention and prevention. Again, the committee will make that judgment. I believe that that is right and that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will welcome it.

No one benefits from a prolonged firefighters' dispute, but does my right hon. Friend accept that many elements of the trade union movement will view his announcement with concern and, indeed, outrage? However, I hope that it will give time for thought. If the FBU returns to the negotiating table and embraces discussions on modernisation, will the Government find extra money in view of the contention that, in the past, firefighters were offered 16 per cent. over two years? Given the profound nature of the proposals in the Bain report, will the Government make a commitment to find extra money if the employers want to go down that road?

Let me make it clear that the 16 per cent. over two years was not agreed between the relevant parties, although I believe that it was discussed. We said that, as Bain pointed out, a settlement of 11 per cent. for two years and a possible agreement to extend that to three years would require a transfer of funds. It is therefore possible that the negotiations could have led to more than 11 per cent., but we never got to that point. I simply ask the FBU to sit down and discuss that. It claims that there will be redundancies and that fire stations will close. Why does it not sit down, negotiate and find out? If it finds that its judgment is correct, I assume that the members will walk out. That is called negotiating. I hope that they will not walk out, but that happens in negotiations.

I understand my hon. Friend's point about outrage, but only a few months previously the rest of the local authority workers, who are paid from the same fund, got less than 4 per cent. a year for a two-year programme, yet the FBU asks for 40 per cent. Local authority workers feel outraged that 40 per cent. from the same fund could be regarded as justified. They believe that they are entitled to more, and they have a point. I have to strike a balance, and 4 per cent. and 40 per cent. do not balance properly.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister provide some clarity about the time scale to which he is working for introducing the legislation? When does he propose to publish a draft measure? Is he working on the basis that it will end the dispute or is it intended to deal with future disputes? I am not clear from his answers whether he intends to ban strikes as part of the agreement. Would he consider the alternative of moving towards an agreed no-strike arrangement? That might be an attractive way forward because there must be better ways in which to resolve disputes in emergency services than the debacle so far.

I have some sympathy with the idea of a better way; I call it negotiations. It is a pity that we have not concluded them. However, we must bear it in mind that negotiations have taken place with the firemen for nearly 20 years when there have been no disputes. An agreement was reached 20 years ago. That is what people would like, but we are in the process of replacing the agreement with another. Although I have often made it clear that the Government consider all options—we must do that—rushing into strike legislation will solve nothing. If I impose a settlement that the FBU refuses to accept, further difficulties will ensue. However, I should prefer to face that. I am putting my faith in negotiations.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the difference when dealing with emergency services. The White Paper will deal with that point, which the Bain inquiry raised. My judgment is to ask the FBU to continue negotiations.

The hon. Gentleman asked how long legislation would take. That depends on the consultation, but I am talking about weeks, not months. However, weeks remain available for negotiations. I cannot therefore answer the hon. Gentleman. If I introduce legislation, hon. Members will want to debate it and any recommendations that flow from it. I cannot give an exact time, but we are looking at weeks, not months. The negotiations cannot go on and on in deadlock. I have a responsibility to act and I have given my best judgment today.

Given the Deputy Prime Minister's comments about the unreasonable actions of the FBU leadership, does he consider them, to quote Harold Wilson, "a small group of politically motivated men"?

They are a group of people who feel strongly about their negotiations and want to conclude an agreement. The leadership currently suggest that they want to follow the route of more industrial disputes; that is their right. However, I intend to introduce legislation in a specific period if the deadlock continues.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Victoria Climbié inquiry.

The report of the inquiry is being published today. It is available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your agreement that Victoria's parents should have had advance access to a copy of the report.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I established the inquiry in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Lord Laming, formerly the chief inspector of social services. We are both extremely grateful to Lord Laming and his advisers for producing a searching and detailed report and recommendations.

Words in a report can never be enough for a family whose child has died in such terrible circumstances. I am grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Climbié for seeing me last week and allowing me to express, on behalf of the House and the country, the sorrow we all feel at the death of their beloved daughter, Victoria. Anyone who has had the privilege to meet Mr and Mrs Climbié cannot fail to be struck by their quiet dignity in the face of what happened to Victoria.

I hope the report provides them with some comfort as it seeks to answer the questions any parent would ask: what exactly happened? What went so wrong? What needs now to change to prevent services that are supposed to keep children from harm failing in the way they failed Victoria so badly and so repeatedly?

Lord Laming's inquiry lasted more than a year. His report runs to some 400 pages. We will study its 108 recommendations with care. Today I will outline the inquiry's findings and the Government's initial views. We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk, which we intend to publish this spring.

Victoria Climbié was part of a large, loving family living in the Ivory Coast. Her parents had agreed she could come to Europe in order to be educated. This was not about giving Victoria away; it was about giving Victoria an opportunity. All they wanted—as any parent would—was for their daughter to have the best education. Instead, she suffered the worst cruelty.

Victoria arrived in Britain with her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, in April 1999. Within a year she was dead—murdered by the people who had taken the principal responsibility for caring for her: Kouao and her boyfriend, Carl John Manning. Both are now serving life imprisonment.

The cruelty experienced by Victoria before her death is truly the stuff of nightmares. Manning told the trial that Kouao would strike Victoria daily with a shoe, a coat hanger and a wooden spoon. She would hit her toes with a hammer. Victoria's blood was found on Manning's football boots. He admitted hitting her with a bicycle chain.

Victoria's final days—in the depths of winter—were spent living and sleeping in a bath in an unheated bathroom, in her own urine and faeces, bound hand and foot in a bin bag.

Despite valiant efforts on the part of NHS staff, Victoria died of hypothermia, after months of abuse, on 25 February 2000 at St Mary's hospital, Paddington. She had 128 separate injuries to her body. She was just eight years old.

It is a shocking but sad truth that about 80 children a year die from abuse or neglect. While a civilised society must do everything it can to protect children, sadly a few adults will always manage to perpetrate abuse, not least because those who do are, by definition, manipulative and secretive.

What makes Victoria's case so appalling, however, is that while the unspeakable abuse she suffered happened behind closed doors, in secret, Victoria herself was never hidden from the authorities or the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children like her.

Victoria was known to three housing authorities and involved with four social services departments—in Brent, Ealing, Enfield and Haringey. Despite receiving allegations that she had been abused, none of the councils even managed to undertake a proper assessment of her needs. Social services did nothing to help her.

Victoria was known to two separate child protection teams of the Metropolitan police. Despite being told that she had probably been deliberately harmed, they failed to investigate the alleged crime. The police services did nothing to help her.

Victoria was referred to the specialist Tottenham child and family centre, managed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Despite marking her case as urgent, it failed to take any action to see Victoria. The NSPCC centre did nothing to help her.

Victoria was admitted to two different NHS hospitals—the Central Middlesex and North Middlesex. Despite suffering scalding to her head and face, and other evidence that staff saw of beatings and abuse, she was discharged and returned to her abusers. The NHS did nothing to help her.

Between April 1999 and February 2000, on more than a dozen occasions the relevant services had the opportunity to intervene to protect Victoria Climbié. More than 12 times in 10 months they failed to do so. This was not a failing on the part of any one service. It was a failing on the part of every service.

As Lord Laming says,

"The extent of the failure to protect Victoria was lamentable. Tragically it required nothing more than basic good practice being put into operation … doing the basic things well saves lives … Victoria died because those responsible for her care adopted poor practice standards."

Lord Laming considers that the current statutory framework for child protection, set out in the Children Act 1989, is basically sound. I take little comfort from that. Sound legislative policy and guidance is, frankly, useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently.

Those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm of course face a difficult and challenging task. As Neil Garnham QC told the inquiry,

"Hundreds of children benefit every year from efficient and timely intervention by social workers, police officers and hospital staff. We would do children like Victoria no favours if we demonise entire professions as we seek to understand and remedy the weaknesses and deficiencies highlighted by a single case."

While public servants should enjoy our support, they should not expect our excuses. There were failures at every level and by every organisation which came into contact with Victoria Climbié. There were problems with staffing and with resources. In Haringey the council was spending substantially less than the standard spending assessment it had been allocated for children and families. In Brent the council was spending just half of what it had been allocated.

Lord Laming rightly describes as breathtaking the unwillingness of some of the most senior people in these agencies to accept that they were in any way accountable for these failures. It is his concern with this lack of accountability that leads Lord Laming to recommend change through the creation of new national and local structures for services for children and families. Lord Laming rejects proposals to separate child protection services, but calls for better co-ordination from top to bottom.

It is an all too familiar cry. In the past few decades there have been dozens of inquiries into awful cases of child abuse and neglect. Each has called on us to learn the lesson of what went wrong. Indeed, there is a remarkable consistency both in what went wrong and what is advocated to put it right. Lord Laming's report goes further. It recognises that the search for a simple solution or a quick fix will not do. It is not just national standards, or proper training, or adequate resourcing, or local leadership or new structures that are needed. It is all of these things.

In recent years there has been a renewed effort to improve safeguards for children: the Protection of Children Act 1999; the Care Standards Act 2000; programmes such as quality protects and sure start; new work on systems for identifying, referring and tracking children at risk.

Alongside the fuller response that we will include with the Green Paper in the spring, I can tell the House that there are important steps I intend to take immediately.

First, the inquiry is highly critical of the local services that failed Victoria. Since her death each has been subject to review. Some have been restructured. Some staff have been disciplined, others dismissed. In the light of the Laming report, it will be for each employer to determine whether further action is necessary against individuals, including those in senior managerial positions. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are asking the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of these local services in north London to provide independent assurance that standards are, indeed, improving.

Secondly, the inquiry concludes that in all agencies there was a low priority given to the task of protecting children. The Home Secretary has made child protection a priority through the national policing plan. He has asked chief constables to review force child protection units and consider how to action the recommendations of the report and reflect them in their local policing plans.

Additionally, I am today writing to all chief executives in local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children and the need to reflect them in their budget decisions. Social services budgets will rise by an average of 6 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. NHS budgets will rise by nearly 7 per cent. Extra resources should help employ more staff, including an extra 5,000 social workers, at a time when applications for social work courses, which fell for almost a decade, are now rising.

Thirdly, the report highlights inadequacies in the training of front-line professionals. Training for police officers is already being reviewed and we will ensure that Lord Laming's recommendations are fully taken on board. Social work training is also being fundamentally overhauled. From September, a new three-year social work degree will be introduced to raise the standards and status of the profession. It will focus on assessment, communication and working with other professionals—the areas where Victoria was so badly let down. The Home Secretary and I also intend to ask the professional bodies responsible for training police, social services and NHS staff in child protection to oversee a review of training needs, including a better focus on inter-agency training.

Fourthly, the report highlights the failure of agencies to adhere to common standards in the care of children. I believe that the Laming report re-emphasises the need for new national standards to which all local health and social services can work. I can tell the House today that I intend to publish the first part of those standards, covering the care of children in hospital, next month and the remaining standards by the end of the year.

Fifthly, the report says that there was confusion about guidance on aspects of child protection. Within the next three months, I intend to secure the replacement of all existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance that will reach every one of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It runs to more than 1,500 pages and covers 15 volumes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90 per cent., make it available in a single volume and update it regularly.

Sixthly, more than half Lord Laming's recommendations are aimed at correcting repeated failures in basic professional practice. We are today issuing a checklist of those recommendations. Police, health and social services are being asked to guarantee that, within the three-month deadline demanded by Lord Laming, those basic elements of good professional practice will be in place.

Seventhly, the report says that there was a fundamental failure to translate good intentions into good practices. The Home Secretary and I have therefore asked the relevant inspectorates to supplement their planned joint inspections with a new programme of further visits to verify that those elements of basic good practice are being implemented, particularly where there are concerns about local services. We will also consider whether further powers are needed to intervene earlier and more effectively.

Finally, Victoria needed services that worked together. The report says that, instead, there was confusion and conflict. Down the years, inquiry after inquiry has called for better communication and better co-ordination, but neither exhortation nor legislation has proven adequate. The only sure-fire way to break down the barriers between those services is to remove them altogether.

Fundamental reform is needed to pool knowledge, skills and resources to provide more seamless local services for children. Therefore, I am today inviting health and social services, and other local services such as education, to become the first-generation children's trusts. Those pilot children's trusts will mean that local services for children are run through a single local organisation.

We will explore a range of models, including children's trusts, that could be led by local authorities and others, and that could be established as new public-interest organisations, drawing in the expertise of the community, private and voluntary sectors. In future, services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation, but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structure—should be allowed to stand in the way. We will of course consider in the Green Paper Lord Laming's recommendations for further structural changes.

Those reforms cannot be the end of the matter. If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it too. Lord Laming is determined that that is what should happen, and the whole Government share that determination. Victoria's parents asked for nothing more for their daughter than the opportunity of a better life in our country. I am deeply sorry that she did not get that simple chance.

We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbié. We can, though, seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her. That is what Lord Laming's report demands, and it is what the Government are determined to do. I commend the Laming report to the House.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and his courtesy in making it available to the Opposition earlier.

Clearly, this is an appalling human tragedy first and foremost, and it is right that we remember the feelings and sensitivities of Victoria's parents as we discuss the details of what needs to be done. That a defenceless child could be subjected to such unspeakable acts of savagery over such a long period brings shame on our society. Those who are brave enough to do so can only imagine the terror, pain and misery that she must have endured, but this is also a shocking tale of individual professional failure and systematic incompetence.

During the past 30 years, there have been more than 30 inquiries into the deaths of children who were known to social services. None seems to have had much effect. We all agree, time after time, that it must never happen again, but it does. Lauren Wright, John Smith and Ainlee Walker are only a few of the large number of those who have been failed by the system.

There are a number of questions that I want to raise with the Secretary of State, although I do not expect him to answer them in his response, as they cover important and sometimes conceptual and cultural issues that we need to examine in far more detail than is possible in the House today. Every report says that something must be done. Why will this one be different? How will the House be able to monitor progress in a truly transparent way so that this one does make a difference?

Communication is the main problem among different agencies. How will that improve in practice beyond just setting up new structures? What role is envisaged for the greater use of information sharing and early detection? Intelligence gathering can succeed only on a local basis. What review of the Data Protection Act 1998 will the Government undertake to ensure that nothing stands in the way of the proper sharing of information?

Will the Secretary of State tell us what action has been taken against the social workers involved in this case to give us a guarantee that they are not still responsible for children? What progress has been made to fill gaps in social work, especially in London and the south-east?

The Secretary of State did not touch on one subject: it is estimated that about 10,000 children in England and Wales are privately fostered—80 to 90 per cent. of them are west African—despite the Utting report identifying private fostering as

"clearly an area where children are not being safeguarded properly, indeed an unknown number are likely to be seriously at risk."

Will the Government be taking any action to regulate private fostering to approved lists of people only, having failed to include that reform in the Adoption and Children Act 2002? To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the current classifications of "children in need" or "children in need of protection" militate against appropriate protection? What changes are to be made? In a case such as Victoria's, once a child is categorised as requiring family support, the child's need for protection falls from notice.

If the status of social workers is being improved and more responsibility given, equally, what measures are being put in place to ensure that incompetent social workers are disciplined as toughly as other medical professionals? What does the Secretary of State think has been learned from the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which placed a positive duty of care on parents to promote children's well-being? Do the Government favour a single system of referral and assessment to address needs—for example, child safeguarding teams proposed by the NSPCC along the lines of existing youth offending teams and sure start? Should sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 be amended to include police and GPs as agencies that should support the local authority when it is carrying out its duties in relation to children in need of protection?

Despite what the Secretary of State said, the new police national plan 2003–06 lists child protection under the heading "other policing responsibilities". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's statement today reflects a change of mind on behalf of the Home Secretary about the importance that child protection will be given.

Above all today we need to make sure that the changes recommended by Lord Laming and being introduced by the Government will allow us to get to a system in which we all know clearly where the buck stops. Professional failure on this literally fatal scale cannot, and must not, be tolerated. We welcome the concept of children's trusts, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be well aware that the devil will lie in the details, including budget sharing, which will be worked out later.

I fully understand the difficulties faced by professionals in this very difficult area. I have been there myself. I can think of nothing that I have ever done professionally as stomach churning and terrifying as telling parents that I suspected them of having abused their child. However, the primary responsibility for professionals is to the child in their care, not the professional relationship with the carer, as it has been too often. Difficult though it may be, we need to encourage that cultural change in all the professionals who deal with children. "I'm too busy/didn't suspect it/didn't have enough resources" are excuses that we cannot allow to be tolerated.

In the time available today, it is not possible to do justice to the detailed conclusions and analysis in Lord Laming's report. I hope that we will get a chance to debate those matters in great detail in Government time over the coming months. Whatever measures need to be taken must be taken, and quickly. The Conservative party will willingly give its support in this most justified cause.

I am extremely grateful for the tone and much of the content of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has said, and I shall try to respond to some of the detailed points that he made.

The hon. Member for Woodspring said that there have been a lot of inquiries over the years. That is certainly true. There have been both statutory public inquiries such as the Laming report and more private inquiries into the deaths and abuse of neglected children. The hon. Gentleman asked what was different about this report and about what we could make different, and he also wondered whether any inquiry had resulted in change. I think that some of them did result in change. The Children Act 1989 is a prime example, and Lord Laming considers it the bedrock of the legislative framework for the protection of children in our country.

However, I was very heartened to hear Lord Laming say on the radio this morning that the inquiry had already had an impact, even before publication of the report. I believe that he is right. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service has fundamentally restructured its child protection services. Quite rightly, it has brought those services under the aegis of serious crime, which is arguably where they should always have been housed. That is welcome, and there have been other changes in both the national health service and social services. We must build on those changes.

The hon. Member for Woodspring asked whether we could be assured that there would be appropriate monitoring of change and improvement. That is one of the issues that we will need to consider extremely carefully as we craft the Green Paper. Lord Laming's principal recommendations concern the central issue of accountability—how we can ensure that, from top to bottom, the interests of the child always come first, and that the different agencies involved in providing care and sometimes treatment are fulfilling their responsibilities. In due course, the Govt will present proposals on that.

The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about the disciplining of individual social workers. Some have been disciplined and others dismissed. However, Lord Laming makes a very strident point in his report when he states that front-line professionals—in social care, health care or the police service—failed to carry out the elements of good professional practice. Some have paid a price for that failure, but it is noticeable that the people in charge of some of the local agencies have not suffered a similar fate, and no consequences have been felt at any level of the organisations involved.

People in charge of organisations at local level—whether they have political or managerial responsibility—need to examine the Laming report's conclusions very carefully indeed. As the hon. Member for Woodspring rightly said, they should also examine their consciences.

The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned gaps in social worker numbers. Haringey is the authority most criticised in the report, and it was charged for the longest period with caring for Victoria during her stay in this country. It had terrible problems with the numbers of locum staff and of vacancies among social workers. It took a conscious political decision—and I think that it was the right one—to invest more money in social services and to increase pay for social care staff. Those decisions have helped to plug some of the social work vacancies that Haringey was carrying. If one local authority can do that, others should learn the lesson.

With regard to private fostering, Lord Laming has asked the Government to carry out a review of the relevant law. We are undertaking that review, and the conclusions will be part of the Green Paper.

The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what the Government were going to do in respect of incompetent social workers. It is worth placing on record that, overwhelmingly, social workers do a very difficult job very well. The temptation for people—not necessarily in this House but outside it—will be to point the finger of blame. In these circumstances, that is extremely easy. However, we must ensure that there is adequate support for social work staff, and that the right safeguards are in place.

As far as safeguards are concerned, the new general social care council will, for the first time, regulate and register qualified social workers. That will be an important step towards establishing the sort of assurances sadly lacking in this case.

The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about national policing priorities. Ensuring that adequate child protection is in place is part of the violent crime priority, which is a national priority for the police service.

Finally, the hon. Member for Woodspring made a very telling point when he said that, all too often, what happens in cases such as this is that the interests of the people with the responsibility for caring come before the interests of the child. In this case, that is graphically true. Time after time, Kouao was interviewed and spoken to. Her needs were assessed and she had frequent and continual meetings with social care staff and other staff in the caring professions. It is noticeable that at virtually no point did anyone bother to ask Victoria what was happening to her.

That can be described only as a lamentable failure. We need to get the training and the relevant structures right, but most of all we must get right the culture of these vital public services. We have those services for one reason—to serve. None has a God-given right to exist. The interests of those services should lie only in serving the interests of the child. That is what we must ensure happens in the future.

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to see the report and his statement in advance. I associate myself and other Liberal Democrat Members with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the report and about the sensitivities involved in this tragic case.

Reading through the report, I had a terrible sense of déjà vu. The same weaknesses encountered before led to the same mistakes being made, and they led to the same missed opportunities to do what was necessary to ensure that the nightmare of neglect and abuse described by the Secretary of State did not happen to Victoria. There is no quick fix, so may I ask the Secretary of State some questions?

The right hon. Gentleman talked about rationalising and replacing a welter of guidance and documentation. That is welcome, but can he tell us whether that will include clarity about what is risk and what is harm? All too often, there is confusion about that, with different definitions being applied in different parts of the country.

Will the Secretary of State say more about the children's trust proposals? The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposals in their pilot form because there is a need to explore new ways of integrating services locally. Will further guidance be published to assist local authorities in deciding whether they want to take the opportunity that he is offering them? Does he accept, however, that the boundaries between agencies will remain even when children's trusts are in place?

Will the Secretary of State say more about the area child protection committees? Legislation alone is not enough, but does he agree none the less that all the agencies involved in an ACPC must have a statutory duty to take part? In too many places, they do not join in as they should.

Lord Laming's recommendations referred to the need to move to a new system of safeguarding and promoting welfare and away from merely keeping registers. Can the Secretary of State ensure that everyone will turn up to child protection conferences and that the general practitioners and teachers are there? All too often, the key players do not take part.

Recommendation 16 rightly refers to the need to address information sharing. Information must pass freely and confidentially between the agencies. The report proposes that the Secretary of State issue guidance. When will he do so? It should be issued as soon as possible.

As the Secretary of State said, training is a key issue, but it can succeed only if we can recruit and retain enough staff. The chief inspector of social services has told us all that there is a serious crisis in the recruitment and retention of social workers. What additional steps are being taken, not least to reward experienced social workers who choose to stay at the front line to do their job and who really make a difference?

The national agency proposed in the recommendations has many characteristics similar to those required in a children's commissioner. I hope that it can indeed become a children's commissioner. Will the Secretary of State end the consideration process and confirm that the Government will introduce a children's commissioner in England?

As we look back on 30 years of inquiries into children's deaths, the milestones in the development of our child protection system have been marked, sadly and tragically, by the gravestones of children who suffered a nightmare of neglect and abuse. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that the system is strengthened and resourced and that it delivers a better quality of life for all our children.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and very much agree that there is no quick fix. However, one striking thing about the Laming report is that although Lord Laming, who has a wealth of experience as a former chief inspector of social services, recognises that some changes will take time, he has wisely put a time scale on some of the changes that he recommended. Although he realises that there is no magic wand that can be waved, he says that about 88 or 89 of his 108 recommendations should be capable of implementation in some shape or form within six months. That is why I took action as I did today. I have distributed the recommendations to local authorities and the national health service and written to them about what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing as regards police services. We have to get the balance right and I think that we are capable of doing so. We can fix what can be fixed quickly while recognising that some of the structural and cultural changes will take time.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the revised guidance would include clarification about whether a child was at risk or at harm. I read the report in considerable detail and it is clear that sometimes there is—at best—confusion about whether a case comes under section 17 or section 47. If it is a section 47 case, it goes up the list of priorities, but if it is a section 17 case it is deprioritised. That is one of the issues that we shall need to address in the guidance and we shall look carefully at that.

We shall issue guidance on children's trusts and an invitation to local authorities, the NHS and other organisations to make proposals. The trusts could take a variety of forms.

In recent years, there have been a number of recommendations on the structure of the ACPCs—for example, that they should be placed on a statutory footing. We must now consider such recommendations in the light of Lord Laming's broader structural recommendations to ensure that we get the overall structural balance right. The ACPCs could provide an important focus for local agencies to come together locally. However, partnership works well only when it is real rather than nominal. Although things vary throughout the country, all too often there is an assumption—for example, in the NHS—that the committees are really the responsibility of social services and no one else. We must be extremely careful to understand that what Lord Laming says is not specifically addressed to social services. He is not addressing one part of the care system, but the whole care system. It is only if we get the whole system right that we shall avoid the problems that were encountered in this case.

More needs to be done about recruitment. However, the case of Haringey—of all places—should fill us all with hope. Haringey had the worst record and, arguably, some of the worst services. Who would want to work in Haringey? Well, people are working there and they are doing so because the council took the decision to raise the status and the pay of the social work staff that it employed. That is a lesson that other local authorities should heed.

Lord Laming makes recommendations about the children's commissioner, but housed within a particular national, regional and local structure. We shall need to consider carefully whether that makes sense when we make our considerations for the Green Paper.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Members of the House have the first responsibility for dealing with these issues and that it is essential to hone our anger and concern about what we have heard today into a determination to transform children's services and ensure that such a scandalous chain of events never happens again? Does he also agree that the Government have a huge responsibility to face some of the difficult issues that have been around for such a long time? For example, we need to put children's rights at the heart of any agenda for children, to address the fundamental need for a children's commissioner for all parts of the United Kingdom and to address the important point that, under the law, children have less protection from assault than adults. We must deal with private fostering and invest thoroughly and comprehensively to ensure that all who work in services for children, especially in child protection services, have the status, pay and career prospects that they deserve.

My hon. Friend makes some telling points. He referred to anger. Both the anger and the incredulity of Lord Laming and his advisers about what happened are crystal clear from the Victoria Climbié inquiry report. It is more than a sorry tale: it is repeated failure at every level. The constant assumption made in almost every agency and by almost every member of staff was that Victoria's needs were being catered for by someone else, somewhere else. As we now know, nobody was catering for those needs. As my hon. Friend says, we really must learn those lessons now.

There are responsibilities both for local services and for national Government. The fact that we are publishing the Green Paper in the spring, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced some time ago, is a recognition across the whole Government that the existing structures, nationally and locally, need change. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised will of course need to be detailed in the Green Paper.

Listening to my right hon. Friend's reasoned statement, I was struck by the fact that, 30 years ago, I had just started in local authority child protection social work, and we had recently had the Maria Colwell report on an appalling set of circumstances. I find it incredible that I am here 30 years later after 35 inquiries listening to more or less word for word the same story and the same sad, tragic picture. However, I have taken some comfort from the statement today in that communication between professionals has been a key element all the way along the line. As someone who has argued for integration of professionals at local level and co-location, I warmly welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend has made today.

May I press my right hon. Friend on a more fundamental matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)? It is clear that physical punishment was an issue in this sad and tragic case. My right hon. Friend is looking at the policies of countries such as Sweden on delayed discharges and foundation hospitals. Will he also look at what other countries have done on child protection? Sweden acted to outlaw the physical punishment of children by parents 10 years ago, and while we have experienced at least one child death per week at the hands of parents and carers in the past 10 years, Sweden has had none. Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a matter of urgency?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is always worth listening to on these issues. He has campaigned long and hard for many years both before coming into this place and since he has been a Member of Parliament for better integration and co-ordination of services. There are important lessons that we need to learn from that.

It is crystal clear from this and all too many other cases that services were simply pointing in opposite directions. Social services were doing one thing, the health service was doing another and the police were doing a third thing. The consequence of that is confusion: people are passed round the system and, unfortunately, there is intervention later rather than sooner. Those are issues that we need to address. However, I say in all candour to my hon. Friend that I am cautious about confusing what happened to Victoria Climbié with issues around smacking and the reasonable chastisement of children. What happened to Victoria was of a quite different order. I know that my hon. Friend knows that. He knows the Government's position on these issues. Of course we will keep them under review, but it is important to separate the extreme violence that happened to this poor child from the sort of issues that my hon. Friend raised.

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today and his proposals to publish a Green Paper. He clearly recognises that the fundamental causes of the 80 deaths from abuse per year of vulnerable children are a lack of liaison between the relevant agencies and a lack of accountability. Both were clearly demonstrated in the tragic case of my constituent Lauren Wright.

Does the Secretary of State intend to make the new guidance statutory? Is he in a position to say today—perhaps not—how children's trusts will improve accountability?

I know that the right hon. Lady has taken an active interest in these matters, not only in the case of Lauren Wright but in her previous guise as Education Secretary in the Conservative Government. She is aware that the current guidance is statutory. That is the problem. We have to get the right combination. Of course we have to have statutory guidance. Of course we have to have the right system of monitoring. Of course we have to have the right system of accountability. Of course we have to have the right system of training. Of course we have to make sure that we have decent local management who take responsibility rather than ducking it. Of course we have to have the right structures.

Several colleagues on both sides of the House have asked what is so different about this situation and the Laming report. I believe that the difference is that we have a broad sweep of recommendations covering all the issues and a vehicle, in the Green Paper, by which they can be addressed. It is only if we get accountability, structures, training, funding and local management right that we will avoid some of the terrible problems that children down the years have had to face. I believe that we have an opportunity to do that. Children's trusts are a means to that end. I believe that they will improve accountability. One local organisation will be responsible for protecting vulnerable children and people will not continually pass the buck.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Laming report explicitly directs most criticism, and places most of the responsibility for what happened to Victoria, not on the front-line staff but on senior managers and councillors in the local authorities. Time after time, events such as this happen, senior managers get themselves a media adviser and we hear the same old interviews about lack of resources. In many cases, those people go on to even better and more highly paid jobs. I believe that one way to stop such events happening again is to make sure that senior people take the responsibility that they are paid to take.

The practice of private unlicensed fostering, largely by west Africans, has gone on for a long time. At best, it causes all sorts of trauma. At worst, children are open to all sorts of abuse. It is time that the Government moved to close this practice down.

To make managers accountable there has to be a proper system of accountability from top to bottom. That is what Lord Laming addresses in his recommendations. We will consider those recommendations seriously because that form of accountability is not present in the current system.

On private fostering, we will take extremely seriously the representations that have been made to us not just by Lord Laming but by others. However, let me strike one note of caution about reviewing the law on private fostering and the Victoria Climbié case. It is true that, legally, Victoria was being privately fostered. No one knew that, for one simple reason. Her great-aunt Kouao lied about who she was. She called Victoria "Anna" and said that she was her mother. Even if we had had changes in the private fostering legislation on the statute book, it would not have stopped the person responsible for caring for Victoria lying. She would have continued to lie.

For Cambridgeshire Members, I am afraid that the painful recollection of the Rikki Neave case serves only to heighten our distress at what happened to Victoria Climbié.

Substantial benefits may flow from the introduction of children's trusts, but will the Secretary of State consider in the Green Paper two consequences that ought to flow from that proposal? First, having a children's trust does not automatically remove professional demarcations and boundaries—they could persist inside one. Is there a case, therefore, for giving one professional worker, whatever their discipline, responsibility for the services provided to a child and the authority to draw together the relevant services within the children's trust and impose requirements on other services?

Secondly, if one puts all the services within the trust, one makes the accountability clearer, but the service is unified and hence potentially more resistant to external scrutiny and more likely to cleave to a single explanation. Is it not therefore more important for there to be an external voice—if not that of the children themselves, then a children's commissioner—to speak on behalf of children from an independent, external standpoint?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. On his latter point, we will address those issues as part of the Green Paper. On the first issue, I very much agree about professional demarcations and boundaries. The disaster would be to break down boundaries between structures and organisations but retain precisely the same boundaries between professionals. That is why it is so important that we have asked various professional bodies, local government and the training organisations to produce proposals on that. For example, I have never fully understood why the skills of health visitors and those of social workers cannot be put together to offer better support to families and children in times of trouble. We should be perfectly capable of doing that.

The hon. Gentleman puts the accent on flexibility and partnership working, but that has to apply as much at the level of the individual professional in those services as at that of the individual services.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, for 10 years, I have been a trustee of the charity Childline, which takes tens of thousands of calls each year from children who, mercifully, do not die, but many of whom suffer in silence and never reach social workers or anyone else for protection.

Childline, along with every other major children's charity, has argued for a children's commissioner for England for a number of years. The Secretary of State spoke about culture. The problem is that civil servants, by and large, do not want a children's commissioner for England. If he wishes to tackle the culture of child protection, he will have to tackle the culture of Whitehall, which does not want to create a children's commissioner for England. Since every children's charity supports the creation of one, will he agree to change that culture in Whitehall? Will he act quickly to do so, because I believe that a children's commissioner would make a serious difference in protecting children?

Order. Although we all know that this matter is grave, deeply disturbing and complex, may I appeal for brevity in questions and answers, as that is necessary if I am to call every hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye?

I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As for getting such things out into the open, it is very important that there was a public inquiry. Indeed, before he joined the Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was one of those who argued very strongly that a public inquiry should be conducted properly in the open, so that people could hear and see the evidence for themselves. That has been achieved.

As for a children's commissioner, I understand the concerns and views of the organisation with which my hon. Friend is associated. Of course we will consider those issues in drafting the Green Paper. Again, let me say that it is very important that any structure or post that we put in place fulfils a function that will make a difference. Let us forget about making suitable gestures or getting the right symbolic policies. Symbolic policies do not save lives. What saves lives is good practice in social services offices, NHS hospitals and local police stations. That is the focus of the Laming report. Of course we have to ensure that we get the right combination between the national and the local, but let us remember where services are delivered: not in Whitehall, but in local communities.

I welcome the new three-year degree for training social workers, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is value in shorter, postgraduate qualifications for people with relevant degrees, as they would be more likely to attract people with life experience, whom we so desperately need to provide improved services?

Basically, we need both. We need people who have had a former occupation or those who have a suitable qualification to come forward. If we can achieve that on a postgraduate basis, so much the better, but the training has to be right to raise the profession's status as much as anything else and to ensure that we have the people to carry out this very difficult task. As I say, good social workers deserve to be valued, not vilified.

We have to ensure that the training is right. That is why, for example, in our proposals for the new three-year social work degree, we say that no one will be able to go into post unless they have carried out 200 days of practice on the front line, so that, when they go into post, they are experienced in precisely the sort of difficulties that social workers face day in, day out. One of the tragedies of this case is that very inexperienced people were put into the most difficult position imaginable, and we have to avoid that in future.

I, too, welcome the emphasis on increased training for all staff involved in child protection. However, it is not clear how those staff will be required to demonstrate their competence in child protection before they begin working with children. How will the Secretary of State ensure that all staff—not just social workers, but those in health care, the police and, indeed, those in education, who see many of those children day in, day out, at school—have the required skills, not just the training, to be able to fulfil their responsibilities?

As my hon. Friend rightly says from her own experience, it is important that the people who work in those difficult professions have suitable competence, not just when they start, but throughout their careers. That is why it is important that we are commissioning the review of training requirements to ensure that all those who have a responsibility for safeguarding the interests of children—whether in the police service, the social services or the health service—are properly versed not just in child protection procedures, but in child development, too. That will help to ensure the competence of those people, who do a difficult job, sometimes in pretty difficult circumstances.

I welcome the statement. Will the Secretary of State say why he will publish a Green Paper, rather than a White Paper, which might imply more urgency? As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned, the tragic Lauren Wright case involved her constituency, but the senior social worker involved—the team leader—was a constituent of mine, and he did indeed resign. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is anything in the Laming report about the Lauren Wright case? We have heard a lot today about the failings of social services—morale is obviously battered in Norfolk—but we must get across the point, surely, that the overwhelming majority of social workers do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. What advice would he give Norfolk county council as it tries very hard to improve the recruitment and morale of social workers?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I very much agree with it. I hope that the balance is struck appropriately in relation to the coverage of such issues, particularly the role of social workers. He asks why we will publish a Green Paper, rather than a White Paper. We will certainly introduce proposals in the Green Paper that will be subject to rapid implementation, but it will be right to consult more broadly on other proposals, particularly if we propose far-reaching recommendations for structural change.

How will my right hon. Friend ensure that social workers on the front line will receive the supervision and support that they need to deal with such very difficult situations? That seems to be the key to this issue.

That is important, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, more is needed. We need people on the front line who are competent. We need management and leadership who demonstrate competence, and we need an accountability structure to ensure that. Those are precisely the issues that Lord Laming has been grappling with in his recommendations, and we shall consider those issues in the Green Paper.

When my right hon. Friend is developing the new national structures, will he consider especially the need properly to track children and their families as they move around the country? He will be well aware that many families are attracted by the bright lights of Blackpool. Sadly, all too often, those families bring with them problems. They must not be lost in the system, and not only social services, but health services and the other agencies need to know that they are there.

I am pleased about what my hon. Friend said, as many of the points that have been made today highlight the role of social services. As we all know, however, vulnerable children require the support not just of social services but of a range of other services, too. I know that some might be tempted to point the finger purely at one part of those services, but that is not what Lord Laming identifies: he identifies a failure across the piece. He uses a graphic phrase, which is the right one: "widespread organisational malaise". That is precisely what is present in this case. We must deal with that for the future.

In relation to issues such as identification, referral and tracking, my hon. Friend is right that there is a group of vulnerable children out there, and it is important that we get the balance right and make sure that issues of civil liberties and data protection are dealt with properly and appropriately. We must also have information systems, however, that are capable of identifying where the children are in the system to make sure that they do not disappear, whether in Blackpool or anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety is undertaking some good work. A £24 million pilot project is taking hold in different parts of the country, and by the autumn we want to make sure that that sort of system is being spread throughout the rest of the country.

In 1993, a report was made to the Government of the findings from a national inspection of private fostering. The author was the social services inspector, Lord Laming. In 1998, the Utting report, by a former chief inspector of social services, was published. We have now had a further Laming report, and we will have a further review. There are 8,000 to 10,000 children involved, many of whom have come halfway round the world, and fewer checks are done for them than for child minders. These children are among the most vulnerable, as report after report has stated. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my right hon. Friend issued a caution about private fostering: if we had a registration scheme, it would not necessarily have saved Victoria's life. I accept that, but does he accept that, given all the overwhelming evidence and the reviews presented to his Department, it would be one more safeguard for protecting vulnerable children?

In truth, there are mixed views. My hon. Friend cogently argues from one perspective on the issue, but there are other perspectives. I hear what Lord Laming said in his report today, and I know what William Utting recommended. It is therefore right and appropriate that, as the Green Paper will address in the round the issues of children at risk—I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that opportunity to get the system right in that respect—we consider the various views and recommendations in that context. That is what we plan to do.

One of my constituents who came to see me recently was the teacher who detected the first signs of stress in Maria Colwell in my constituency. I promised to pass on to the Government her suggestion that all professionals involved with children—nurses, social workers, doctors or teachers—should share a common social service practice module as a compulsory part of their training. That might go some way towards addressing the problem shown in all these reports, which is that, basically, one can have all the systems one wants, but if the people who operate them fail, through lack of quality of training or culture, nothing will succeed.

I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect: teachers, police officers and others should be properly trained, but not in social services practice. They should be trained in child development, child protection and the safeguarding of children. If we genuinely want services in which there is not confusion and fragmentation but integration and co-operation, we must ensure that we have people who are capable of operating those services in that way. We must therefore have training that reflects those principles.

The failure to protect children shames all of us. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, and the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, which I support. There have been endless inquiries, and there will be a Green Paper in the spring. By May or June, another child will have died, and by the time the White Paper comes out, yet another child will have died. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the process will be speeded up and put high on the agenda? In terms of delivery, we must have one person who is accountable at a local level. That person should be the chief executive—I have senior legal advice on this matter, and have brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister. We also need coordination at ministerial level. Coverage by three Departments—the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office—is not good enough. Even with the best intentions, children are slipping between the cracks in provision, and they are dying as a result. I suggest that a Cabinet Minister should be made responsible for child protection.

Finally, will the extra resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend be ring-fenced? For example, in my well-run borough of Dudley, child intervention happens at level 5, although, according to the Government's guidance, it should happen at level 2. Will the resources that he mentioned allow intervention in my constituency at level 2, which is necessary to protect children?

It must be right that we do not delay in doing anything that can be done without delay. That is precisely why we are taking action today: not just publishing a report but writing directly to those who have responsibility for leading these organisations, not only in local authorities but across the national health service, too. We are giving them a three-month deadline within which they must make sure that all the elements of good practice, which are basic common sense and which were simply not in place in Victoria Climbié's case, will be in place in the future.

Secondly, my hon. Friend refers to the need to ensure that we have appropriate structures at national level. There is more that we can do in that regard. She should not, however, understate what has been done so far, such as the advent of the children and young people's unit and its work, and the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who has particular responsibility in that regard. On resources, again, we must get the balance right. Ultimately, the difference is that those of us sitting—or standing at the Dispatch Box—in the comfort of the House do not have to deliver a single service to a single child. The people who must do so are the people outside. Those are the people who should be empowered and held accountable, as a quid pro quo. That is why I happen to think it is right to have less ring-fencing rather than more. In the end, public money is involved, and those people must decide how to spend the money appropriately to serve their local communities, and they should be held to account stringently and rigorously for that. If we do that, we will get the right balance between national responsibilities and local ones.

I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to addressing this problem. Since the Maria Colwell affair in 1973, there has been a demonstrable failure to address it effectively. Will he clarify the respective roles of the proposed children's trust and the existing area child protection committees? Will he give an assurance that in future somebody at local level will be accountable, perhaps chairing a body that must legally own that particular responsibility, and that a statutory obligation should be placed on the agencies concerned that the people they send should be suitably qualified? Lastly, if something goes wrong, there should be a mechanism for a thoroughgoing and independent investigation, not a botched and obfuscated investigation as we had in Haringey when the Victoria Climbié affair first came to light.

My hon. Friend makes a succession of extremely important points. It is important that we learn from things that go wrong. The only way of doing so is to get the facts out into the open. That is why the report and inquiry have been so widely welcomed.

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments on the area child protection committees. He will see in the guide to children's trusts, which has been published today, that one of the forms that they could take, for example, is to group together all the services in the local area that perform functions relating to child protection, mental health services or wider children's services. The important point about that is that, once again, it provides an opportunity for local services, whether in the public, private or voluntary sector, to come together in a way that is appropriate to meet the needs of sometimes different local communities in different local circumstances.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be indelicate to suggest that a fraction of the understandable compassion that we heard in the past hour for children in this country should be directed towards the traumatised children of Iraq? My point of order is this: what does it take in this House of Commons to get an emergency debate when we are on a motorway to war, which will end heaven knows where? Is not it desperately important for us to have a debate on a substantive motion on what is happening with the weapons inspectors? Millions of people outside the House think that it is high time that we had such a debate.

The hon. Gentleman hovers between a point of debate and point of order. He knows that there are ways to influence those people who are responsible for determining the business of the House, but the Chair is not one of them.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, like many other hon. Members, I represent coastal communities that face severe trauma from losing their livelihoods and way of life as a result of European Union fishing quota cuts. You will also be aware that a written statement has been laid before the House and a statement has been made by the Scottish Executive today about compensation plans. Do you know whether the Minister with responsibility for fisheries intends to come before the House so that hon. Members, especially those who represent fishing communities as I do, can question, cross-examine and scrutinise those proposals, including the lack of an application for EU match funding, which may help many thousands of my constituents?

Again, the hon. Gentleman is indulging in a fair amount of argument. The Chair has no intimation of such a statement, but the relevant Department is due to answer questions this week. That may or may not provide an opportunity for him to pursue the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) expressed his concern on a point of order about the withdrawal of a question tabled in my name. He suggested that it had been withdrawn as a result of pressure placed on me. May I explain to the conspiracy theorists that the reason is much more mundane? It is simply that the bmi plane was delayed. The fact that the relevant Minister told me that he had arranged for that delay and the delay of the subsequent British Airways flight as well was simply an attempt at humour on his part.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) left his remarks open to the possibility of a perfectly simple explanation—although probably not as simple as that one.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I require your assistance and guidance. Yesterday, the General Affairs and External Relations Council delayed the decision on extending sanctions against Robert Mugabe and his regime. Tomorrow, EU ambassadors meet, but that forum does not have legal powers to extend sanctions; only the Council of Ministers can do that. The next Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting is not until 24 February, which is six days after the present sanction regime expires.

Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, bring pressure to bear to insist that the Foreign Secretary comes to the House to explain his attitude to Mugabe's invitation to Paris, and to explain what procedures and mechanisms are being followed to ensure that sanctions are renewed prior to the key date of 18 February? If they are not renewed, Mugabe will be at liberty to travel not only to Paris, but to London, which would not be acceptable to the Government or the House while people starve and suffer brutal retribution at the hands of his thugs in Zimbabwe.

The hon. Gentleman must not engage too much in the substance of debate, however strongly he feels about the subject. He must know that the Chair has no power to command a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. He may, however, find an opportunity to raise the matter, perhaps even at Prime Minister's questions.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purposes.

The Bill would remove the existing restrictions placed on the employment of non-UK nationals in civil capacities under the Crown. In place of the current system, it would open up all civil employment under the Crown to applicants of any nationality, apart from those positions that would be restricted to UK nationals under rules made by the Minister for the civil service, or by another Minister or other Crown official to whom he has delegated the power to make such rules. Before dealing with the detail of the Bill, let me make it completely clear that it does not deal with asylum, immigration or work permits, and it does not affect the requirements for non-UK nationals to get leave to remain and to work in the UK before they can take up employment.

The rules restricting the employment of foreign nationals by the Crown have their roots in legislation decided 200 years ago. The Act of Settlement 1700 provides that no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the dominions thereto belonging, should be capable of enjoying any office or place of trust, either civil or military. That prohibition has been amended over the years and does not apply to Commonwealth citizens, citizens of the Irish Republic or to British protected persons employed in a civil capacity.

Section 6 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 provides that no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the civil service of the state. Contrary to popular belief, an alien is not a funny green man from Mars with a TV aerial sticking out of his head, or a character devised by Mr. Steven Spielberg. Alien is defined in section 51(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as a person who is not a Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

During the second world war, defence regulations permitted the temporary employment of aliens if no suitable British subjects were available. That was replaced by the Aliens' Employment Act 1955, under which the prohibitions were relaxed so that aliens could be employed if they were either appointed in a country outside the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in a capacity appearing to the Minister to be appropriate for aliens, or employed in accordance with a certificate issued by a Minister with the consent of the Minister for the civil service. So either no suitably qualified UK nationals are available to do the work or the alien must possess exceptional qualifications or experience to do the job. Certificates last for five years and must then be renewed.

For the year 1999–2000, the number of persons employed under those certificates was a mere 20. The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 amended the law to allow nationals of member states of the European communities, their spouses and certain children to take up civil employment under the Crown, apart from public service posts as defined by the European Community treaty. The rights of nationals of member states of the European communities were extended to nationals of member states of the European economic area by section 2(1) of the European Economic Area Act 1993. Against the background of a possible legal challenge to the European Court of Justice, further changes were made in 1996 to put Irish and Commonwealth citizens on the same footing as other non-UK EC nationals. An amendment to the civil service management code was made to restrict Commonwealth and Irish nationals from being employed in posts that were reserved for UK nationals.

The effect of the existing rules, therefore, is that foreign nationals may be employed abroad in any civil post under the Crown, which includes the diplomatic service if the Minister considers it appropriate. However, for civil employment under the Crown within the UK, Commonwealth citizens, British protected persons and nationals of member states of the European economic area may be employed only in posts that are not public service reserved posts, and nationals of all other countries may be employed only in UK non-reserved posts if one of the very rarely issued certificates is in force.

Although 75 per cent. of civil service posts in the UK are available to Commonwealth, Irish or EEA nationals, the remaining 25 per cent. requiring the special allegiance of public service posts are entirely reserved for UK nationals. More posts are reserved than is operationally necessary, but that is unavoidable due to the present definition based on the EC treaty. Attempts to define public service posts must follow EC case law and are subject to judgments of the European Court of Justice.

The net effect is that it is a criminal offence, even if done by mistake, to employ a non-Irish EEA national in a public service reserved post; to employ any alien in any civil service post at all, apart from the tiny number of certificated exceptions, and although it is legal to employ in a non-reserved post the alien spouse of an EEA national living in the UK, under the freedom of movement provisions, it remains an offence to employ the alien spouse of a UK national.

That all sounds very legalistic and technical, but I believe the anomalies can best be illustrated by examples. As I have said, the Bill will not change the rules on asylum and immigration in any way. In my constituency, like many others, we now have longstanding communities, for example from Iran and Iraq, mostly comprising highly skilled professionals, many of whom were senior public servants in their home countries, who fled persecution by those dictatorships many years ago. They, and their children, who may know no other country, are entirely barred.

In Hendon, we have Chinese and Japanese communities, and also UK citizens married to people from those countries, which are important trading targets. Assuming that they retained their own citizenship, those Chinese and Japanese people are barred from, for example, jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry, but if their spouses were French, rather than British, they would not be barred.

A Turkish Cypriot is eligible for a non-restricted post, but a Turk is not. The notorious Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist cleric who most people think should be kicked out of this country, if not put in jail, has UK nationality and could be employed in any post, although I doubt that he would want to apply, and, if he did, I assume that he would not pass the interview. However, the American national widow of a British victim of 11 September would be entirely excluded from Government employment.

As in so many things, the police service is ahead of the game. I first raised this nationality anomaly in the context of the police regulations over two years ago, and I am pleased that it has been dealt with in the Police Reform Act 2002. Subject to proper immigration status and competence in English, and with certain reservations for sensitive posts, nationality is no longer a barrier to joining the police, and that has made a great difference to police recruitment.

In our country, some 850,000 residents of working age are not UK, Commonwealth or EEA citizens, and are thus excluded entirely. In London, one of the world's great, diverse cities, 350,000 people, or 9 per cent. of the working age population, are entirely excluded, not just from the higher echelons, but even from applying for the most junior social security clerk's job. It is no wonder that we have difficulty filling civil service jobs in the capital, when so many of my fellow Londoners are entirely out of the equation.

My Bill will tackle those bizarre and discriminatory anomalies by sweeping away the existing complex, interlocking legislation, and replacing it with a simple amendment to the Act of Settlement, so as not to prohibit the employment of any person in any civil capacity under the Crown, and at the same time empowering the Minister to make rules in respect of nationality requirements for certain categories of posts, which I envisage as those where it is clearly necessary, and in the national interest, for the job to be reserved for a UK national, which is about 10 per cent. of the total. It is expected that the Bill would open up 90 per cent. of all posts to selection on merit, regardless of nationality, enabling us to build a civil service that reflects the diversity of the society that it serves. I commend the Bill to the House.