I do not intend my speech to be one of doom and gloom. My purpose in asking for this slightly longer debate is to give hon. Members from Devon an opportunity to explain why Devon needs extra resources and why manufacturing is as important to Devon as it is to other parts of the country. It is slightly disappointing that the Conservative Benches are somewhat empty, given that Conservative Members have an interest in matters pertaining to manufacturing. They are certainly quite good at making comments to that effect in the local press, and it is a shame that their comments are not reflected by their presence in the Chamber.

Manufacturing in the United Kingdom has suffered over recent years, and we all know that it declined during the 18 years of the Conservative Administration. We are also well aware of the fact that it has declined under the present Labour Administration. Indeed, colleagues in my party's Department of Trade and Industry team have researched the decline in UK manufacturing and found that more than 750,000 jobs have been lost nationwide.

Manufacturing does not employ is many people in Devon as in other parts of the country, so it is not as crucial to the Devon economy in that sense. However, it is vital that what manufacturing there is should thrive and that it should be well watered an d well fed so that it may flourish and bloom.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has likened manufacturing job losses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) to the sinking of the Titanic. Although there is, in fact, no titanic manufacturing industry in Devon, the boat is under construction and on the slipway. The job losses that we have suffered, particularly in south Devon, have been a blow to the construction of Mat manufacturing base. I hope that the debate will point to ways in which we can construct and float that manufacturing ship so that manufacturing in Devon and the south-west prospers.

Some 93 per cent. of businesses in Devon employ fewer than 50 people, and 75 per cent. employ fewer than 10, so the majority of businesses are very small indeed. The Devon economy grew by 15 per cent. between 1995 and 1998—the last period for which I have the figures—and GDP per capita increased to £9,636. That is still considerably lower than he UK's GDP per capita of £12,548 and indicates that, f or various reasons, there has been a lack of investment in the south-west and particularly Devon.

Given those figures, it seems surprising that unemployment is considerably lower than the national average. In fact, it is not surprising, because employment levels are higher, and 28 per cent. of those in employment work part-time—3 per cent. higher than the national average. The breakdown of the employment figures by sector shows that the hotel and catering trade employs 9 per cent. of people. Agriculture employs 24,000 people, or 30 per cent. of all employees in the region. The wholesale and retail sector employs 20 per cent.; health and social care employs 14 per cent.; public administration employs 8.5 per cent.; and manufacturing employs 13 per cent. That is the scale of it. However, as I have already pointed out, pay levels in Devon are far lower than in most of the rest of the country. Gross weekly pay in Devon is on average £360.20; and in the region, it is £408.50. The UK average is £444.30.

Most employment in Devon is low paid. The importance of manufacturing to Devon is that it pays higher wages for skilled and semi-skilled workers. With other sectors such as finance and construction, manufacturing is in many ways an economic driver to the economy of Devon and the south-west.

That economic driver has recently been facing difficulties. The biggest is the problem facing Nortel, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay; should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will speak on that at greater length. However, a number of businesses in my constituency have suffered job losses. Centrax manufactures components for jet engines. The company was set up by Richard Barr, who once worked with Whittle, the man who developed the original jet engine. Centrax is an efficient company; it does not go out and buy big plant but adapts it or manufactures its own.

The company diversified into making combined heat and power units; the unit is basically a jet engine used to convert gas into electricity. However, it has been struggling recently, partly as a result of worldwide problems in the aerospace industry but also as a result of the difficulties faced by the CHP sector. Those difficulties are a direct result of Government policy, and I shall return to that subject.

A number of food manufacturing companies are based in my constituency—at least, they were. We have slightly fewer now. Devon Desserts appeared to be a successful company.

It has deserted Devon.

Yes, it has. The company employed some 400 people, making sweets, trifles—I have just started a diet; it's agony—and lots of other things that I am no longer allowed to eat. Sadly, that company was not successful enough; for various reasons, it over-extended itself and went under, and another company, Uniq Foods, bought one of its two sites. We were full of hope. Uniq Foods started by employing only 50 people, but there was a promise that it would grow and expand. Sure enough, it was as good as its word; it did grow and expand. It grew and expanded—and it went. We heard a couple of weeks ago that it had decided to close its factory in Newton Abbot, with the loss of 120 jobs. Not only that, but it closed another factory at Evercreech, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The company is looking to sell off another factory and is rationalising its operations to work from one base. That was another bitter blow. We would have liked the company to have relocated to Newton Abbot, but that was not an option, because there was not sufficient land to expand.

About a week later, another company closed. It was called West Country Clothing and used to be known as Invertere. It was a well established business. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay may refer to the matter later, but before the debate he was telling me that as a schoolboy he had a friend who was part owner of the business and who was the son of the owner. My hon. Friend visited the factory not that long ago—

Thirty years ago.

Yes; it was a well established business. It marketed clothes abroad, particularly top of-the-range clothes, and made some fine products. Its complaint was about the lack of Government support for the export trade.

Another company called Voodoo Dolls and Headworx, which was next door to West Country Clothing, made surf wear. It has to be said that I am not familiar with those products; my surfing days, if I ever had any, are long past. However, it was a small business that appeared to be doing well and employed 25 people who have now been made redundant.

One of the bitterest blows to my constituency was the case of a company called Aircraft Materials. If I recall correctly, the company had been established since the 1940s. Again, it was a long-established business and it was doing well. There was no reason for it to move from the Brunel estate in Newton Abbot. The company moved because it was enticed to do so by a grant from the Welsh Assembly for the establishment of a new factory in Wales.

I asked the Secretary of State for Wales questions on the matter at the time of the move, and I did not get a particularly clear or good answer to explain why we were using taxpayers' money—from whatever part of the country—to relocate businesses from one part of the country to another. That is a barking mad policy, if I may use the expression. It seems a total waste of taxpayers' money and has worked much to the detriment of people in my constituency.

However, I do not intend to paint a picture of doom and gloom. There are a number of success stories, and I give credit to the Government for that. The south-west manufacturing advisory service has done a great deal of work to help encourage businesses to grow and flourish. I will give a couple of examples of successful businesses, because I do not want the gentlemen from the press to go away and say, "MP paints picture of doom and gloom for manufacturing". It is quite possible to prosper, but the Government could do a lot more to construct more ribs on the ship and make it more seaworthy.

One such successful company is Turton Quality Foods Ltd., which makes sausages. Having received advice from SWMAS, the marketing director, Charles Baughan, said in a letter to SWMAS:

"The MD and I are committed to developing team working. We have achieved a 15 per cent. improvement in productivity over the last 3 weeks (since your visit) with more to come … With the improvement we should be able to demonstrate what could have happened in order to gain more commitment for the bonus scheme."

I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman in his flow. For my benefit, as not one of the brightest sparks, will he tell me what the initials SWMAS stand for?

I referred to it just before; it is the south-west manufacturing advisory service, set up by the Department of Trade and Industry, which has a Devon and Cornwall action team. We do not often praise the DTI here, but I shall do so on this occasion on account of the work that it has undertaken. I shall also praise a business that started in Teignmouth—the House of Marble. It began as a small marble manufacturer, then moved to the old pottery site in Bovey Tracey. That is where Devon's manufacturing used to take place—it is where the clay was, and where Wemyss ware and some other extremely collectible pieces were made until pay disputes and strikes in the 1950s led to the closure of the factory and the ending, for a time, of china manufacture in Devon. It was cheaper to take clay to the goal than coal to the clay.

The business went to the old pottery and now makes clayware—as does a company down the road, Cardew Design—and a lot of glassware. It has expanded its marble business but also makes a lot of fine glass, and its workshop, where people can watch the glass being blown, provides a good tourist attraction. The product is sold in Harrods. New York stores and around the world—proof that me can make products in Devon and succeed. My purpose is not to spread doom and gloom but to ask the Government what can be done.

If we were to ask most of the businesses what they would like to see done to help manufacturing business in Devon, communications would top their lists. We have inadequate road and rail structures and too few airports. Consider the roads: the Kingskerswell bypass, which has been planned for more years than I can remember—well over 30—is still on the drawing board. It should have been built in the 1960s; it should certainly have been built in the 1970s; it could have been built in the 1980s, and probably would have been built in the 1990s—except that the then Conservative Government decided to deregulate the road and to leave it to the county council to find the funding for it. The Government were convinced that it would be built instantly thanks to the private finance initiative. That has not happened; Kingskerswell bypass is still on hold. The county council is trying to progress it—it has gone to planning—and the earliest that we can expect any road to be constructed is about 2010–11. That is seven years away. Somebody leaving school today will be in his mid-20s before we see an influx of extra businesses in Torquay if we rely purely on the road.

Businesses in the south-west are waiting for the dualling of the A303. Most of that has been slow to come, and the planning and design have been protracted. Can the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do about that road? I have concerns about the Blackdown hills, but they are surmountable; something can be done.

As for rail links, the Government will say that things are getting better. It is true that recent developments have included improved journey times. However, the rail journey from Paddington to Exeter is still quite a long one—two and a quarter hours, at best. The average journey is two and a half hours. The trouble is that beyond Exeter the journey slows down completely.

Another trouble is that there is only one line—the Paddington line. The Waterloo line is a stopping service, much liked by those who want cheap day tickets to London, as they can travel at low cost. However, it is not very good for business use. The upgrading of that line has been long promised, but is slow in coming. Perhaps the Minister will be able—if not in response to this debate, then later, or in writing—to tell us what proposals there are for upgrading the rail links.

I know that the Government are considering airports at the moment. I also know that the owners of Exeter airport have just made an application for a £20 million passenger terminal. There is a prospect of growth at Exeter airport. If Devon is to prosper—and, I would argue, if Cornwall is to prosper—Exeter is the airport that it must be logical to expand. It is the one that should be a hub for the south-west.

I know that hon. Members for Bristol constituencies would probably argue that we should expand the airport there, but there are capacity limits. There are no particular capacity limits for Exeter. There is an opportunity for us to grasp for the expansion of Exeter airport, which is supported by MPs across Devon, including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—[Interruption.] I am corrected from a sedentary position because I spoke of MPs across Devon. There are MPs for constituencies peripheral to Plymouth who may dissent. I want to get that correct, so that they do not have a go at me later. Members for most parts of Devon would support the idea of making Exeter a hub airport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay is particularly concerned about the exporting of jobs to China. His constituency has suffered particularly, and I am sure that he will want to discuss that matter, as do I. We all believe in fair and free trade; I hope that we all believe in the global economy and its benefit, by and large, to western Europe and Britain. However, the benefit is lost if competition is not fair. If we are exporting jobs, we should make sure that those concerned are trading on a fair and equitable basis with the UK.

A particularly poignant instance of what I mean is one that we have covered before—food manufacture. Perhaps I may briefly allude to the agriculture sector. Places such as Thailand can produce chickens more cheaply than we can in the UK. However, if we import chickens, we need to ensure that their production meets the same health and welfare standards as we impose on our farmers' production.

Similar principles should also apply to manufacturing industry. To take another great Devon business, carpet making, as an example, the export of all carpet jobs to factories using bonded child labour in India would be wrong, and would cause a great hue and cry. That aspect of matters needs to be examined, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will almost certainly discuss it.

On exporting and exporting jobs, there is a question mark over how much support the Government give to businesses trying to work abroad. I know that the DTI does a tremendous amount of work for the very large companies, but I must question how much assistance is given to small businesses, such as West Country Clothing, which employs only 40 people and is trying to export.

I referred to Centrax, which makes combined heat and power units in Newton Abbot and could be expanded if it were helped. It is an exceptionally high-quality business and does an exceptionally good job, but it is being strangled by Government bureaucracy and intransigence. It has not had an order for a CHP unit for four years, which is surprising as CHP is a win-win commodity. It is good for the environment, for the UK's security of supply and for companies. The 2000 target for CHP was 5,000 MW, which I am told is still to be reached. Indeed, the Government committed themselves to CHP and made a commitment to it in their 1997 manifesto. They said:

"We are committed to an energy policy designed to promote cleaner, more efficient use and production, including a new and strong drive to develop … combined heat and power."

That has not happened.

In 2002, CHP capacity fell. All the major CHP developers have now left the market. Only a year ago, the energy paper re-committed the Government to 10 GW of CHP power by 2010. That target was never going to be reached. Not that long ago, the Government accepted that they had failed, and reduced the target to 8.5 GW. Whether that target is reached will depend greatly on the development of the ConocoPhillips Immingham CHP plant on Humberside. The company has said that the plant will come on line, but not under the current market conditions.

Another successful business in my constituency is British Ceramic Tiles, which makes all sorts of tiles. It competes with Spain and other countries, and has a very large, modern and mechanised factory. It was considering CHP and at one point had bought a CHP unit, but did not use it because it was not cost-effective. One must ask why. It all comes down to NETA—the new electricity trading arrangements. I strongly argue that the DTI and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should stop fighting each other over who is in charge of energy policy. They need to work out a coherent policy that will put CHP back on track so that we can achieve the 10 GW target by 2010. Believe it or not, NETA will become BETTA—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. If NETA can get BETTA, I hope that it will be better for the CHP industry. We need to ensure that there is an obligation on the purchase of CHP because that is the one way to develop it.

There are a lot of good aspects to the south-west. In the 1950s, North Carolina had agricultural areas in decline. People used to visit mainly for tourism, but the triangle between Raleigh and the universities has since been transformed into a highly efficient and profitable manufacturing and industrial base. The Raleigh triangle has attracted companies such as IBM, a multinational that everyone knows.

There is a possibility that we could do something similar in the south-west. There is no reason why our universities should not work together or why they should not receive help and prompting from the Government to do so. There is no reason why Plymouth to Exeter should not be a magic line for industry or why a British company comparable to IBM should not be situated in the south-west. The south-west has the advantages of lifestyle and highly skilled people. The south-west has the capacity to develop.

I think that I am probably a little more "doom and gloom" than my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). I thought that NETA was a Bulgarian footballer, but I will keep that quiet or Chelsea will sign him.

The question for the south-west economy is what an earth has happened to tourism. Tourism has been for many years our main industry and it remains vital, but the tourism of my childhood, and probably that of other hon. Members, was different from that of today. The number of tourists visiting the south-west is not dissimilar to the number visiting in tourism's heyday, in the 1960s and 1970s. However, people are now more likely to visit the south-west for a short break or second holiday than to use up their entire two-week annual holiday.

Whereas in days gone by a small guesthouse could support a family for 52 weeks of the year, one would not now find a small guesthouse proprietor depending on their business for their livelihood. Such people now have to go out and work to make a living, because they do not make enough money from tourism. The ownership of businesses that derive benefits from tourism has also been transformed. National pub chains—Yates's and Wetherspoon—and even national hotel chains are now involved. We used to have a lot of self-catering visitors who would come into town and go to the local butcher, green grocer or baker. Nowadays they arrive and stock up for their stay in Sainsbury's or Safeway.

In all those examples the money spent leaves the town, rather than circulating there as it used to. For the same number of tourists, less of the money that tourism brings remains in the local economy. The Government need to recognise that crucial point, which is not peculiar to the south-west. Hon. Members representing constituencies in such towns as Blackpool, Scarborough, Brighton, Bournemouth and Eastbourne will all say the same thing about changes to the tourism industry. Although important. the industry is less important in terms of wealth in such constituencies.

In that context, there have been moves over the past 30 years, in all seaside resort economies and tourism areas, to diversify. The Government have been successful to some degree. Farm tourism, national museums, such as Tate St. Ives or the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, and big developments, such as the Eden project in Cornwall, are examples of successful investment in tourism and attractions. The main problem for local authorities has been to diversify their economies so that they are not over-dependent on tourism.

In the 1960s, thanks to regional selective assistance, Standard Telephones and Cables relocated from north Somerset to Paignton, which is in my constituency. For the past 30 years, there have always been between 600 and 1,000 people employed on that site—originally in the capacitor industry and, more recently, in fibre electronics. It has been taken over by ITT Industries and Nortel Networks, and is now part of Bookham Technology. When it was part of Nortel, between 1999 and 2001, the number of employees on the site rose to 5,200. That caused some problems for the tourism industry because the existence of those all-year-round, reasonably paid manufacturing jobs meant that, for the first time, there was a labour market shortage in tourism in winter, which was unheard of in the south-west.

As we know, the market for optoelectronic products caught a cold and Nortel racked up massive debts and made many thousands of people around the world redundant, including up to 4,000 in my constituency. That was a devastating blow. Constituents often ask me, "Why is it that you hear about Corus, the steelmakers in Wales, having 1,000 redundancies—t is top of the national news—but we can lose nearly 4,000 manufacturing jobs and it hardly registers anywhere?" There is a problem with getting people at the centre of government and the media to focus on the real problems, particultarly job losses, in the far south-west and in the Torbay and south Devon area.

When there are jobs losses of that scale, what else can people do? We have some light manufacturing, food processing, transport and communications, but they are on a small scale. The size of the problem is demonstrated when one considers the labour market review for the south-west region, which shows that in all the economic areas designated the Government in terms of travel to work, the Torbay area has the highest numbers of economically inactive people of working age, and of people in part-time work. That has become the pattern: people are holding down more than one part-time job or, if they are in full-time employment, there are fewer full-time jobs than in other areas.

The implication of that is that people's incomes tend to be lower. In studies of income per household, Torbay is at the bottom the list for England. We think of Cornwall as being, the low-wage economy, but the objective 1 projects and investment there have lifted their incomes. It is now south Devon, particularly Torbay, that has the lowest wage economy in the country, yet those wages are not low enough to keep another 600 manufacturing jobs from being transferred to China. We have a weak economic base, and we need to discuss how we can build on that.

According to the business community, throughout the south-west there is an exodus of jobs to foreign parts—mainly to China, but to India as well. Some of those jobs are technical, high-tech, skilled jobs. Our skills base is obviously not to blame. The relevant factor must be the amount of money, and other costs. Perhaps the biggest factor of all is something to which the business community has been drawing attention for more than 30 year;—the poor transport system. That affects existing businesses and curbs inward investment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge mentioned the infamous Kingskerswell bypass. There have been plans since the 1950s to bypass the village of Kingskerswell. The latest development is that the county council is working up a plan. This highlights something that is a problem for Torbay, although I do not mean any critic ism of Devon county council.

The road is nearly all within Devon county council's area of responsibility. Less than a tenth of the road length is within the Torbay unitary authority area. However, the beneficiary of the road is Torbay, not Devon. For Devon to put the scheme at the top of its list is politically quite remarkable. Often in the past the problem has been the Devon attitude that "that is a Torbay problem", when solving it would really benefit both Devon and Torbay. It will be Torbay that receives a benefit in inward investment, but, as to the environment, the people of Kingskerswell will be the beneficiaries.

I agree, in the context of the manufacturing base, that industry in Torquay will benefit, but I want to correct my hon. Friend. There is a benefit to Kingskerswell from the bypass, but also many businesses in Torquay and Torbay employ people from my constituency. When Nortel closed, there were people in Teignmouth and as far along as the edge of Exeter who lost their jobs. The impact is not narrow, but is felt across the whole of south Devon.

My hon. Friend is obviously correct. Another interesting point can be made about the Nortel redundancies, concerning the impact on the unemployment rate. Ministers have told me, "We know that you have lost all those jobs. but look at the unemployment rate; unemployment in your constituency has hardly increased it all." What has actually happened is that people have found jobs outside the area, putting futher pressure on the road.

Traffic flows are out in the morning and back into Torbay in the evening. People have taken jobs further away, in Exeter—which is booming, thankfully—if they can get there. The only way, effectively, to get there is by car, because the rail links are not adequate. Some people go further afield. That is not very good as a matter of environmental sustainability.

Another aspect of the matter is that people who previously had full-time jobs are now finding part-time jobs, or short-time, seasonal contract work more in keeping with the traditional seaside economy that we desperately want to move away from. Of course, that work is lower paid. Some people who left a window frame manufacturer in the area to work at Nortel, when it recruited, were offered their jobs back when Nortel made them redundant, at a lower wage and with less in the way of benefits. Some people exploited the situation and the people who work in the area—my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

Transport links are crucial. We have been waiting so long for the bypass that people wonder whether it will ever be built. Two things are happening: jobs are being exported from my constituency, because of the bypass issue, and there is a barrier to inward investment and to tourists. The sooner the matter can be settled—the sooner that the Government grasp the nettle, tell us, "Yes, this is a special case and you really need to get this done", and help to push it through, getting the bureaucracy out of the way so that work can begin the better.

Another issue on which I hope the Government can respond positively is the objective 2 programme. They have talked about local areas having more flexibility to influence the programme, and the recently set up Torbay development agency is keen for there to be more local flexibility so that the money that is available can be used to deal with what has become a fairly dire economic situation in south Devon.

There is another aspect to the issue, however, because the local development agency and the other bodies that are trying to access Government and European grants need technical assistance. That is true across the board. Compared with other parts of the south-west, we receive nothing like a fair share of national lottery funds. Often, that is down to knowledge—the technical ability to know that a fund is available and how to put together an appropriate bid. That is true of the local council and probably of the technical development agency. I say that not to criticise them but simply to suggest that the Government could help to even up the competition by giving us extra help to help ourselves.

My conclusion is that people view south Devon as a bit of a cream tea economy, but that is not true. For a while, it was the leading optoelectronics centre in Europe, and the products that were being made in my constituency helped to roll out the internet and broadband around the world. Indeed, 70 per cent. of all internet traffic in North America is carried along products that were made in my constituency. Clearly, we have technical ability and skills of the very highest, most contemporary level, but it is low wages that have the greatest impact on my constituents. Unless we have many firms such as Nortel competing in the labour market, wages will remain among the lowest in the country, and we are not prepared to put up with that.

People should invest in south Devon. It has one of the most beautiful environments in the world, and Torbay has the world's most beautiful harbour. We have the moorland of Dartmoor. We also have the South Hams, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is forever telling us that his constituency has been described as the most beautiful in England. I am sure that he is right. I am also sure that my constituency is the second most beautiful and that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge has the third most beautiful. South Devon has the most beautiful, diverse environment. We have a fantastic skills base, and that is reflected in past investment. We also have quality of life, but creams teas and nice views do not make up for high rents, high house prices, high council taxes, poor public services, almost non-existent transport links and the fact that, because of our lower incomes, we must count our pennies before buying the goods and services that everybody else enjoys. The single biggest issue before us is how to lift our incomes. To do that, we must have inward investment, but we cannot get it without better transport links. So, I say to the Government: come on and help us out.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on taking the opportunity to air such an important issue. I reinforce many of the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) have made.

It is clear that the manufacturing sector has had a much more difficult few years than the economy as a whole. In fact the strong overall performance of the United Kingdom economy has masked the difficulties experienced by the manufacturing sector. That is even more true in the remoter parts of the south-west. Our manufacturing sector tends to include a relatively large number of small operators, all of whom are struggling with the difficulty of being a long way from their natural market; and they have to contend with many of the communication difficulties that have already been referred to.

As a good number of manufacturers in Devon and Cornwall supply niche markets, often in Europe, they have had to struggle with the uncompetitive exchange rate in recent years. However, from last week's election results one would not think that that was necessarily widely understood in the south-west.

The point has to be made that manufacturing is of particular importance in Devon. The perception of our economy is that it is based on tourism and agriculture—the cream tea economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay called it. There is a lot of truth in that, but the existence of a manufacturing sector—a vibrant, successful and healthy sector at that—is an essential ingredient in Devon's economy. When it begins to suffer, as it has in recent years, it will not be long before it has a profound effect on the economy as a whole.

We have had an historic dependency on agriculture and tourism, both of which are now in a period of rapid change. The changes that are coming about in the way in which agriculture is supported will, broadly speaking, be an improvement on existing arrangements; nevertheless, one can see that in a relatively short number of years the volume of economic activity is likely significantly to decline.

The changes in the tourism industry were well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. He was right in what he said. It is certainly true that a good number of people continue to come to Devon, but the time for which they stay and the amount of money that they spend is not what it was in previous decades.

If we are not to become a huge dormitory—somewhere for people to retire, which is pushing up our house prices—it is essential that we have a hotbed of viable economic activity capable of sustaining our local economy, and of sustaining proper communities with a good spread of ages and generations.

Devon wages rates are extraordinarily low, but visitors to the county do not understand it. With Cornwall making great strides, it will not be long before wages in Devon are the lowest in the country. The Government increasingly take the view that more local government expenditure should be raised locally. In principle, I do not have a problem with that, but the fact that we are such a poor area means that our local tax base is thin, and that will create more problems. It is essential that we do whatever we can to underpin the manufacturing that we have, and to try to bring more into the area.

Both my hon. Friends referred to the problems in their constituencies in south Devon. My constituency is in north Devon, and it has many of the same problems—but they are slightly worse, because we are that bit further off the beaten track. In the past two or three years, there has been a string of closures and redundancies in the manufacturing sector in north Devon. Thomson IBL, an American-owned engineering company, closed down and left. Selkirk, another company in a niche market, also closed down. It produces industrial chimney flues, many of which are sold to Germany and Spain. Thankfully, another company stepped in and rescued some of the operation. Clarks Shoes is an example of jobs going to south-east Asia, with whose wage levels we cannot compete.

North Devon has had a very successful pharmaceutical industry. Alpharma, previously Cox Pharmaceuticals, is the largest generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in the country. Wrafton Laboratories is one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers. In the past couple of weeks,it has had a large number of layoffs. That is before one even mentions the difficulties faced by the Appledore shipyard, which is based in Torridge in a west Devon constituency but provides employment for people throughout the north of the county and into north Cornwall.

Leaderflush Shapland has particular difficulties. When I was elected 10 or 12 years ago, it was the largest employer in north Devon. It employed about 800 people and produced high quality, heavy-duty doors for use in public buildings, hospitals, schools and other such buildings. Now, only about 240 jobs are left. Its parent company, which is based in Nottingham, is committed to keeping those jobs in north Devon but has a serious financial decision to take. It has a valuable site in the middle of Barnstable and wants to move to a new small site on the outskirts. What happens to the site that it owns is crucial to the future of Barnstaple and north Devon. The major planning application, which would facilitate the whole project, keep 240 jobs in Barnstaple and provide most of the 500 badly needed new homes, has been sitting on the desk of the Deputy Prime Minister for six months awaiting a decision, despite the fact that such applications are supposed to be decided in three months.

It is a very regrettable feature of our British political system that such decisions must go to Whitehall at all. It would be far better for these things to be decided more locally. I implore the Minister to ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to decide this major planning issue quickly, whatever the decision may be. If it does not, we will certainly lose those jobs, and that crucial site will probably be disposed of to the highest bidder, with no guarantee as to what a new buyer might want to do with it.

Any manufacturing operations in north Devon tend outpost of larger manufacturing the furthest away from base camp and the most vulnerable when a parent company faces pressures and has to consider where to make cuts and closure. We do our best to try to bring in new companies. We can offer a good quality of life. In recent decades, however, we have not had anything like the sorts of grants of the 1960s to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay referred with which to lever them in. Almost all the manufacturing companies in north area in the late 1960s with the benefit of regionals development grants. There have been barely any significant imports of companies and jobs since.

We must continue the quest to bring in new companies. We know that we will not bring in vast manufactures, but we can reasonably hope to bring in small niche-market players, particularly in the high-tech sector. We can try to add value to the food products that we already produce locally. In passing, I might say that if the Government are serious about moving civil service jobs out of London, I hope that they will not simply plant them in large regional towns, but will realise the good that could be achieved if they were to scratch a little further and consider places such as north Devon.

Give us the Treasury.

That is an interesting idea.

In Princetown.

Yes, indeed.

I want to consider a few aspects of Government policy. In all honesty, I do not expect the Government to come up with lavish grant aid so that we can try to lever companies in. I do not know whether they will continue to sustain the relatively modest gram aid that they make available at the moment. However, they could certainly do a lot—on transport links, for example.

The A30 and A303 link has been debated and deliberated on for decades, and it is ludicrous that we have not reached a resolution. By the time that north Devon's link road, opened in the late 1980s, was built, it had scandalously been watered down to a single-track road instead of a dual carriageway. It has not fulfilled its potential.

Rail links are pretty dodgy. Even when improvements to First Great Western rail links are planned, they always seem to feature the route from London to Bristol and on into Wales, and do not address in any serious way the connections to Devon and Cornwall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to air links. Again, there has been a great deal of muddle and confusion. Plymouth airport cannot expand in any meaningful way. The only rational ind sensible option for the south-west is to expand Exeter airport.

In my view, we have also failed to make full use of the potential that sea links could bring. There is potential around the south-west coast for small, wharf-style developments to bring in and take out a great deal more raw material and products than we do at present.

I regret having to stand in the national Parliament and raise relatively parochial issues. Such matters ought to be able to be resolved far more locally. However, until we have a meaningful devolution of power and resources in this country, we have no choice other than to come to this House to raise such issues.

Last weekend, I was talking to a small business man in my constituency who has been operating for more than a decade. In anguish, he described to me the pain and agony that he has experienced in the past couple of years while trying to pursue modest sums of grant aid. His conclusion is that he wishes that he had never got involved in the first place. The time that he has wasted, the hoops that he has had to jump through, the sheer bureaucracy and red tape of it all has depressed him and has wasted time that he could have spent on his business.

That man came to ask me to try to convince the Government that rather than get rid of the red tape, which I do not think he imagined to be possible, they should simply abolish the whole damn thing. He honestly thought that business would be better served if, rather than putting Government money into grants that have to be governed by all these excessive checks for reasons of probity, that money was spent on services such as Business Link and business support services. He found such services, by contrast, to be of the highest value. Business Link's timely advice and its signposting of people who could help him was worth much more than the grants would have been had he succeeded. Such schemes might be a better use of Government funds.

When the Government introduced the Regional Development Agencies Bill, I was the party spokesman responsible. I led my colleagues through the Lobby, in favour of regional development agencies, but I did so having expressed my fears that the RDAs might not be able to fulfil their potential. It seemed that they were being introduced in a half-hearted manner and with pitifully inadequate resources. Five or six years on, I am afraid that that seems to be the case. The RDAs are charged, as one of their key objectives, with trying to end regional disparities. However, the RDA for the south-west, a poor and remote area, has, I am told, one sixth of the budget of the RDA for the north-east, which also has to deal with some serious problems. RDAs do not have enough clout or resources, and, even in terms of the amounts that they are given, there are disparities between one area and another.

My overall message to the Government is that we are not here with a begging bowl expecting lavish handouts. However, the Government need to take serious note of the far south-west's difficulties and better target their resources and efforts. They need to listen to the business community of Devon and Cornwall about how best to help. I fear that if we do not act relatively fast, the opportunities offered by objective 1 in Cornwall and objective 2 in Devon may be lost. Looking at the shape of developments in the European Union, I do not think that we shall get those opportunities again. It is therefore essential that we get things right now and take advantage of that resource while we can.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on obtaining this debate. I start by offering hon. Members, the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has been unavoidably detained.

I feel rather like the Minister who, in the apocryphal story, turned over the second sheet of the speech that he or she was about to deliver and found that the civil servant, who had been less than pleased with the Minister, had written, "You're on your own now, mate." My sudden promotion to the Opposition Front Bench in a speaking role has allowed me at least not to come with a pre-prepared script. Instead, I can listen to what hon. Members have to say, which I have found extremely interesting. However, I must disappoint those in the Chamber, because, although I have been given incredible power to change my party's policy by speaking out, I shall avoid that and keep to the debate.

Before I came to the House or was even actively involved in politics, I was the director of a retail outlet employing about 35 people. I became involved when I went to my then Member of Parliament, who would later be my predecessor, to complain that the Government were not doing enough for high streets and the retail industry. He suggested that it would be better to get on the inside than carp from the outside. I realised that many of the problems in manufacturing or in retail are not, of course, the fault of the Government. I therefore sympathise with the Minister because, although she must reply to this debate, there are no easy solutions, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) pointed out.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge said that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) had described job losses in the region as being rather like the sinking of the Titanic. I am afraid that the problems with manufacturing in Devon that we have heard about are the tip of an iceberg. What holds in Devon could be true in many other areas, although there may be different factors and different conditions. That is why I was particularly interested to hear about Devon. I have not been to that part of the world for some time—not since my twitching days—and hearing all the names rekindled my desire to visit it again Like the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I think that cream teas are out these days.

Of course there are problems. The hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned small businesses. I still have a strong connection with my family retail business so I understand acutely the problems that they face. Everybody talks about over-regulation and red tape. It is true that Governments, regardless of complexion, are not that adept at removing them. Sometimes it seems that our job is to sit here and make regulations. It would be nice to say for a change, "There is nothing to do for a week or two; no more regulations. Go home and do some useful stuff in your constituency," but the endless roll of statutory instruments continues.

I sympathise a great deal with hon. Members from Devon when they talk about the perception of their region. Obviously, tourism goes hand in hand with the thought of Devon; it is a pleasant place to visit. However, even tourism echoes some of the problems experienced by manufacturing—because of its costs, it is not necessarily competitive with what might be found elsewhere. As a father with a young family, I know that it is often cheaper to go abroad, or so it seems. However, there are many advantages of taking a holiday in the UK and I would certainly advocate it. Similarly, I have seen manufacturers whom I have known for many years obliged to move out of the country because of costs.

That is particularly worrying for hon. Members in Devon, where there is already a low-pay economy—the workers in the agricultural sector, the retail sector and tourism are not well paid. I can understand that manufacture is very important. However, the very fact that the higher paid jobs are in that sector, so that elsewhere in the global economy its costs might be seen to be high, has contributed to the exodus abroad. Just as sad is the closure of businesses that have been there for a long time.

I can give a small advertisement for some of the products that are produced in Devon. Over the years, I have sold many of them, not least ceramics and carpets, and I still do. Anybody looking at carpets would be well advised to look at the fine products that are produced all over the UK, particularly in the west country.

I was interested to hear the argument about airports and air transport. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I feel that it is best not to get involved in such matters without knowing a great deal about them. It is rather irritating when people lecture me about Heathrow, which is virtually in my back garden. Therefore, I can understand the points of view that have been expressed. It seems that Exeter is strongly favoured. I shall take a greater interest in it, and try not to be so parochial—if one can say that of a concern about Heathrow and the London airports.

Many of the situations that we have heard about, even down to lottery grants, are echoed in west London, or Middlesex as I prefer to say on a day like today, having left it this morning in the sunshine. In each area, people sometimes seem unable come up with the schemes that they want. Perhaps there is a role, somewhere, for someone to help with suggestions, as the big grants seem to be the ones that a pushed forward. My constituency suffers because we come under London. When all the grants seemed to go to London, people said, "You're really well off," but it is not really like that.

Those changes in manufacturing are echoed in tourism and agriculture. One problem facing the country is that we have to adapt, but that is not easy. My company was founded 110 years ago. In the early days, we were at the forefront of technology, being the first store in Uxbridge to install electricity, but things have changed a bit since then, and we are rather regarded as the Grace Bros. of the area now.

This important debate has increased my knowledge of the area and of the problems it faces. However, that is enough from me—I shall now sit down, as the Minister deserves as much time as possible.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing this important debate, which has been constructive and well informed. I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to his well deserved place on the Opposition Front Bench.

I have listened carefully to hon. Members, particularly to their concerns about and aspirations for the future of manufacturing in Devon, both of which I share. I want to use the time available to respond to some of those points, and to spell out what the Government are doing to deal with some of those issues, both through their manufacturing strategy and with practical action on the ground locally.

I agree with hon. Members about the importance of manufacturing and about its significance, not only for Devon, but for the UK economy as a whole. It is an important bedrock of our economy, as it provides a sixth of our GDP, is vital for our trading position—being responsible for two thirds of our exports—and provides around 3.5 million jobs, and millions more through the supply chain. As hon. Members have said, those are often high-quality, highly paid jobs, which are of particular importance in an area of low pay. The industry is also responsible for 75 per cent. of all business research and development, and is a key generator of productivity and innovation in the wider economy through the introduction of new products and processes. The Government are clear that if we are to continue as a leading economy, we must have a world-class manufacturing sector.

As hon. Members have observed, manufacturing has been through some tough times, many of which are due to global pressures, which are faced even by the relatively small, niche manufacturers that have been mentioned. We have been through a period of weak global demand, during which out put was flat, too many manufacturing firms closed and too many workers lost their jobs. On top of that we have increasing competition from lower-wage economies in the far east and eastern Europe.

Of course, those difficulties are not unique to the UK, and certainly not to Devon: our main competitors in the US, Germany and France face similar challenges. However, there is some reason for optimism, as business surveys in the UK show positive signs of improved confidence. The most recent CBI business survey shows manufacturing in a more positive light, with output expected to rise over the next three months. Just last week, the Office for National Statistics published figures showing a 0.9 per cent. increase in April on manufacturing output in March. That is the highest output since October 2003, and since May 2002 before that.

However, there are considerable challenges. Hon. Members have taken an admirably positive approach to the future of manufacturing, but they have also outlined issues relevant to job losses in their constituencies.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in particular raised the issue of the Bookham job losses. I very much regret those and recognise what a blow they were, when it seemed, as the hon. Gentleman explained, that Paignton might experience a period of stability after Bookham bought the optoelectronics business from Nortel at the end of 2002. The downturn in the telecoms market is continuing to cause difficulties for telecoms equipment manufacturer, across the world. Bookham is clearly not immune to hose problems.

We understand that Bookham is keen to retain key research and development and specialised pilot production capability at Paignton. Although that will employ fewer people, the jobs will be at the high skills, high technology end, about which I want to talk more in a moment. Also, while the job losses are regrettable, their phasing over the next 12 to 15 months provides time for Jobcentre Plus to help with finding alternative employment.

In all significant cases of job losses, all the local agencies have worked, and will work, together to give the affected employees all the help that they need to find alternative jobs. Large-scale redundancy status, which Bookham has, provides immediate access to all Jobcentre Plus, job search and training programmes, supported by additional rapid resp ruse funding, where that is needed.

It is also worth pointing out that, notwithstanding hon. Members' concerns about job losses and pay levels in Devon, since 1997 there are 6.8 per cent. more people in work in Devon. That is above the England average. Also, as hon. Members have recognised, there are although this does not compensate for the scale of the job losses—many manufacturing success stories. It is sometimes important for us, while recognising the challenges faced by our manufacturing industry, to acknowledge the high quality of much UK manufacturing.

Examples of such success stories include SIFAM Fibre Optics in Torquay—a management buy-out that employs 90 people and expects to take on up to 20 more because of its success. The company has won an international contract to supply components for an underwater link between France and Egypt, and another one to India. It has been supported by a DTI investment of £250,000 in its part of a consortium project examining the use of fibre optics in an aircraft.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, but the hon. Gentleman must not then complain if I do not cover all the points that he raised.

The Minister is correct to highlight the case of SIFAM. However, SIFAM had a mass redundancy exercise at the same time as Nortel. There are big problems affecting former employees and their pension rights. The business is good and growing, and we hope that it will employ more people. However, the issue remains the same: overall, incomes are going down even if people are working more hours.

That is why we need to focus on what we must to do provide the right environment for high value, high skill manufacturing, so that we can introduce new products and processes, create new markets and boost prosperity. That is why, two years ago, the Government's manufacturing strategy was produced, based on a new partnership with trade unions, businesses, other stakeholders, trade associations and regional development agencies. The focus is on the key challenges and practical steps for dealing with them.

It was clear to all involved in the strategy development that the way to ensure success was not to cut wages and compete on cost, but to compete on quality by investing in skills, innovation and the latest practices to achieve higher value products and faster and improved production processes. We have been making progress in all the priority areas set out in the strategy, and we will publish a report next month on what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

One of the practical steps mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge was the setting up of the Manufacturing Advisory Service. I can tell the hon. Member for Uxbridge that MAS provides practical hands-on help and advice to manufacturing and engineering companies throughout the country. In the south-west, the local office has received almost 1,500 inquiries, and has added value of more than £8 million a year to the region's economy. In Devon, it has contacted more than 200 manufacturing businesses, and 60 of them have benefited from MAS advice. Another 25 have taken part in best practice implementation projects, with an annual cost saving of £104,000 per company. Those are very practical results.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge mentioned Turton Quality Foods. I could mention Algram, a plastics engineering firm based in Plymouth that has benefited from a dramatic reduction in machine set-up times, including a 66 per cent. reduction in change-over times on injection moulding machines. That practical, hands-on support for manufacturers is widely welcomed. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of support for smaller companies in exporting. I recommend him to advise those companies to make full use of the range of UK trade and investment services, which can be accessed through international trade advisers at their business link.

I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) about the business person who likes the local Business Link. That certainly resonates with national surveys, which show an increase in national satisfaction. The difficulty of accessing business support has been recognised by the Government. We have rationalised it nationally, and about 150 different business support products have been cut to a core of nine in order to overcome some of the difficulties outlined by the hon. Gentleman.

We have strengthened the role of regional development agencies. The hon. Member for North Devon was a little sceptical, but we have increased funding for the South West of England Regional Development Agency from £43 million in 1999–2000 to £108 million in this financial year; and we have given the RDAs more flexibility on how they spend it. That is why the South West RDA is able to help tackle the causes of manufacturing vulnerability in that area.

Several hon. Members raised the question of access to markets and communication. It is an important regional factor. The RDA is supporting investment at Exeter and Plymouth airports as part of the regional air transport strategy, in order to maintain and improve air services to the far south-west.

I also recognise the long-standing local support for a bypass at Kingskerswell, to improve access to Torbay. I think that hon. Members accept that a proposal for a bypass is a matter for the local authorities—in this case, for Devon county council and Torbay council. My colleagues in the Department for Transport look forward to receiving detailed proposals, as part of the local transport plan, for major scheme funding. Under the auspices of the local transport plan, considerable investment is being made in such schemes.

The RDA is also supporting investment in increased incubation and innovation activity to enhance and grow the advanced manufacturing base, which is important for developing an innovative, high-skills approach to manufacturing. Examples include the commitment to invest about £5 million in an expanded and improved innovation centre at Exeter university, innovation support services to businesses across the sub-region, and enhancing incubation space at Caddsdown industrial estate in Bideford The RDA is also considering a proposal from the Torbay development agency for a £4.3 million incubation and managed workspace development, some of which would be co-located with a new campus for South Devon college and adjacent to the Bookham Technology site and other employment land under development.

We have had a good debate. I hope that I have been able to outline some of the practical support being provided by the Government.

Order. We must now turn our attention to the food industry in west Wiltshire.

It is probably timely that this debate should follow one about the manufacturing industry in Devon. In commenting on the food industry in west Wiltshire, I shall also deal with the manufacturing base in the south-west.

The number of jobs in the food and beverage manufacturing sector has shrunk significantly since 1997. Between 1997 and 2002, 35,000 jobs were lost in the UK and more than 7,000 were lost in the south-west. Those losses are not necessarily reflected in Government employment figures, which show a robust employment market that is largely driven by jobs in the public sector. However, we should be worried about our shrinking manufacturing base, and that is particularly true of the south-west, with its heavy reliance on food production and processing.

I want to discuss three recent examples of food industry closures and job losses in my area. They are in slightly different sub-sectors, but they exemplify the general problems faced by many people in the sector in my area. The first example is the Nestlé plant at Staverton, which. we have been told, is relocating to France. The second is Westbury Dairies, which is an industry leader, with the most up-to-date processing plant in Europe. The firm faced the threat of closure last year when its owners went into receivership, but it was successfully redeveloped by a consortium of co-operatives and is now helping to stabilise the dairy producing industry nationwide. I believe that it is a success story.

The third example is the Pork Farm Bowyers factory in Trowbridge, which produces high-quality Melton Mowbray pies for retailers and high-street supermarket names. In this case, the problem is the European Union's protected food names scheme, which was designed to protect Europe's rich heritage of specialty foods, but which is in danger of being manipulated to divide commercial markets and force arbitrary rules on producers. There are severe problems with the scheme, and I hope that Ministers will use the Pork Farm Bowyers example and others in the it negotiations with Europe to secure an amendment to it. Otherwise, it is likely to damage the UK's competitiveness, fragment the internal market, offer customers poor value and—this may well happen in my are—damage jobs.

The closure of Nestlé's Staverton plant, which is to wind up production later this year, is a blow not only to the 150 workers who will have to move elsewhere but to the whole dairy industry. As the Transport and General Workers Union noted, the plant was viable and increasingly profitable. It produced value-added products, which are essential if the troubled dairy sector is to diversify and flourish.

The closure will exacerbate the UK's balance of trade deficit in the dairy sector, although it is extraordinary that this country should have a deficit in that sector. We export primary products of processed milk, but we import value-added products, such as cheese, yoghurts and chilled desserts. The market for value-added products is expanding, and they are becoming increasingly important to consumers as people globally become wealthier.

The relocation of the Nestlé plant to France will mean that its demand for up to 1 million litres of fresh cream, which was met by the UK dairy industry, will now be met by French farmers. The impact on local dairy farmers will be significant, but it will, thankfully, be offset by the restructuring of local dairy processing, which will reduce some of the worst effects of this and similar closures. That will allow farmers to negotiate a better price for their output.

Co-operatives are benefiting the dairy industry throughout the UK, which the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently recognised in its report on milk pricing in the UK. A good illustration of that is the successful acquisition of Westbury Dairies by a consortium of co-operatives, after United Milk, its original owner, went into receivership last year. That is an example of cooperatives working together to secure the future of a large concern, while assisting the community of producers as a whole. The factory at Westbury is one of the most up-to-date milk processing plants in Europe, with the ability to handle huge volumes of milk efficiently and profitably. In the hands of the three cooperatives, the plant has performed on budget for its first six months of trading and is achieving the original goal of stabilising the market and benefiting the hundreds of dairy farmers who are members of those cooperatives.

Ministers need to find ways to facilitate such structural innovation. The dairy industry is currently on a knife edge, and further regulation puts it at severe risk. The impetus for change and modernisation must, of course, come from the industry itself. The sector has recognised that and is generating changes by itself, but the general environment is heavily influenced by the Government, who must encourage diversification and processes that add value. It is noteworthy that the Department of Trade and Industry budget has increased significantly on most things, except innovation, on which spending has remained about what it was in 1998. I make no comment about the DTI's general spend, but it is interesting to note that, within that general spend, the spend on innovation has stagnated. That is a particular pity in the dairy sector.

The recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on milk pricing was a good analysis of the state of the dairy industry and the problems of the past. The report more or less echoed what farmers and industry groups have said for some time, but it was short on solid recommendations for the future. It highlighted the fact that farmers are not told why the price that we pay for our milk is not seen in the farm-gate price. Cooperatives can help to overcome that lack of transparency, but the Government also have a part to play, by ensuring that initiatives such as the code of conduct agreement between supermarkets and producers are properly observed.

It is all very well to have land stewardship, and I am sure that the Minister is keen to encourage it as an alternative means of using the land and ensuring that farmers can support their businesses. However, as the National Farmers Union in my constituency recently put it to me, farmers are not park keepers. Farmers are principally in the business of producing food. We all want British farmers to make a profit from food production. The Government's job is to help them to do so, by getting a fair deal for British agriculture in the EU and the World Trade Organisation, encouraging beneficial changes in the home market, managing regulation more efficiently and having effective disease control strategies. The record to date, however, is somewhat mixed.

Pork pies are produced in large numbers in Trowbridge, in my constituency. However, the Pork Farm Bowyers factory, which employs 700 people and has for decades been making high-quality meat and pastry products, including the celebrated Trowbridge Melton Mowbray pork pie, is under threat. The threat to the continued production of that excellent product emanates from the EU protected food names scheme, which was designed to safeguard speciality products from competition from cheap alternatives that are not governed by strict quality control measures. We would all say that that was a good thing. Consumers need to know that what they are buying under the guise of a quality mark, such as Melton Mowbray pork pies, is a good product. The irony is that the EU protected food name scheme does not necessarily deliver such protection. One of its headings is a geographical indicator that would allow products to be made pretty much in any way, provided that they were made within a certain radius of, in this case, the borough of Melton Mowbray. That does seem rather strange. Given the choice, most consumers prefer to know that a traditional product has been made in a traditional way rather than that it has been made within a certain radius of the place with which its name is associated.

There are many examples of protected names: Newcastle brown ale, Dorset blue cheese, Whitstable oysters and Shetland lamb. The list goes on and on. The scheme offers different degrees of protection for different products. It bases protection sometimes on the area of origin and sometimes on detailing the production process that needs to be met for the product to be recognised. I understand that the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association has decided that it needs the protection that the EU protected food name scheme gives to products described as Melton Mowbray pork pies. Its application has the endorsement of no less a figure than Mr. Jamie Oliver.

The application for Melton Mowbray to be a protected name for a type of pie indicates a new phase in the scheme. We are talking no longer about primary products but about recipe-based products. The new applications are not for basic foodstuffs that are sourced and processed in a defined region but for products that are heavily processed and heavily value-added. This is a new phase in the evolution of the use of the scheme. There would clearly be a case for protection if the quality and processes used in these products were specified with an eye to protecting artisans, in the borough of Melton Mowbray, for example. I am perfectly happy to accept that that was the intention of Ministers when they considered this application. In the Melton Mowbray case, however, it seems that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may have been misled or may have mishandled the application by encouraging one part of the industry to advance its own proposals. The result is an application that may exclude other manufacturers unfairly.

It is worth pointing out that the chief beneficiary in this case will be one of the major competitors of Bowyers, the parent organisation of which is Northern Foods. That competitor produces the vast majority of pork pies in the area designated by the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association. The pies are produced on an industrial scale and not as an artisan-based baking industry. The result would be anti-competitive and the 700 jobs in my constituency would be threatened. People who buy Melton Mowbray pork pies tend to be the large high-street retailers, who will look for the Melton Mowbray descriptor because that is what the consumer wants. Clearly, if the application is accepted, consumers will look to the competitor of the firm based in my constituency to provide this product. It will not be the small producer, which the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association would like Ministers to believe is at the forefront of its thoughts, that will benefit, but the large industrial-scale manufacturer, which is a direct competitor of Bowyers in my constituency.

I support the idea of protecting producers of specialised foodstuffs against producers of inferior and cheaper products who use a name the reputation of which has been built up through centuries of refining techniques and using the best quality ingredients. However, the problem with the EU food name scheme is where it will all end. We already have applications from the makers of Cornish pasties and other food types that have a greater or lesser connection to a particular area. It will be a pity if small manufacturers such as bakers, restaurants and butchers cannot make their products in a traditional way merely because they do not happen to be within a stone's throw of, say, Melton Mowbray or the county of Cornwall. Most consumers will want to know that the product that they are buying is what they generally understand to be a Cornish pasty or a Melton Mowbray pork pie. That does not have a great deal to do with precisely where it was produced, but more with how it was produced and the ingredients used.

Lord Haskins, of course, takes a particular view. He has advised the Government on rural issues and has also been closely associated with Northern Foods, the parent company of Pork Farm Bowyers. However, I suppose that he can be relied on to be a critical friend of the Government. I have no doubt that the Minister will have read The Observer on 23 May, where Lord Haskins described the decision-making process of his friends in Government as a "complete cock-up". I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind, as well as the further thoughts of Lord Haskins, who went on to say that the Government

"really haven't thought this through. What will be next? Bakewell tarts, Cornish pasties or Cumberland sausages … These products have been made for generations outside their geographical area. There is no reason to change that now."

That puts it in a nutshell. The EU protected food name scheme may be well intentioned, but it is doubtful whether it is of great benefit to our domestic food production industry. It looks as though it may fragment the market, introduce anti-competitive practice, act against the interests of consumers and destroy jobs, not least in my constituency

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on securing the debate and on the informed way in which he has introduced the subject.

When it comes to employment in rural areas, we have seen a greater increase in employment—a greater fall in unemployment—in rural areas. We have seen a fall in employment in some specific sectors, but improvements in the employment situation in rural areas have been good since 1997 and are running ahead of those in urban areas. Manufacturing now provides a greater proportion of employment in rural seas than in urban areas. As well as referring to sectors In general, the hon. Gentleman referred to some specific issues that the industry ought to deal with, as he rig illy acknowledged. I shall come in a moment to the Government's specific responsibilities—for example, our responsibilities for the milk industry and for the pork pie industry, as he specifically raised those issues.

First, I will say something about the regional food industry in general. The Government have acted decisively to support and encourage a flourishing regional food industry. Not only is the strategy for sustainable farming and food driving forward change, but its significance in the south-west is given tangible form in the delivery plan for the south-west produced jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' team in the Government office and the regional development agency, with a wide range of partner organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that document—if not, I recommend it to him as it gives a tangible agenda for the way forward for the food industry in the south-west.

Our success in moving forward on common agricultural policy reform, to which the hon. Gentleman made a passing reference without the enthusiastic endorsement that one might expect, is also significant in reconnecting the food industry and farming with consumers. The key drivers behind our support for the sector are supporting the rural economy, helping producers add value to their products, increasing their returns from the market and increasing their competitiveness. In other words, we want to nurture a successful and productive industry.

Regional food producers create jobs and prosperity for the local work force, which is predominately rural. Research that we commissioned last year shows that sales turnover for the English quality regional food sector is in the region of£3.7 billion. More than 55,000 people are employed in the sector.

The sourcing of ingredients for regional food is predominantly local, which helps keep money in the local economy. Raising the profile of regional food helps to inform consumers about the origin and authenticity of food. The theme of reconnection informs what we are doing to encourage a flourishing regional and local food sector by creating the right conditions to help producers meet the growing demand from consumers for food and drink products with a clear regional provenance. The measures that we have established for doing that recognise the need to help our producers meet the growing demand and overcome barriers to the market—such as distribution, the lack of processing facilities and, sometimes, issues relating to training.

What we are doing to support the sector falls into two categories: support for the sector as a whole and the more direct help that we can give through our various grant schemes to food and drink producers. One of the main ways in which we are supporting the sector as a whole is through Food from Britain, which is the lead support agency for the promotion of UK regional foods. To enable it to do that, we made available an additional £1 million pounds last year, for this year and the next. With that additional funding, Food from Britain is taking forward a programme of activities focusing on trade development, consumer awareness and business competitiveness.

In addition, regional development agencies are deploying their own resources according to the needs and priorities of their region. Production and supply of locally sourced food can be encouraged through food hubs and shared facilities as well as linking local producers with local retailers and tourist businesses. Help is also available under the England rural development programme grant schemes and the agriculture development scheme. Funding under those schemes has supported activities such as farmers' markets and other direct sales outlets, local branding initiatives and co-operative or collaborative groups to market produce.

Within the west Wiltshire area we have provided funding to help producers market their organic produce locally; supported the expansion of facilities at a maltsters; and provided a number of farmers with training grants aimed at helping them to improve standards. It is worth saying that the branding of regional food in the south-west has been a particular success story, not least because in the south-west regional branding has been made to fit well with the county and more local branding, in a way that many other regions of the country regard, I think, as an exemplar.

Our public sector food procurement initiative, which was launched last year, is designed to encourage public sector bodies to procure their food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and encourages more small and local farmers, producers and suppliers to compete to supply them with food. For a while there was a mythology that Europe somehow made local procurement difficult, but it does not. It requires it to happen on a proper, open and competitive basis, but the advantage of local production and procurement must be clear to all.

We want the buying power of the public sector in England—£1.8 billion on food and catering services—to help to deliver the principal aims of the Government's strategy for sustainable farming and food in England. The south-west is well represented in the area of public sector food procurement. A south-west public procurement group has been set up to co-ordinate the strategy, research and funding needed to increase the procurement of south-west local and regional food and drink into the south-west public sector.

The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the milk industry. I understand why that was a priority for him in discussing his constituency. The milk industry has gone through, and continues to go through, a difficult time. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised that the industry must lead change to create a profitable future for itself. He also acknowledged the capacity of cooperative approaches to improve the quality of the return to farmers as the primary producers. However, he suggested that the Select Committee report was weaker on solutions than on identifying problems.

There is a difficulty, because there are problems with the farm-gate price of milk. The reasons are complex and include at different times, and in different combinations, exchange rates, the prices of world community markets and commodity markets, as well as domestic supply and demand. However, those factors do not completely account for the fact that farm gate prices in the UK remain among the lowest in the EU 15.

The report by KPMG on prices and profitability in the Great Britain dairy chain highlighted a number of factors that might explain why UK farm-gate prices compare unfavourably with the EU average, including the low value of the product mix and the low level of product innovation within the UK compared with some member states, as well as the structure of the UK dairy industry and dairy co-operatives. However, the Government have sought to help the industry through such complex issues. Most of the causes of low farm-gate prices identified in the KPMG report are for the industry to address, but the Government can and have taken action in line with their strategy for sustainable farming and food to facilitate that. For example, the Minister for Farming, Food and Sustainable Energy, Lord Whitty, has chaired meetings of the dairy supply chain forum, which has been considering collaborative solutions to improve supply chain efficiency as well as other issues.

The Government have made a grant of nearly £500,000 to enable the food chain centre to examine how to improve dairy supply chain efficiency and we have established English food and farming partnerships to encourage co-operation and collaboration across all agricultural sectors.

Price negotiations between producers and processors, or processors and supermarkets, are commercial matters, in which the Government cannot and should not get involved, so long as competition rules are respected. However, we are acting to support the industry and to help it in facilitating change which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, has to be led by the industry.

The hon. Gentleman referred to pork pies and regional food brands. The difficulty is that neither we nor the hon. Gentleman can say that it is a good thing to protect food names without there being in place a proper framework for the consideration of what should be approved and protected. There is such a framework, and there is always special pleading. That is common to both sides of the argument and between countries. For instance, a local delicacy can be seen as worthy of the strongest possible protection in one country, but as merely another commodity in others. There are occasions when the debate seems to be not so much about pork pies as about pork barreling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we need a proper framework within which to consider such matters.

The application to register the Melton Mowbray pork pie as a protected food name has been put forward to the European Commission only after careful consideration of the arguments put forward by both the applicant group and the opposing parties. There will be further opportunities for both sides to be heard. Meanwhile, producers not covered by the application can continue to label their pies as Melton Mowbray pork pies. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the parent company, Bowyers, as Northern Foods, applied for permission to seek judicial review on our decision to forward the Melton Mowbray pork pie application for protected geographical indication status to the European Commission. Permission has been granted to argue the case and the hearing takes place next month. It would be inappropriate to say more in advance of that. However, there is a process, and I underline the fact that both sides will have further opportunities to argue their perspective on the case.

Taking the food industry more generally, the food chain beyond the farm gate faces challenges requiring separate consideration. Our commitment is to work with all sectors of the food industry to develop a comprehensive food industry sustainable strategy to provide strategic direction and to set priorities. The idea of a sustainable sector is important—the sector needs to supply what the public wants, and to supply intelligently into the regional retail trade, tourist establishments and the catering industry. A broad-based working group chaired by Lord Whitty and comprising the food industry, consumer, trade unions and bodies such as the National Consumer Council and the Sustainable Development Commission is developing a strategy to address sustainability issues affecting the whole food and drink industry, post farm gate—food manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, and caterers.

The food and health action plan, led by the Department of Health, is linked to the wider consultation on public health through the document "Choosing Health?" announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 3 March. The aim is a healthier diet for everybody. It will include clear policy objectives on nutrition, setting out arrangements for co-ordination on nutrition work across Government and in other sectors, national, regional and local.

The reform of the CAP will provide the right conditions for a flourishing regional food industry that is competitive and sustainable and for a level playing field across Europe. That can only be good for the farming industry in this country.

When I was elected to Parliament in 1997, I knew that the Child Support Agency was unpopular and inefficient. I used to be a solicitor in private practice, providing legal services to families, and I had heard about lots of problems with the CSA. Indeed, I successfully challenged it twice in my local magistrates court over orders to make deductions from earnings. None the less, I was totally unprepared for the avalanche of complaints that I received after 1997 as a Member of Parliament. I had heard that MPs' postbags were full of complaints about housing, planning and social security payments, but mine was full of complaints about the CSA.

I was therefore delighted when the Government said that they would review the law and the work of the CSA. Indeed, because of all the complaints is in my postbag, I played an active role in the review, and I tried to persuade Baroness Hollis that the whole system should be changed. I accepted the value of having an agency that made assessments and guaranteed collection, but I felt that justice would be better served by introducing an independent element so that people who did not like an assessment could appeal to a magistrates court, present their personal circumstances and receive an independent adjudication on the right amount that they should pay. If members of the public had believed that they had been given a fair hearing, we would have had far fewer problems persuading them to cough up after an assessment.

However, I was not successful in my representations. The new system was an improvement, and the philosophy was fine. The system for making calculations and assessments was much simpler and freed up lots of officer time so that the CSA could concentrate on enforcement issues. There were also some new powers for the CSA. I was happy to stand by to see whether all of that would work, and I have to say that there were fewer complaints in my postbag for a couple of years after the new arrangements came into effect.

However, the day came when a constituent called Leah Wheatley contacted me. She said, "Are you aware that there are enormous problems with the Child Support Agency, which affect lots of your constituents?" I said, "None of my constituents has contacted me about that, so, no, I'm not aware of it." She said, "Well, would you like to meet some?" So, at the end of one of my regular advice surgeries in March, I met Leah Wheatley and anybody she cared to bring with her. I thought that there would be a handful of people, but the room was full. There were parents with care, who explained why they needed the money but were not getting it, and there were people who felt that the assessments against them were unfair for other reasons. My advice surgery was crowded with people, and I made random notes of the words and phrases that they used to describe how they felt. They said that they were "drained", "tired" and "fed up with eating cheap food". They said, "Non-payers are laughing". After spending an hour telling me their problems, they reached the conclusion that the policies were wrong and that the organisation of the CSA was not good enough.

Just to ensure that people understand the personal agonies involved, let me mention one person from the meeting who came to see me privately at my next advice surgery. She showed me a little picture that her daughter had drawn on a yellow post-it. At the top was a smiling face, with the words "Daddy's food—yum". Underneath, it said, "Mummy's food—yuk", and there was a glum-looking face. I felt utter desolation at the thought that a family was going through that experience, with every day grinding on in the same way. The woman saw what I was thinking and hastened to say, "But I'm a good mother. I'm a good cook, and I know how to prepare food, but I just don't have the money. Sometimes, it has to be beans on toast." I shall explain later why the food on father's dinner table was so much better.

I want to say a big thank you to the chief executive of the CSA, Doug Smith. I asked him to come to Stafford to face that same group of people and to listen to their complaints and answer their questions. He agreed to do so, and he came in May. The room was bigger, but, again, it was full. More people were attending, so the story had spread. Everyone spoke about a problem with the CSA, so they were not spectators who were there for the sport.

The cases described at that meeting included that of a woman who had pressed the Child Support Agency for 11 years to get a payment, because the person who should have paid had been changing their address; a woman who had been waiting for a payment since 1996; a woman who had received just £250 in four years; and a person who said, "I've been badgering the CSA with my MP's help"—that is, me—"but the CSA keeps changing the staff around." That comment about the staff got a big cheer. Everyone gave me their details. I personally wrote to Doug Smith about every case and he has answered every letter. Some of the letters are full of apologies and explanations of what went wrong, and in some cases payments are to be made for redress.

Given the amount of public money that we are paying out in redress to parents who get a bad service, the system is not good enough. I learned from a parliamentary answer on 7 June—unique identification number 174600—that, up to the end of March 2003, £17,651,000 had been paid in redress payments to people who had received bad service from the CSA. That is on top of the CSA's running costs of £400-odd million. That is our taxpayers' money, and 1 object to it being paid in addition to the costs of running the service in order to compensate people who have not received the child support to which they are entitled. The most costly year so far has been 1998–99, when £4,351,000 was paid.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to leave off his list the estimated cost to date of £456 million for the new IT system.

Indeed; I have heard that there is a lot of grief about that. I shall discuss the computer system in a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

This is about the welfare of children. Payments are required so that children can receive food, clothes and a warm home. People ought to focus on the benefits to children—I would include among such people the parents who do not pay the money that they should pay. It is their responsibility to pay the money to their children. It is sad that there is no provision in child support legislation equivalent to that in the Children Act 1989 about the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration.

At the angry meetings that I described, I met a father who had fallen out with the CSA because there is no such consideration. Darren Phillips paid child support for his daughter for several years, but contrary to what he had been told, she was not with her mother. His daughter was in the care of the local authority, because the mother had done such a bad job. He asked at the meeting why he should have to pay for his daughter to be abused. I have a particular beef with the Minister about that case, because Darren Phillips objected to the fact that he was apparently in arrears with his child support for the time in which his daughter was not with the mother. He objected to paying the arrears and asked me to ask the CSA whether they could be written off. Happily, his daughter now lives with him, there are caring grandparents and everything is fine, but he frets over and over about the arrears.

I asked whether the payments could be written off and the CSA sent me a letter, which was dated 7 May but faxed on 13 May, in which Hannah Ford wrote:

"I have looked into Mr Darren Phillips case and the arrears that were outstanding on his account have now been cleared. A letter confirming this will be sent to Mr Phillips within the next couple of days."

We were successful—the CSA told me that the payments had been written off. However, on 21 May I was faxed another letter from Hannah Ford, who wrote:

"I must apologise, but it appears that I was given the incorrect information. Unfortunately we cannot clear any of the outstanding arrears off Mr Phillips account."

I do not wish to sound pompous, but I am a Member of Parliament and I expect a Government agency to tell me the correct information in writing. A telephone call could perhaps be misinterpreted, but I received a letter that I relied on. I wrote to my constituent to tell him that his arrears had been written off and he received a letter from the CSA saying the same thing. A week later, however, he received another letter that said, "Oh no, your arrears haven't been written off." If the Minister has any power over the CSA, I should like him to say that those arrears do not have to be paid. I want Mr. Phillips to be able to concentrate on the welfare of his daughter.

Most parents who have given up living with the other parent and sharing the responsibility for bringing up their children should pay child support. However, under our system, many parents pay nothing. Under what we now call the old system, a nil assessment was possible. Under the new system there is supposed to be a minimum payment of £5. However, in answer to another question I have found that last year, under the new system, 12,000 parents paid nil.

There are exemptions for people in full-time education, in hospital or in care homes, who do not have to pay anything. First, I question whether that is right. If it is right, I question whether there are too many exemptions. Finally, if there are 12,000 exemptions in one year, I question whether they are being properly applied. I ask the Minister to give close attention to whether the number of exemptions should be reduced. For the woman who showed me the little picture and could not afford food for her daughter, the £5 would be of some help if she got it regularly. I want people to get that money.

I said that I would return to the beans on toast case. That woman receives no money from her husband. He has left her and gone to live with a woman who has a very high income. He has given up a well paid job to become a full-time student. He has a nil assessment because he is in full-time education. Yet there is a massive disparity of living standards between the home in which he lives and the one in which his daughter is being brought up.

The child's mother asks me how it can be right that that man can divest himself of his entire income and yet have a good standard of living, while she gets nothing. My view is that in such a case it should be possible to deem an income equivalent to the one that has been deliberately given up, or, exceptionally, to consider the household income instead of the individual's income. I hope that the Minister will attend to a possible change in the law.

Other people who are assessed to pay child support deliberately give up their job to avoid the deduction from earnings that is the best and most reliable enforcement action that can be taken. I find that a ridiculously easy way to stop paying child support. Such a person can pop up somewhere else in another job. Until someone alerts the CSA to the fact that that has happened, it does not even look into the case again. If no one tells it, it never does so. If it does look into the case, there is another assessment, another demand and another deduction from earnings order. By that time, the person has given up the latest job too, without ever paying anything.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is a particular problem concerning people who have been in the armed forces. For all sorts of reasons, the Ministry of Defence has not been the most helpful organisation in the matter of chasing errant fathers or mothers. However, my worry latterly is that when people leave the armed forces the CSA still seems to be incapable of chasing them up. Has my hon. Friend had similar experiences?

My experience of the armed forces goes back to when I was a solicitor, and I found the Army quite co-operative and helpful. My experience is different from that of my hon. Friend.

As to people who give up their job deliberately so as not to have to pay the money, surely a tagging arrangement is possible, so that when they pop up in the system again the old order must be paid until a new assessment is made. We would then have them, whenever they turned up in the system. That is important in showing that we mean business and that people must pay.

The same goes for people who have several part-time jobs, none of which, when assessed by the CSA, exceeds the protected earnings level, so that a deduction from earnings order cannot be made on any. One of the women at my meeting explained that she was affected by that rule and had received no money since 1996 because of it. She said that surely the totality of the father's income should be taken into account and that he should be paying child support. We need to consider, exceptionally, taking the aggregate amount earned by people with several jobs, rather than working on the basis of an individual employment income.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logical conclusion of his examples is not to have a Child Support Agency at all, and that the appropriate body to do the job that he describes would be the Inland Revenue?

I knew that by the end of my speech we would hear the Liberal Democrat position on the Inland Revenue. I find it very difficult to argue against, so I am not going to do so. In a moment, I shall discuss those parents who have said that that it should be the arrangement. I am perfectly honest about that, but, as I said at the beginning, the Child Support Agency has a role to play.

Many people have complained to me that enforcement action is poor. All the letters that I received from Doug Smith apologised for every instance of poor performance. I want to ask the Minister a specific question to see whether he can provide an example of things getting better. When we changed the law, a new enforcement power allowed somebody to be disqualified from holding a driving licence. That was the ultimate penalty for not paying child support. How many people have so far been disqualified from holding a driving licence? The Minister should let us see whether the system is working better now.

Under the old system, some of the assessments were too high. The reason for that was ghat people thought that if they ignored the paperwork from the Child Support Agency the problem would go away. It did not, and they received a larger assessment than they would have had had they co-operated with the system. They then received demands for huge amounts of money that they simply could not afford, and they ignored those. That became a problem, because we had paper figures of tens of thousands of pounds in arrears, which were never the right amount and would never be paid. That takes me back to my first point: even the people on the receiving end of an assessment must feel that the system is fair and that they are paying their fair share. That is what we need to achieve in future.

Will the Minister assure us that when a parent fails to supply information the interim payments under the new system are reasonable? I think that the default payments are £40, £50, and £60. Does he think that the new system is working and ensuring that people make payments? For all parents and children involved, the interim payment is so important. It is no good saying that the arrears will be collected eventually; it is now that the money is needed and now that the food is wanted on the table.

A specific point was also raised, and I see that a court case involving somebody named Kehoe also touched on it. Under regulation 9A of the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations 1992, the person who is entitled to receive the payment of child support does not have an automatic right to know why the paying parent has stopped paying. They do not have to be told whether there has been a change of circumstances or what the change of circumstances is. That is supposed to be because of data protection. I find that a massive insult to the people who are best able to tell the Child Support Agency whether what it is being told is correct and accurate. Those who are entitled to the money are entitled to information when the money dries up, and they are entitled to know why it has dried up. Will the Minister amend regulation 9A?

I was asked about the new EDS—Electronic Data Systems—computer system. What is the situation? We have all received answers to letters and to parliamentary questions, and even seen statements from the Secretary of State, about the continuing difficulties in getting the new system to work, because the IT is not working properly in tandem with it. The last I heard, the Department was still withholding payments from EDS every month, but it has agreed an increase in the overall contract price if EDS gets the system to work eventually. Will the system ever work, or is my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) right that we should scrap the whole thing and start again?

My constituents need to know whether there is light at the end of the tunnel and whether they will start receiving money. In the meantime—as I have been told in some of the letters from Doug Smith—people are having manually to work out the amounts of money payable and the payments that are due, and to pass them through the system. That led to a story in the Financial Times on 24 April, which ran:

"Child Support Agency officials are using pocket calculators to work out an overload of maintenance payments despite a new 400 million computer system".

That is obviously a ridiculous situation.

The House of Commons Library standard note SP/ 2898 of 28 April 2004 tells us that the CSA is receiving more requests for payments from new customers under the new system than the number of old requests that it can complete on the system. The backlog is growing month after month as people wait longer and longer for an assessment and, therefore, for money. Surely we will get to grips with that with the new computer system and the new law, and make sure that people start to receive the money to which they are entitled. The last I heard was that since the new system started in March 2003, 83 per cent. of assessments were accurate. The target is 90 per cent. Are we going to get that right any time soon?

The big question that hundreds of thousands of parents around the country ask all the time is when will the old cases be migrated on to the new system. I am beginning to feel confident enough to ask the Minister whether it will be this side of the general election? We have waited so long that I am beginning to wonder whether we will always be waiting. It is causing people huge concern. Some cases are on the new system, and some from the old system are transferred because they are linked to cases on the new system. Yet others cases are still on the old system, and there are sometimes great disparities—sometimes less is payable, sometimes more—between the amounts payable under the old and the new systems.

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time, as usual. A number of my constituents have found that, once they are on the new computer system, it works well only as long as the case is "fairly standard," but that if there are any problems and data are incorrectly entered, it is difficult to redeem that. That needs careful attention. There is nothing more frustrating than to find that the new system is just as bad as the old one. What is my hon. Friend's comment on that?

That is part of the dispute with EDS about the way in which the system works. The involvement of a Member of Parliament or the independent case examiner should not be needed to get an individual's record straight on the computer system. People should by right have the correct information recorded about them, which I believe is the law of the land.

Hon. Members will remember that I mentioned the loud cheer at the meeting at people not being able to talk to the same member of staff twice. Why cannot we have decent customer handling at the CSA so that people can get answers to their questions? I was amazed by stories about the length of time that parents have spent in a day chasing people in different departments at the CSA merely trying to get an answer to which they are entitled. Some of those parents are busy and are desperate about having no money for their children. By the end of the day, they hardly have the energy or emotional strength to keep going, yet they have to keep going or they will fall by the wayside.

I also found at my meeting that few people knew about the independent case examiner, or that there is somebody to appeal to for help if everything goes wrong. I hope that we can review the information that the CSA gives in order to ensure that the independent case examiner becomes better known and friendlier to people with problems.

Two big messages came out of the meeting with Doug Smith. The first was that interim assessments and minimum payments are needed, so that parents quickly start to receive some money. The second was that payments should be collected through tax codings. Of course, there is an argument, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised in his intervention, that once we have gone that far down the road, why should not the Inland Revenue do the whole job. I will leave that argument to the Minister. People asked that at least the money should be collected through tax codings, so that instead of individual deductions from earnings, the amount that they owed would be stated on income tax records and collected. That could work as well for self-employed people as it could through PAYE under the same Inland Revenue systems.

The old system has been discredited, but people on the old system cannot get on to the new one. Even if they did, they would find that it is not working properly. That is not a very good story to tell, is it? Perhaps today will be the day that the Minister fights back and starts to rehabilitate the CSA, helping the 1 million people who currently interface with it.

I shall conclude by reading from an e-mail that I received from a woman following the meeting with Doug Smith. It is a page long, so I will not ask hon. Members to listen to it all, although all her comments are constructive. I shall quote just two paragraphs. First, she said:

"I sadly came away from the meeting with the belief that it will be all but impossible for it the CSA to collect regular maintenance for our son or even recover the debt as it stands currently and there were other parents at that meeting who will not doubt suffer the same."

That is a bleak assessment. Secondly, she said:

"It seems, unfortunately, that no matter how good the intentions and no matter how strong the legislation, some absent parents will still manage to 'disappear' or 'use the system to their advantage' and their children will continue to suffer. However I remain optimistic than changes can be made to reduce that number."

Given what happened at the meeting, what I have just said and what she said earlier in her message, why on earth should she be optimistic? I can say that she was impressed by Doug Smith's obvious sincerity. Modest though I am, I should add that she was also impressed by the fact that an MP was taking an interest in the case and was evidently working hard on it.

None the less, it is time that the Minister was on our side and promised to have regard to people's intense concerns for their children, to their distress at not being able to look after them as well as they would like, and to the welfare of those children as they grow up to become citizens of this country. The Minister must promise to change the way in which the CSA works and to change the law, so that payments can be properly enforced. We will then be able to tell that woman, "You were right to be optimistic."

When I got back into the House in 1997, after a five-year enforced absence on the orders of the electorate, I found that one of the great changes that had taken place since 1992 was in the number of people who came to my surgery to complain about the Child Support Agency. That was a new phenomenon.

In the 1997 election, the Labour party, understandably, batted heavily on the assertion that the CSA was not working and a Labour Government would reform it. During the subsequent Parliament, quite a lot of time was spent developing new child support legislation, which was introduced in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. People were told that the Act would introduce a simpler system, which would be fairer and easier to enforce and which would contain elements of justice that were lacking under the old system. Those of my constituents who were affected were very pleased at that prospect.

This timely debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing it—gives us an opportunity to tell the Government, "You've been in office for more than seven years, and it's four years since the Act was put on the statute book, but you've let people down." The Labour party has indeed let people down in this respect. The Government are seeking new ways to interfere in our lives—consider, for example, the debate about obesity—but why can they not just put far more resources into putting right the things that they promised to put right? The CSA is one of those things, and the Government have manifestly failed to put it right.

I shall not regale the Chamber with all my constituency cases. I do not believe chat it is the job of Members of Parliament to act as a back-up system when there is administrative failure in government. Too many of us have spent too much time on the phone to the CSA on behalf of constituents dealing with cases that should have been resolved ages ago through the administrative system. There is a real problem of enforcement. In many of my constituency cases, it is obvious that the father has been living at a given address for years, but the CSA enforcement team says that it is impossible to take action against him because he does not live there. I shall not go into the details of such cases, but they make the system look absolutely mad.

This Sunday is father's day, and I shall confine my remarks to the people who are on the old system, who were promised that they would be able to migrate to the new system and who are significantly worse off as a result of not being able to do so. Most, but not all, are fathers. Last Saturday, one such person came to my advice centre. He was very concerned about Fathers 4 Justice, but the example of injustice that he gave was that because he is not able to move on to the new system, he is paying about £100 a month more in maintenance payments for his child than he would if he was on the new system. Why should he and tens of thousands of others suffer as a result of the Government's maladministration? The system was set up under the orders of Parliament. If the computer system does not work, that does not absolve the Government of their responsibility to deal with the administration of the system—if need be, by clerical means.

People paying more than £100 a month extra have had no indication of when they will be able to get relief and equity by going on to the new system. I challenge the Minister to tell us when the new system will be able to accommodate the old cases. If he cannot do that, can he tell us why he regards it as fair and reasonable that people who still have to pay under the old system are obliged to pay more than £100 more than they would under the new system? Will he accept that those people are continuing to suffer financial loss as a result of his Department's maladministration?

The Library briefing to which the hon. Member for Stafford referred suggests that the Government have the power to get compensation from the providers of the IT infrastructure, but they have not exercised that power. Why, as a result of such manifest failure, should hapless parents—in most cases fathers who are on the old system—suffer while a very large company that has a Government contract is able to get away with failure because the Government do not bother to enforce their rights under the contract?

If the old cases cannot be brought onto the new system under the computer arrangements, why can they not be dealt with clerically under the new system? Why can calculations not be done for the old cases on the basis of the new rules? Surely that would be equitable. At the moment, claimants who would be better off under the new system than under the old can opt out of the old system. They can have a three-month gap, then apply again under the new system, which entitles them to enhanced benefits. However, those who have to pay more under the old system are not similarly able to opt out and to reapply under the new system. An extra element of injustice has been introduced.

I hope that the Minister can come up with a proper answer to my questions today. I have no quarrel with the CSA staff, who seem to be under enormous pressure because of the system's manifest failure to deliver. However, I hope that the Minister will come clean about when he expects the old cases to be transferred to the new system, or when he intends to deal with them on the basis of the rules that apply to the new system, so that what Parliament intended to happen when we passed the legislation in 2000 does happen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on having secured this timely debate and on his speech. He said little that I could not confirm from my experience as an MP, but as a fellow solicitor I stand in awe of him for having achieved the magnificent feat of having two assessments overturned by the courts. In all my years as a solicitor, I never received an explanation of an assessment that I could understand, let alone challenge.

That is Scottish law.

As the hon. Gentleman says, Scottish law is that much more complex. That is why we look to Scots lawyers to administer it.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) were interesting. He seemed to think that the Child Support Agency had failed as a result of Government failings, but that the system had been set up under the orders of Parliament. It was set up under the orders of a Conservative Government who, of course, held a majority in Parliament. When discussing the CSA, it behoves all parties to approach the subject with a little humility because we all broadly agreed on its creation. I suspect that the subject was not given enough parliamentary scrutiny, which may be a lesson for us all.

The CSA is one of the most remarkable Government achievements of the late 20th century. As I said earlier, I was previously a solicitor before coming to this place; and prior to the creation of the CSA, aliment for children was determined by the courts. In all my years of sitting in sheriff courts and the High Court in Scotland, and the days spent waiting for things not to happen in the Court of Session, I would never have believed it possible to create a system that could make our legal system look efficient. Such is the achievement of the CSA.

The CSA has also started to have an effect on my constituency casework, because of the way in which family cases are being handled by the courts. In a couple of recent constituency cases—people have come to me in relation to family actions in the local sheriff court— significant orders have been made for aliment of the spouse. That jars with me because, given the circumstances, the orders were probably inappropriate. I suspect that many sheriff—sand doubtless judges elsewhere—are sufficiently acquainted with the difficulties associated with the CSA and, as a result, still make orders for aliment for the spouse because it is appropriate—they know that the family would not be able to obtain the money in any other way. That is a distortion of the system, because the order of the court is then subject to appeal; the action becomes much more protracted and much more bitter, as appeal follows appeal.

Increasingly, the problem with the separation of the courts is that parents, particularly fathers, see the lack of access arrangements as the only result of the operation of the CSA. The clear break between financial support and arrangements for care is a sad indictment of what has gone wrong. It is something that we would all support, but the waters are becoming ever more muddied. That makes the bitterness between the warring parties worse.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right; what he says accords with my understanding. Occasionally, one has to say, "Just because you are paying support for your children, it does not buy you any automatic rights in relation to them." However, the delays and inefficiency of the system tend to lead to the attitude outlined by the hon. Gentleman becoming more prevalent. If one looks at it from the families' viewpoint, the system is now militating against the family and making things that much more difficult. At the end of the day, we all know that it is the children who suffer most in such situations.

Others have spoken of the problems associated with the computer systems commissioned by the CSA. It does not seem to get any easier to deal with them. I had an interesting insight last Friday when a constituent came to my office in Kirkwall. She said that she was having a problem with the CSA and asked whether I could intervene on her behalf. She explained that the CSA had twice told her on the telephone that she was due a certain amount of money, and that it would be paid into her bank on a certain day. Each time, she made the journey of some 12 miles from her house into Kirkwall; she lives in a part of Orkney that, like many other parts of Orkney, is not well served by public transport. She went to her bank to find that the money had not been paid in and phoned the agency, which said that it had put a stop on it.

My constituent came to see me after that had happened twice. I phoned the MPs' helpline. As ever when one phones the helpline, I received a very good response from a very helpful individual who was clearly well trained and who understood the system. She explained that no more money was due to my constituent, but that the information shown on the screen for the case workers in question was inaccurate or, at best, misleading. That was why my constituent kept being given duff advice and why the agency kept setting up payments, telling her about them and then cancelling them.

To be honest, I did not quite understand why the computer system could not record accurate information, but an explanation was offered. I asked why a note was not put on the system to explain that the information was incorrect. I was told that that would be a very good idea but that unfortunately the system did not have a notepad. Surely that is the most fundamental point of an information technology system, and exactly the sort of point that should be addressed when IT systems are commissioned. It lends weight to my view that the CSA is a system under siege and that it has become so dysfunctional that it not only fails in its duty to the children and the families for which it was created, but it fails its employees. If the employees, the people at the sharp end, had been properly consulted, a notepad would have been attached to the new system because a notepad was attached 10 the old one.

The question of the migration of cases from the old system to the new one also continues regularly to present itself at my constituency surgeries. When the new system was introduced, I explained to my constituents that new cases would be entered on to it automatically but that existing cases would take time to migrate. My constituents are eminently reasonable people, and they did not quarrel with that. It is, however, increasingly difficult to tell then that they must still wait for their cases to migrate from the old system to the new one, particularly when there will be a significant cost saving to the individual concerned in several of the cases that present themselves at constituency surgeries.

Notwithstanding my remarks about not wanting to be partisan and wanting to approach the matter with humility, the fact that the Minister could not even say what date the Department for Work and Pensions had set for the migration of cases when I asked him about this during questions to the Department last week is frankly not good enough. That would have been acceptable a year ago, but we have had more than a year of the new system, and not even to be able to set the date for the migration of all cases to the new system suggests, as others have said, that this system will simply never be made to work. That is particularly ironic as the system was sold to Parliament as being so much simpler.

As I said, I was impressed with the hon. Member for Stafford, particularly when he said that he could not argue with the Liberal Democrat case for the abolition of the CSA and the transfer of its functions to the Inland Revenue. I do not I pretend that that will be a panacea. We are all aware that the Inland Revenue's dealings with information technology have not been straightforward either. That has been another substantial source of business at my constituency surgeries in the past. Nevertheless, if the experience of our present arrangement suggests integrating the system—particularly the cases that are difficult to enforce—with other aspects of government, all the relevant functions already rest with the Inland Revenue. Transferring the other functions would lead to that great goal of us all—joined-up government

It might take a great deal of doing. If we could, in considering a better way of going about things, maintain some of the consensus that we had on the need for a child support agency in the first place, we might be able to iron out problems rather than waiting for them to arise.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate, and echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael); I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman uttered about the failings of the Child Support Agency system, and especially his recognition of the logic of the Liberal Democrat position on the way to reform it.

I agree also with more or less every thing that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said. The catalogue of points raised by the three hon. Members who have spoken so far is too familiar to anyone who takes an interest in the issue, and to every Member of Parliament whose constituency surgery has queues of such cases month after month.

The hon. Member for Stafford listed the horrendous problems and backlogs at the CSA with which we are all familiar. He described how Doug Smith of the CSA is very good at responding to cases that are raise, as are many of the staff. He also pointed out the problems over compensation payments, which now amount to a staggering £16.6 million over five years. Last year the figure was £2.5 million—five times the 1995 figure. Things in general are getting much worse, and my constituency casework file suggests that a fair bit of that money is coming to people in Chesterfield.

There is confusion at the CSA. Contradictory letters arrive, sometimes on the same day, but certainly within days of each other, giving different figures for payments, different addresses, the wrong address on one letter and the correct address two days later. Problems were outlined in tracking parents who repeatedly pop up in one job and disappear again. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about problems with the armed forces. Sometimes they close ranks in response to requests to release information and help parents and the CSA to track down those who might be required to make payments.

Other problems were highlighted, such as the question of when cases will be transferred from the old to the new system. By and large most people will benefit from the change, although of course there will be some losers when cases are transferred.

It has been pointed out how good the CSA staff are when they deal with queries through the MPs' hotline. When I or my staff in Chesterfield contact the hotline we get excellent responses and quick solutions, sometimes to cases that have dragged on for years. That poses a big question. If the people at the end of the hotline can respond so quickly, effectively and efficiently that my Chesterfield files are full of thank you letters and cards from people who write, "After I tried for years to solve this problem, you sorted it in no time"—it was not me, of course, but the hotline staff—why cannot the general CSA staff provide the same standard of service to people when they first make contact with them, without going through their MP?

Why are there such long delays? Why is there such a history of incorrect data, incorrect letters and lost paperwork? If lost paperwork can suddenly emerge from the bottom of a pile or from a distant filing cabinet; if it can suddenly be found, within a day—sometimes within hours—of an MP making contact, why can that same level of service not be offered to the general public who make use of the CSA? Is it because, in general, the service is understaffed? If so, the solution is simple: employ more people. Is it because the staff are not motivated or well trained or paid enough?

What are the reasons why the general level of service is so poor while the staff can respond so quickly and efficiently to MPs? Is it because of some of the flaws in the regulatory framework, which were highlighted by the hon. Member for Stafford, or is it because the CSA is not proactive enough? It tends to take a passive approach, just sending out letters with no response when trying to chase up the parent who should be paying, but when an MP gets involved, it suddenly becomes much more pro-active. Why is it not like that all the time? Why does it not have simple casework-flagging systems on its IT system to flag up that there has been no response in a certain case and that something needs to be done about it?

Why do so many single parents—usually mothers, but not alway—shave to start acting as private detectives? I have spoken to parents who have been trying to track down their previous partner by going off to towns around Chesterfield to mark out where and in what sort of house they live and where they work. They are then told by the CSA that it does not know where their former partners live, whether they have a job or what their income is. Single parents are having to act as private detectives, doing the CSA's job because it seems to be passive in much of its approach. Despite that, if the CSA does not deliver the money that a parent needs, under the legal ruling referred to earlier they cannot appeal against the failure of the CSA and the Government to look after their interests and implement the Child Support Act 1991, which came into effect in 1993.

Is the failure due to understaffing, a lack of training or the pay and motivation of the staff'? Is it down to regulatory problems, an agency attitude of being passive rather than proactive, or the computer problems that we have heard so much about? Like many aspects of the Government's outsourcing of IT in the past few years, the computer system has been an absolute disaster. EDS was paid £450 million to deliver a system, which has failed miserably. It was supposed to be introduced in October 2001 but was actually introduced in March 2003, and it still does not work properly. Staff will often have to tell callers that the computers are down or use simple, cheap pocket calculators to fill the gaps in what is a £450 million IT system.

Why is that the case? Unfortunately, it fits in with too many examples. I serve on the Education and Skills Committee, and one of our first inquiries after the 2001 election was into the failures of the individual learning account scheme. There were failures on the Government side in drawing up the specifications, but the performance of Capita in that case, having been paid a lot of money to deliver an IT system that failed in almost every respect, was appalling.

When we ask the Government what penalty payments are applied to such companies for absolute failure to deliver the goods that they are well paid for, we tend to be told simply that commercial confidentiality means that they cannot say. That is not good enough. Huge sums of taxpayers' money have been spent on systems that fail to deliver. I understand that the Treasury may have decided not to outsource Government IT projects any more. I would welcome a comment from the Minister on that, because it certainly seems to be the lesson of so many Government experiments.

We have already heard comments and questions about when the old and new systems will be merged. About 75,000 parents are working on the old system, on which they do not get the £10 child maintenance premium. They could live next door—two yards away—to a similar lone parent, who receives that payment because they are registered on the new system. That is not good enough, and there seems little logical explanation of why we cannot make that simple transfer, even if other areas of the switch to the new assessment system are too complicated for the computer to cope with initially.

Two different systems are working alongside each other, but neither works properly. Despite repeated questions in Parliament, including as recently as the seventh of this month, we have heard no hint or indication from the Minister about when the Government think that they can transfer people from the old to new system. The hon. Member for Stafford asked whether they were thinking about making the change after, rather than before, the next general election. So many parents throughout the country want to know why we cannot switch to the new system.

I want to leave the Minister as much time as possible in which to reply, so I conclude by summarising some of the questions that have been asked, and hope that he will address each one of them. What penalties are being imposed on EDS for its abysmal failure to deliver, at great cost, an IT system that actually works? When will the old cases be brought into the new system? Would the systems work better if more staff were employed? MPs' questions about cases that have waited a year or two to be sorted out can usually be dealt with in the same day. Are more staff needed to provide the clients out there with the same response that MPs receive? Do staff need to be trained better? We have heard about the constant rota of staff and the fact that one speaks to a different person every time one calls. Do people leave too quickly and if so, why? Do they leave because they are demoralised, because of the conditions under which they work or because of pay? What does the Minister think causes such staffing problems? When will we have a working computer system?

Finally, to return to the Liberal Democrats' welcome proposals on how to get out of the current mess, why do the Government refuse to consider transferring the functions of the CSA to the Inland Revenue? The CSA seems to have to spend so much time asking questions of the Inland Revenue, which has taken on that passive role. Until the CSA asks, "Do you know where this person is and how much they earn?", nothing happens. There is a big gap in the system. The system could be transferred to the Inland Revenue, which already has most the relevant information on tap. The Revenue knows where people live, where all the families with children are and how much people earn through the pay-as-you-earn system. Why do the Government refuse even to consider what appears to be a simple transfer of responsibility from one department to another?

I also begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) not only on securing this debate, but on his dogged pursuit of his own Government over the CSA's failings.

I am sure that we have all had endless constituency cases that touch on the issues that have been raised. What has happened is a very sorry tale. The introduction of a new formula that was supposed to import simplicity, speed and fairness has been badly undermined by sloppy planning, poor implementation and unreliable technology—on any view, an extraordinary catalogue of problems, delays and incompetence.

I should like to focus on two issues. First, investigation and enforcement—or the lack thereof—is, for many constituency Members, including me, the most frustrating aspect in many cases. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, the poor wife or ex-wife often has to take on the role of a private detective. Even when hard evidence is available, the CSA does not act upon it. That is a frequent theme in my surgeries. Secondly, there are problems with the IT system, which has fallout on real people. To put the matter in context, we should remember that the new formula was supposed to have been introduced for all new cases from April 2002, but finally went live a year later, in April 2003.

Rather memorably, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, Mr. Doug Smith, who has featured a lot in this debate, said:

"There is a big differ( nce between a failed computer system and a computer system that has more teething problems than we expected."

If that is a distinction, it is probably lost on the constituent whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) described, for example, as well as on many more of our constituents.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) eloquently pointed out, between 800,000 and 900,000 cases are stuck on the old system for calculating child maintenance. That means that non-resident parents pay more than they might otherwise have to if they were assessed under the new rules. That is an ongoing unfairness, not least because the Government have apparently set their face against compensating such parents in the future. EDS, the company involved, plans to have CS2, as the system is known, in place and ready by October 2004. It is hoped that migration of the old cases can commence thereafter, and that we will hear from the Minister on the matter.

In November, in a debate in Westminster Hall, the self-same Minister declined to give a view on the timing of the transfer. We are now several months further down the road; we know that for some time, Mr. Smith and EDS have been working on a remediation plan, as it is called. A few days ago, in answer to a question, the Minister said:

"No. We have not set a date."[Official Report, 7 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 18.

I gently suggest that the time has come to do so. It might be five years, two years or even six months down the road, but in fairness to all hon. Members' constituents, they deserve to know the date, not least because the Government take the rather rigid view that until all the problems are sorted out they will not remove a single one of the 800,000 or 900,000 old cases. The Financial Times referred to the matter as

"one of the biggest failures to hit the public sector IT project in recent years.".

It stated that less than half the 321,522 applications submitted since March 2003 have been processed. There have been ongoing and probably all-too-regular discussions with the contractors, EDS, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how far those discussions have gone, within the bounds of genuine commercial confidentiality. What is the position in terms of retentions from the contract and its overall cost?

The position is still pretty grim in respect not only of old cases, but of some new cases. Figures produced a little while ago, which may need updating, show that 384,000 parents with care were entitled to receive child maintenance, but 79,000 received no payment at all and 193,000 received less than they were entitled to. If one adds almost £3 billion in unpaid maintenance payments, one begins to see the extent of the problem.

One would have thought that part of the attraction of introducing a new computer system was that it would make things cheaper, but according to recent figures shown in Hansard, the average cost of processing an application has risen by £12.63, or more than 16 per cent.

In giving evidence to the Select Committee recently, the Secretary of State talked about the recovery programme that had been put in place. He said that the system was retrievable or, in other words, that it can be made to work properly instead of being scrapped. That caused some excitement in the Select Committee. When the Secretary of State was pressed as to whether he was seriously considering scrapping the project, he replied:

"If it could not be made to work properly you would not have an alternative, would you?"

We can all agree with that. We need to know where we are with the recovery plan.

The final irony is that the system is not working properly even in dealing with new claims. Some of the figures show that the CSA cleared only 47 per cent. of all new cases received since March 2003. By the end of the first year, about 153,000 cases had been cleared, leaving a backlog of 170,000. We have already heard that redress payments to dissatisfied clients have ballooned to more than £4 million in 1999, settling down to an average of £3 million or £2.5 millior ever since.

It beggars belief that so little enforcement action has been taken against people who make a life's work of evading payment for their responsibilities. The latest information is that in the first seven months of 2003, some 150 cases were referred to court for committal to prison or the removal of a driving licence. A total of five driving licences were removed and 45 parents were committed to prison. If we are to put the fear of God into persistent evaders, with whom we have become familiar since the CSA was established, that is not good enough.

In conclusion, I shall set out the serious questions that still need to be answered by the Minister. First, the latest estimate of the cost of the new system is £456 million. Is that still accurate or has it gone up again? Secondly, what is the current position for contractual penalties on EDS, such as retentions and any other penalties that may have been paid or may be payable in due course? Thirdly, has any further consideration been given to compensation for those affected by delays in migration of old cases? Fourthly, when will these old cases finally be migrated? That is the key question. As the hon. Member for Stafford said, it is not merely a case of being able to tell constituents that there is light at the end of the tunnel; we need a rough idea of how long the tunnel is. Fifthly and finally, what is the future of the contract and of EDS; are Ministers still seriously considering scrapping the project all together?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing a debate on a subject that is so important to the lives of so many children. He rightly said that it is all about the welfare of children. He also underlined the fact, which we must all keep in perspective, that parents have a responsibility to support their children. Whatever the successes or failings of the CSA, the House must send out the message that it is the responsibility of both parents to support their children. If they do not do so, we will take every possible measure to ensure that they do.

My hon. Friend began by pointing out the mess that the system that we inherited was in. In 1998, when we issued the Green Paper, "Children First: a new approach to child support", the taxpayer was supporting 1.8 million children. Seventy per cent. of lone mothers on income support were seeking to avoid a child maintenance application, and a third of all child support assessments took more than six months to make. Until then, the 1993 child support scheme had been modified through many small measures introduced at frequent intervals. As efforts were made to make the scheme more comprehensive, an already complex system became more opaque to hon. Members, their constituents and Child Support Agency staff themselves.

We believed that radical change was needed and some changes were introduced in January 2001. However, the bulk of the changes had to wait until the delivery of the new computer and integrated telephony systems. In the interim, there were performance improvements in the old child support scheme, but the step change needed to achieve the level of effectiveness that the public deserved could be delivered only through the introduction of a new scheme.

That new scheme started on 3 March 2003—both for applications for new cases where liability began on or after that date, and for old scheme cases linked to them. Since then, because of the well known problems with the computer system, the level of service that we have given to some agency clients has fallen well short of what they are entitled to receive. For that, I offer my unreserved apologies.

However, constituency MPs cannot always get a true picture of the situation. Matters can be complex when families break down. Constituents rarely come to tell us when things are going right and there is good news. However, each week, thousands of cases are cleared effectively under the new system. Almost 110,000 new scheme maintenance calculations have been made, some 41,000 non-resident parents have started to pay maintenance using the agency's collection service, and some 22,500 parents with care have started to get child maintenance premium income disregard in their benefit. That is a new measure that means that, for the first time, parents with care on benefit can see a real improvement in their living standards as a result of payments made by non-resident parents. It also means that if they move in to work, those maintenance payments are completely ignored.

Because the new scheme is so much easier to understand, parents are better able to make their own arrangements without involving the agency. Indeed, the interactive calculator on the agency's internet site had more than 25,000 hits in March. Some hon. Members have said that it is a disgrace that people have to make their own maintenance calculations. However, the problem under the old system was that it could take a calculation involving up to 100 elements to determine what the payment should be. It was almost impossible for either parents with care or non-resident parents to work out what the maintenance should be. They had to wait for the agency to go through that process and, while they waited, the arrears built up.

The new child support scheme is starting to make a real contribution to our ambitious target of reducing child poverty. It has not yet gone far enough; it has certainly not gone as far as any of us in this Chamber should like to see it go, but we are moving steadily in the right direction. I will not pretend that my ministerial colleagues and I have not been disappointed with the progress so far. However, we are making progress and clients and staff have said that the new scheme works. When it works, it works well and they like the simplicity and transparency.

Many hon. Members have raised concerns about the payment of child support. The subject, rightly, continues to be of interest to many in this House, and I hope that that will continue. Under the old scheme, nonresident parents often failed to meet their legal obligations to pay the money that the agency had assessed that they should pay. One of the main reasons for the build-up of debt under that scheme was the fact that making the assessment took so long. However, in the five years up to March 2003, when the new scheme started, the agency increased collections by 43 per cent. to £175 million. The intention of the new scheme is to prevent debt from building up. That is one of the reasons why we want there to be a simple calculation mechanism that is not only easy for people to understand but makes it clear to those on both sides what their obligations are. Because of its transparency, it is more acceptable and is seen as fairer and more just to both sides.

However, we do not intend to focus solely on the calculations. We have to ensure that the money flows to the children. Obtaining compliance is part of the work of a large number of the agency staff. The culture is changing and, at all stages of a case, staff take action to ensure that non-resident parents accept their responsibility and comply with the maintenance calculation. Even before that point, staff encourage non-resident parents to make voluntary payments to the parent with care while they are waiting for a calculation to be made, thereby preventing debt from building up in the first place.

If we want a message to go out from this debate, it is that non-resident parents who seek wilfully to evade their responsibilities, not to the Government or to hon. Members or even to parents with care but to their children, will not continue to get away with it. We have more powers and more professionally trained staff, and we are increasingly using those powers to ensure that people meet their obligations. We have to be realistic. Some parents will fail to pay—

All this sounds fine, but I have a constituent who has gone to appeal and won her case on three occasions. It was deemed that her partner had diverted his income. Six years on she is still waiting: she has not received a single penny. This guy can buy properties costing £250,000 and have two or three holidays a year. That is unjust. Something as simple as removing his driving licence would make a world of difference.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is quite unacceptable that in such circumstances certain individuals wilfully refuse to make the payments that their children need. The agency has the powers, and we are seeking much more prompt and effective action to deal with that That includes the withdrawal of driving licences, as my hon. Friend has said. Some 21 driving licences have been removed so far. That is not a huge number. There is also committal to prison. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh. They did not introduce any of those measures themselves when they had the opportunity to do so, but they giggle when we talk about the legislation that we have introduced.

Even though such measures are a last resort, we are determined to use them when non-resident parents will not make contributions. It is often the threat of a sanction that results in the payment of maintenance, but the agency does not shy away from taking action if the threat does not work. If there are cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and others wish to bring to my attention or to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham, we will happily look at them to see whether anything further can be done to bring justice to the children concerned

Concern has been expressed about the self-employed. Since March 2004 the agency has increased the number of staff working on that group. In the year to March 2004 there was a 24 per cent. increase on the previous year in the number of cases referred to bailiffs. As I have said, in cases where the non-resident parent persists in wilful non-compliance, the courts can take away driving licences or commit a person to prison. We have to ensure that the courts also recognise the seriousness of the wilful non-compliance. I hope that increasingly they are doing so.

In 2003–04, 324 cases were referred to the courts for committal to prison or withdrawal of driving licences. Eight non-resident parents were served prison sentences. The aim is to get the money flowing to the children. From our point of view, it is a failure if we have to commit people to prison or take away their driving licences. We want to ensure that the children get the money that they deserve.

I am aware that hon. Members have particular concerns about self-employed non-resident parents. Theirs are the cases that regularly reach our postbags and make for media headlines. Recovery of money owed by self-employed people is notoriously difficult. It is not just a problem for the Child Support Agency. Liberal Democrat Members suggest that we should simply pass the matter to the Inland Revenue, but it faces similar problems in collecting tax and national insurance contributions from such people. We are constantly considering whether we need to amend working practices to deal with child support avoidance and evasion. If it becomes clear that we need to change the regulations, we will consider that seriously too.

My hon. Friend will recall that I said that I supported the philosophy of the simpler assessment process so that more staff can spend more of their time on enforcement issues. I welcome what he says. I am sure that we will come on to the computer system, which is getting in their way at the moment. Does he agree that, once we have seen an end to that problem, staff can be much more alert to collecting the interim payments—to enforcing payments, including those against the self-employed? Does he agree that powers such as charging orders and what are now called third-party orders—they used to be called garnishee orders when I was a lawyer—be used much more productively to ensure that even the self-employed pay up?

Yes. Increasingly, staff receive the necessary training and are encouraged to pursue such cases and to ensure that people pay to in advance of any action having to be taken.

The Minister says that the Inland Revenue would have the same problems as the CSA in collecting the money. However, will he comment on the fact that in the most recent year the inland Revenue has collected more than 91 per cent. of the taxes that are assessed as owed, whereas the CSA will probably write off a quarter of the £500 million that is currently outstanding? The CSA therefore hopes to collect 75 per cent. It has already written off £2 billion of uncollectible money.

Yes, it is true that the Inland Revenue has a very high success rate in collecting money that is owed to it. I pay tribute to its success In this instance, however, we are talking about a particular group of people—self-employed non-resident parents—with whom the Inland Revenue itself has some difficulty dealing. We must get things into perspective for both groups, because only 6 per cent. of non-resident parents are self-employed. They are particularly difficult to deal with, whether the Inland Revenue of the CSA is dealing with them.

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to run away with the idea that if we were suddenly to give all this work to the Inland Revenue or, indeed, to the courts, as his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.Carmichael) suggested—[Interruption.] I apologise; I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman.

I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance that he has misquoted me. I merely said that the current system had been administered in a way that makes the courts look efficient. Does not he accept, however, that the beauty of giving the work to the Inland Revenue is that it already has the information in its remit, so it is readily accessible to it? That is the difference between the Inland Revenue and the current system.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for two things. First, he has clarified the fact that there seems to have been a policy change. My understanding was that he was very much in favour of the idea of returning to the complexities of the old court system. Perhaps the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Holmes) would like to join him in that. If that is not the case, I would certainly welcome it. We can get that out of the way. [Interruption.] That is fine; he has clarified his position, and I am pleased to know that. Secondly, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has given me the opportunity to make it clear that we will pursue the proper payments from that group and others through all the measures that are available to us.

Hon. Members rightly asked when old scheme cases will be transferred to the new system. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) reminded the Chamber that I stood in this very position back in November and was asked the same question. I will give him the same answer: the new scheme is more straightforward than the old one, but that does not mean that we have a simple IT system. Complexities arise in several areas, which result in the need for detailed IT solutions. For instance, for the first time we have an interface with Jobcentre Plus and its old IT systems, which enable data to be shared more easily between the two organisations. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the Inland Revenue has this information. We increasingly have the ability to share that information between different institutions, but that means that we have a complex system to deal with.

We have acknowledged that there have been problems in getting all this to work properly. The IT contractor—Electronic Data Systems—is working closely with the CSA to bring the performance of the system into line with expectations. The agency now has an IT recovery plan from EDS; work to stabilise the system has begun this year, which has already brought about improvements. I can tell hon. Members, in response to their questions, that we are withholding 15 to 20 per cent. of the payments to EDS, to take account of non-delivery under the contract.

I cannot say when cases from the old scheme will be transferred to the new one. We are keen that all parents who deal with the agency should be able to benefit from the reforms, but it would be irresponsible for us to move cases across to the new scheme before we are satisfied that the IT is able to cope and is working well.

If the Minister will not set a date for migrating the old cases to the new system, will he at least set a date beyond which it will be considered that further delay will lead to palpable unfairness, for which people will be compensated?

We want everyone to move to a system that we believe to be simpler and more just, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that for every non-resident parent or parent with care who wants to move across to the new system, there will be an equivalent non-resident parent or parent with care who would rather stay where they were. Inevitably, there will be swings and roundabouts.

I am, of course, disappointed that the Minister has failed to set a date. However, can he at least confirm whether Ministers are still committed to the EDS contract, or is the Department still discussing scrapping it altogether?

We are working closely with EDS—we want this system to work. We want to ensure that the new system and the advantages that it brings reach as many parents with care and non-resident parents as possible. Frankly, the best and quickest way of doing that is to ensure that the system that we now have will work. EDS and the CSA are working on the recovery programme.

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The important thing is not who benefits or loses from the transfer, but the gains that will be achieved by the CSA staff in doing their job better. If my hon. Friend cannot set a date for when the migration will take place, can he tell me whether the Department has set a date by which EDS must prove whether the system works?

I think that the system is moving towards a position where it is working, but we all know that it is not working well enough. We need to ensure that we work day by day and week by week to make it work properly. If I were to set arbitrary time scales, that would not help the children, parents with care and nonresident parents wt o need to see that the system works properly.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way again. Hon. Members will agree that I have been fairly generous in doing so; that has inevitably meant that I have had to answer many of the questions raised in the debate in my responses to their interventions.

As hon. Members will know, transitional arrangements will apply to cases once they have been converted to the new scheme. That will allow parents to plan their arrangements and to adjust to the changes in their finances. Until cases move on to the new scheme, their old scheme liability remains payable.

Once again, I apologise to those parents with care and non-resident parents who have not received the standard of service that they have the right to expect. I have said that my noble Friend Baroness Hollis and I take an active interest in ensuring action in problem cases. Along with the agency's chief executive, we are happy to look at cases that hon. Members feel are unresolved.

I shall have to respond in writing to hon. Members on some of the specific points raised in the debate. However, I want to end my remarks by responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. He asked me, as the Minister, to show that I was on the side of hon. Members in the debate. I tell him that not only am I on the side of hon. Members but, more importantly, I am on the side of those children who need the support of a reformed child support system, which we are determined to deliver.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of Ehlers Danlos disease. For reasons that will become obvious, I would have been even more grateful to have secured the debate six months ago when I first started applying for it.

About nine months ago, a young woman attended my advice surgery in Ormskirk. She was in considerable distress, and informed me that she suffered from Ehlers Danlos syndrome. I had never heard of it. It turns out that the syndrome is caused by a genetic defect in collagen, the body's connective tissue. EDS is characterised by skin extensibility, joint hypermobility and tissue fragility. I am told that that condition allowed some individuals to become contortionists—perhaps it still does. It may be the only useful thing to come out of it.

The syndrome is classified into six major types, each of which runs true in particular families. EDS can affect males and females of all races and all ethnic backgrounds. The prognosis depends upon the specific type. In type IV, for example, life expectancy can be shortened owing to the rupture of vessels and organs in the body. For women with EDS who have types 1, II or IV, pregnancy can be life-threatening.

EDS can result in easy splitting of the skin. Gaping scars can be created by even minor blows or buffets. The skin can fold, which can be dramatic. It can mean tumours and spheroids under the skin, which victims have described as like having ball bearings under the skin. Some suffer the dislocation of joints and unstable joints, including congenital hip dislocation. It can lead to chronic joint and limb pain. Ruptures and varicose veins become more common. It car also lead to gum disease, gastro-intestinal diverticuli premature aging and bladder conditions; and the external scarring involved can be so severe as to load to permanent disfigurement. At its worst, and depending on the type, it can give rise to continuous, excruciating pain.

My constituent had been diagnosed as suffering from type IV. As I said, that can result in the life-threatening rupture of vessels and organs. Expertise on the syndrome seems pretty scarce in the NHS. I shall come to an exception to that criticism shortly. My constituent had been referred to the dermatology unit at Leigh. There, she had simply been handed photocopy of the relevant pages of a medical text book. She took them home to read. She read them with horror. Under the entry for type IV, she found the following:

"The lifespan of patients with EDS IV is generally shorter than that of their unaffected siblings; the mean age of death is in the early 30s for women".

My constituent was 29. It is not hard to imagine the psychological shock. She was shattered and utterly demoralised. Having thus far been able to hold down a responsible job, she found it impossible with the idea in her mind that within a few months she could be dead.

It is not my purpose today to hang out the Leigh unit to dry. The incident—being handed such documents to read—has properly been tackled by Brian Strett, the chairman of the Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh trust, following my complaints. I have no further complaint about that. I do not think that a patient will receive such a response there again. I have related the incident only to exemplify the paucity of attention and resource committed to EDS.

The syndrome is quite rare. It is estimated that about one person in 5,000 might have a variant of EDS. Some people's symptoms are no doubt mild. However, one in 5,000 means that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, my hon. Friend the Minister and every other Member of Parliament probably have between 12 and 15 constituents who suffer from the condition.

There is an EDS support group. Its fund raising manager is a very active lady, Mrs. Rae Mould, who lives in Rufforth in north Yorkshire. She sent me some helpful briefings. They point out, for example, that the syndrome can sometimes go undetected because it often has no outward symptoms. At other times, the bruising that can very easily occur in people with the condition can be and has been misinterpreted as the result of self-harm or even physical abuse. That is particularly important in relation to children who suffer from the condition. There can also be chronic joint or limb pain that shows nothing on X-rays or in similar examinations.

My constituent was able to inform me, because she had done some research of her own, that there was someone in the NHS who offered clinical advice on and diagnosis of EDS. That person is Professor Michael Pope, who works out of Chelsea and Westminster hospital and works part of the time in Cardiff. I contacted Mike Pope, who was good enough to find a slot for my constituent, so that he could meet her and diagnose her problems. That is not an easy matter for a man whose expertise is in huge national demand. The situation is that if he can fit in the people who are referred to him, they have to travel to London, which is not always easy. Nevertheless, he found a slot for my constituent and she visited him.

The one bright aspect in this sorry tale is that, after examining my constituent, Professor Pope was able to tell her that her condition was not the life-threatening type IV, as she previously thought. I met her some weeks later, by sheer accident, in her workplace, which is the Co-op bank in Skelmersdale. The change in her demeanour was wonderful, as we would expect of someone who had been given a reprieve from a death sentence. That was one of those encounters that make being an MP worth while—we do not have enough of them, perhaps. Incidentally, I should refer on the record to the outstanding support that has been given to her by the Co-op bank and, in particular, her immediate supervisor.

Even more inspiring was a meeting that I subsequently had with Professor Pope. He is a remarkable man, typical of everything that is best about the NHS. For a long period, he has refused to do any work on this matter in the private sector. He described to me how, over the years, the funding made available to his unit, which was diagnosing and researching this problem, had been steadily eroded. He described how between 1976 and 1985 his group, working in the then clinical research centre, led the field in Europe in research on connective tissue genetics. I will quote him directly, because I could not possibly summarise the achievements that he set out:

"Amongst our discoveries were the first collagen type I and II errors in osteogenesis imperfecta and various EDS subtypes … and the first collagen V mutation on EDS I and II and also the first British collagen type VII and collagen type II mutations in epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica and the Stickler Syndrome."

There was a lot of Latin in that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which you would be much more able to pronounce than I am.

For a time, the Medical Research Council's decent funding meant that sufferers were referred to Professor Pope for clinical classification, genetic counselling and molecular diagnosis. At the time, that was pretty satisfactory by all accounts. After the closure of the clinical research centre, the group was transferred to Cambridge in 1995, to Cardiff in 1997 and to London in 2001. Each move was accompanied by diminished resources and progressive contraction, which led inexorably to the skeleton service that he is now able to conduct. He also ran the Institute of Medical Genetics in Cardiff. I understand that the referrals from health authorities across the country cost about £600 each.

In late 2000, the MRC withdrew its support. A self-fulfilling process goes on, where funding is reduced and reduced, so the operation is reduced, and eventually the MRC says that it cannot fund the operation because it is too small and cannot carry out sufficient work. Professor Pope's unit, if I can call it that, is left to scrape along, with funding raised voluntarily by the EDS support group supporting a small budget each year from Chelsea and Westminster.

It is now pretty impossible to secure direct funding from the NHS or from research sources to assist in such work. The laboratory facilities, the cell culture collection and the records archive are now all in danger of disintegrating—indeed, they might already have done so. Professor Pope has been operating in the area of EDS more or less pro bono.

The most alarming fact is that Professor Pope's scheduled retirement date is next month. Who is going to do the work that Professor Pope did, which made such a difference to my constituent's lives and to so many others? After July, there might be no centre of expertise to assist British citizens suffering from this highly complex condition, which is difficult to diagnose precisely and involves lifelong disabilities and even early death. That is clearly not acceptable.

I know that various colleagues in Parliament have raised their worries on the subject in letters, in parliamentary questions, and in an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a constituent—a teenage girl—whose case he has pursued, as has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the issue in the House, as has the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Having looked at the matter from the outside, I believe that there is clearly a need for a centralised UK service, preserving and building on the service offered by Professor Pope and his colleagues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the Department will take the matter seriously, will seek the means to fund the service and set it on a solid foundation, and will do so quickly before it is totally lost.

My description has only skated over the surface of the problem. I clearly have no clinical expertise, as is probably obvious, and the NHS funding systems amaze me. I recommend the Minister to take an early opportunity to meet Professor Pope to get the benefit of his detailed knowledge and to assist him and his successors—be there any—in providing properly for constituents whose conditions are hard enough to bear without the added burden of not knowing where or when to seek help, or for how long that help will be on hand.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on securing this adjournment debate; I hear that he has been battling away to secure one for a long time. I know that he has a particular interest in the disease and has asked about it before, so I welcome this opportunity to respond to him.

I join my hon. Friend in recognising how distressing the condition is for patients, their carers and families. Sufferers can experience a wide range of problems and disabilities. I pay tribute to work done to help patients and families by voluntary organisations such as the Ehlers Danlos Syndrome support group, which helps to fund research into the condition. It is important to raise public awareness of less well-known diseases such as EDS, and I hope I that this debate will help to achieve that.

The provision of treatment for EDS patients is part of the responsibility of primary care trusts and other local stakeholders. They are charged with making arrangements for the health care of their local populations because they are closest to the people that they serve and best placed to respond sensitively to their needs. People with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome also have access to a range of specialists depending on the individual diagnoses. Those specialists include orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, dermatologists and clinical geneticists.

I was distressed to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent. That cannot have been the best way to learn about the consequences of a possible condition, and I am glad to hear that he has successfully pursued and resolved the issue locally with the trust chair.

Important work is also being done for EDS patients by the connective tissues genetics group at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, under the leadership of Professor Pope, of whom my hon. Friend has spoken so warmly. He and his team provide specialised multidisciplinary clinical genetic diagnosis care and laboratory analysis for paediatric and adult patients from families with a spectrum of inherited defects of connective tissue, including EDS. Patients are referred from regional genetic units or from other regional or local sub-specialists.

Since the 1970s, the unit has achieved a national and international reputation for effective comprehensive clinical and diagnostic management of patients with inherited defects of connective tissue. The team is also active in teaching and has pioneered research at the leading edge of clinical practice. I say to my hon. Friend that there are two separate—perhaps not unconnected—issues. There is a difference between the future funding of the service for patients and the question of research.

I shall not go into the details of the condition because my hon. Friend has already described in detail some of the many consequences of having EDS and its different facets. There is no effective cure for it, although the condition can be managed and simple precautionary measures can greatly lessen the chances of accidental trauma, scarring and bruising. It is important to recognise that there are balances and difficult issues, certainly for children, in making those balances.

I understand why patients with genetic diseases, including EDS, and their families are calling for greater research effort to be applied in this area. The Government are committed to investing money in genetic research, which offers enormous potential to improve our health and health care. Increasing understanding of genetics will bring more accurate diagnoses, more personalised prediction of risk and more targeted and effective use of existing drugs. It will also provide new gene-based drugs and therapies, as well as prevention and treatment regimes tailored according to a person's individual genetic profile. EDS is one of a number of conditions, and we believe that there are about 750,000 patients nationally with incurable single gene disorders, which are particularly difficult.

Gene therapy offers hope for many people for whom there is currently none. It is to address, that point that the Department is supporting gene therapy research into single gene disorders. As with any medical research, it is not possible to predict accurately when treatments might become available or which approaches will ultimately prove effective. That is the nature of research, but I share the hopes of the many parents, carers and patients that gene therapy will become a viable treatment for inherited disorders such as EDS.

Hon. Members will recall that we announced £30 million to develop specialised genetic services in April 2001, and we have made further funding available for this important area. In June 2003, our White Paper, "Our inheritance, our future—realising the potential of genetics in the NHS", set out the Government's commitment to developing genetics knowledge, skills and provision in the NHS by investing more than £50 million over the next three years. As well as that, the Medical Research Council spent £59.2 million on genetics, molecular structure and dynamics research in 2001–02.

The funding emphasis is translational, which means bringing the benefits of research into the clinic. Our vision is for the NHS to lead the world in taking maximum advantage of the safe, effective and ethical application of the new genetic knowledge and technologies for all patients as soon as they become available. In time, we should be able to assess the risk that an individual has of developing disease, not only for single gene disorders such as EDS and cystic fibrosis but for our country's biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as conditions such as diabetes that limit people's lives.

The potential is immense. Although genetics will never mean a disease-free existence, greater understanding of it is one of our best allies in the war against disease and long-term conditions. I hope that, over time, the research will provide a breakthrough in the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases such as EDS.

My hon. Friend made some comments about the role of the MRC, and I am aware that the council is not currently funding research into EDS, although it funds a number of research projects into connective tissue and collagen physiology. The MRC welcomes high-quality applications for support into any aspect of human health, and they are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.

As I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates, the MRC is an independent body that receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. It is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe to the individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is something that researchers and research users best decide.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the general efforts of the Government and NHS in genetic research. I welcome and applaud that work. However, in this specific case, we have a unit that does both diagnostic and research work, and as far as I can ascertain, it is the only place in the country where patients such as my constituent can ascertain the nature of the disorder and get expert advice. Such facilities do not exist elsewhere, and the unit is about to collapse. That is the centre of my concern.

That is why I made a distinction between research, on which the research funding bodies make the decisions, and the question of provision for patients, which is primarily a matter for PCTs. For something as specialised as EDS, the arrangements normally involve one or several centres. I understand that work goes on at other places in the country; we do not have the details here, but centres obviously provide services to EDS patients, including one in my hon. Friend's area. Other provisions are certainly made for patients.

I understand that an unsuccessful bid was made to the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group in 2003. The question of centralised specialist provision might be considered, but I cannot comment on that. I suggest that my hon. Friend pursues the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He deals with such matters on a day-to-day basis, especially the question of specialist commissioning in relation to the provision of service.

I have made it clear that the MRC considers bids on a competitive basis; it considers the ability to compete. Research excellence and its importance to health will continue to be the primary considerations in its funding decisions, in which the Government have never been directly involved. We need to bear in mind that its funding decisions on research bids are made largely on scientific opportunity and the likelihood of scientific development.

In connection with EDS being a long-term medical condition, my hon. Friend did not mention the work on long-term conditions being done by the national service framework. It will focus on services for people with neurological conditions because that is an area of real need. We know that services in many areas are still patchy, with some long waiting lists and other inequalities. It cannot cover all long-term conditions, or the entire disability agenda, but we need to be realistic and pragmatic in our response. However, we think that when the national service framework comes out, it will include models of care, and that it will show how users and carers can be supported with information that can be taken up by other medical specialties—information that might be relevant in particular cases. There may also be benefits for everyone on issues such as access to rehabilitation, equipment, adaptations and other support.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we are sympathetic to the needs of patients with EDS. We believe that initiatives such as the genetic strategy and the national service framework will make life better for patients with EDS, and their families and their carers.

On the question of commissioning arrangements and the way in which primary care trusts provide services for patients with that range of conditions, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to find time in his diary to meet my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire to discuss whether we should consider having such services across the country and how they should be provided and funded. I cannot make any commitment on his behalf, but it is a discussion worth having.

I look upon community transport as the one bright star in the transport firmament. To oversimplify ever so slightly, the roads are in gridlock, the trains do not run on time and buses are expensive, but at least there is community transport. That has been the one great encouragement in the past few years in transport for my constituents. I welcome the seed corn, pump-priming money that the Government have contributed towards helping my constituents to benefit from new and improved community transport schemes.

Four schemes serve the South Gloucestershire unitary authority, two of which are prominent in my constituency—Vale Link community transport, which serves Thornbury and the Severn Vale, with Yate, Sodbury and District community transport, serving the Yate area and surrounding villages.

I pay tribute to the paid staff of those organisations, and to the many volunteers who make them something very special. They are the people who will take someone to the eye hospital for an appointment at 6 o'clock in the morning. They are the people that a person should get in touch with in a transport crisis over getting to a new college course on Monday, when the council has rung on Friday to say that it will not pay for transport. They are the people who help in an emergency or on a regular week in, week out, basis. They enable many of my elderly or disabled constituents, or those who are young with families, or who live in far-flung villages, to feel that they are part of the community They deserve enormous credit.

I—like, I am sure, the Minister—want these community transport schemes to have a long-term, viable, sustainable future, rather than, as has happened so far after the initial flush of funding, to lurch annually from financial crisis to financial crisis. For example, Vale Link community transport has in two consecutive years issued redundancy notices to staff. That was the only way in which it could cover itself, because it was not sure that the money would be available on 1 April or 6 April to keep it going. That is unsettling for staff who sometimes leave because they cannot live with such uncertainty, and for the passengers.

To give a flavour of the value attached to the services—I shall not quote great screeds although I have many letters—I shall refer to a letter I received earlier in the year. The lady tells me:

"I am writing on behalf of myself and other elderly, sick and disabled people … I lave been told that the Vale Link … are under threat of being withdrawn owing to lack of funds … I have Parkinson's Disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and although I bought this bungalow because it was on a good little local bus route, I am not fit enough to use it. I am only able to cope here alone with the help of the Dial a Ride."

That is the difference that the service makes to that lady. She lists all the things that she does with its help—the essentials such as visits to the doctor and the hospital, but also to her poetry group once a month. The issue is partly one of access to essential public services, and partly one of taking part in community life. The lady writes:

"I would be housebound without the help of this service."

I also mentioned Yate, Sodbury and District community transport, and I have a letter about that from a lady who writes:

"I am nearly 80. I use it for shopping. I cannot carry heavy loads. Also, they have days out which I enjoy … It is used also by schools, youth and varied groups, and it will be a great loss to all who use it."

She mentions social visits, going to medical centres, and so on. I have shoals of such letters, as I am sure the Minister can imagine, from grateful constituents who appreciate the fact that community transport schemes have been started, often with substantial Government pump priming, but who want the Government to ensure that community transport has a long-term, viable and sustainable future.

When I have raised the matter in written questions, the response, as I am sure the Minister is aware, has generally been that the Government got the schemes going, and that they are thereafter for local authorities. That argument is fine as far as it goes. If the ongoing revenue funding—not for buying buses but for keeping the thing going—had also been transferred to local authorities, on a scale that would keep them going, that would be great. However, I think that the Minister would accept that that has not happened.

There are ways in which central Government help local authorities and community transport groups, and I shall mention a couple of them, but they are not up to the scale of the problem, given the transport pressures on local authorities. To put the matter in context, commercial bus companies are under increasing financial and competitive pressure to concentrate on the money-making urban main routes; that leaves councils to fill the vacuum of rural and connecting services to the main routes. We expect councils to run more of such services, while also expecting them to pay to keep community transport going, and the money will not stretch to allow them to do all those things. There is a danger that we are telling councils, "If you want to keep community transport going, you will have to take off th( rural bus service you have been subsidising." I appreciate that councils must prioritise and that local people should determine local priorities, but the money must be there to make that possible.

If community transport is to be long term and sustainable, what can the Government do? Is it just a matter of saying that it is up to local authorities? The Government support the rural bus challenge with predominantly capital funding to get it going, but South Gloucestershire's most recent bid was turned down. Some bids from other authorities were granted not just capital funding but continuation funding for up to seven years. A lot of effort goes into the bids, and not all can succeed, but there is an inconsistency in that sometimes people are told that they cannot bid for continuation funding. Yet some of the successful bids have the words "continuation funding" in the title. It makes one wonder if those who know how to play the game get a better result. People feel slightly aggrieved about that.

I recognise that the grants cannot go on forever. My local authority is starting to say that it cannot go on bidding for money for another bus if it does not know whether it has the long-term revenue funding to back it. That is the nub of my concern.

There have been welcome changes: community transport can now access the bus service operators' grant, for example, and the money is going directly to community transport. I welcome the Government's change of policy in that respect, but how will the services get long-term sustainability? I group my responses into two areas: the first is not so much about the Government getting out of the way, but about freeing up innovative local authorities and community transport groups to do new things and to find new sustainable long-term funding.

The Government need to recognise the potential of community transport to provide services that link in to the commercial bus routes. Bus companies increasingly say, "If you can get to the main road, we will run a fast, reliable, commercial bus service down the main road, the bus lane or the quality bus corridor." However, it is possible to have community transport such as a community bus service that runs on fixed routes, with some variation—perhaps a demand-responsive element—to link to that network. Potentially, it is possible, but there are all sorts of barriers.

For example, I believe there is a rule that where a community transport service wants to feed into the main network, it cannot use a paid driver. I can understand why, 15 to 20 years ago, there may have been such rules, because we did not want subsidised services to compete with commercial services, but in rural areas now it is nonsense to think that anyone wants to run such services. It is not a case of public money crowding out private services; they just ain't there.

That being so, could we lift some of the section 22 restrictions, which state that a paid driver cannot be used? Volunteer drivers can be used for individual journeys, but they would not be willing to do an eight-hour day, five or six clays a week. Paid staff are needed, and rules need to be relaxed to allow services to operate without the bureaucracy. I understand that section 19 rules say that it is all right to have a driver as long as he is a member of the group; some communities have therefore had to sign up everyone in the parish to be a member of the community transport group so that one of them can drive the bus. I think the Minister would agree that that sort of bureaucracy blocks creativeness. What I propose would not result in unfair competition with the commercial sector but it would enable community transport to provide new and better services and access for people in rural areas, without the bureaucracy, giving them sustainable, long-term security.

The Government need to make it clear that the rural bus grant, which they give to local authorities every year, can be used explicitly for community transport schemes, as there are often rules and regulations about what the money can be used for. There might even be a presumption, or openness to a presumption, that the first port of call for the rural bus grant money should not be to pay commercial providers to run a few extra buses on infrequent services on, say, a Sunday, only to find that the public do not use that service and that it is then taken off because we are simply paying people to run empty buses. The money should be used explicitly for community transport. Would not it be better to use the money to provide a service that better matches demand?

The Government could also consider local transport plans. I understand that the next round of plans will include the key themes of social exclusion and accessibility. Community transport has the potential to meet some of those demands. If there is a transport problem in a rural area, the answer may not be a capital project, or a new road, bus stop or junction, but a revenue solution to make that rural area accessible by paying for a community bus service. That could be an explicit part of what a local transport plan should contain. If the Government gave a positive signal that they were looking for those sorts of ideas, we would go a long way.

There is an issue with how far local authorities can afford to take up the slack where Government funding has ceased. That issue was raised in this Chamber nearly a year ago by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) in a sort of all-party debate on transport, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) responded, in which the same issues and questions were raised. For example: how do we convert something good into something long term and sustainable?

Another problem is that of tapering Government support. Clearly, people knew when they made a bid for the money that it would not last for ever, but there was a rush of applications, and many things started at the same time that are now running out of money at more or less the same time, and the funding to take up the strain is not there. My local community transport group says that charities and trusts are pretty good at stumping up money for capital items. With a fair wind, it can get the money for a bus, but it cannot get the ongoing funding for a driver. That is what central and local government is about: the ongoing security of services.

One message that I have received is that the people who run community transport, and those who use it, want certainty, security, stability and predictability. They want to know that services will not be affected come February or March, when we have the annual panic and crisis, when money is borrowed or a few thousand pounds are found from another budget. They want to know that the services have the long-term stability that they have a right to expect.

My key messages to the Minister are as follows. First, one of thanks to the Government for helping to get things going. Secondly, I request that some of the bureaucracy, such as regulations, and limitations on community transport, is removed in order to address long-term funding needs creatively. Some local authorities are saying, "Well, we can't find this sort of long-term funding. We can't find ways of getting money to community transport, so we are not really going to engage with this agenda." South Gloucestershire unitary council is not taking that approach. It wants to be creative with local community transport schemes and to find ways to use them as service providers for social services and education, so that it can get core revenue streams going into them. It also wants to mesh in with the rest of the network, use paid drivers in rural areas—where that is the answer—and to use community transport schemes as part of a local transport plan, as an alternative to capital projects.

There are many ideas floating around, and we need to know that the Government will not say, "We never intended that to do this," or, "You can't do that because of this regulation," but will let a thousand flowers bloom, so to speak, let local community transport groups be creative and give them the longterm, sustainable future that my constituents and, I think, the Minister, would like to see.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate and providing the Chamber with another opportunity to discuss the important role of community transport and how it is funded.

I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, as I did not recognise the transport system that he described. He said that roads were gridlocked. I accept that there are occasions when they are extremely busy, but it is nonsensical to suggest that they are permanently at gridlock. Although the Liberal Democrats nationally support congestion charging, Liberal Democrats in Bristol opposed one such measure that Bristol city council proposed a year or so ago. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on that with some of his colleagues in that area. The other reason why our roads are extremely busy is because under this Government we have a very successful economy. As many as 2 million more people are working. More people are travelling to work. More people are travelling for leisure and pleasure.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about community transport. It certainly is a bright star. I am sure that he has received many appreciative letters from people who use community transport. That is reflected in the sort of communication that the Department has had from people, both at local authority level and from the service users. Community and voluntary transport has a key role to play throughout all regions of the country, and in both urban and rural areas. The challenges may vary but the need for transport for those who are socially excluded by reason of income, gender, race, disability or geographical isolation is always there.

The Community Transport Association, which represents the majority of schemes across the country, estimates that there are some 5,000 schemes in the UK, which between them run 60,000 minibuses. The schemes deliver 5 million trios a year for almost 2 million people with mobility problems. In addition to 10,000 or so full-time paid drivers, the sector relies on 250,000 volunteers to provide these invaluable transport schemes. I pay tribute to those volunteers who support such transport schemes. Without their contribution many others would be denied mobility, and would increasingly be socially isolated and disadvantaged.

However, as we have heard today, funding for the sector is not straightforward, and I fully appreciate the difficulties to which uncertainty over future funding and the complexities of funding applications themselves can give rise. For a small operation simply pulling together all the information needed for a funding application can be a daunting and time-consuming task. It has to be repeated time after time for different funders, and the need to "reinvent" the project to meet the relevant funding criteria can be a significant burden. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved over a number of years in supporting the work of schemes in his constituency to secure funding.

We recognise that good transport connections are vital to building thriving rural communities. It is central to achieving a healthy economy, a better quality of life and an improved environment. Over the past 30 years, public transport has become a marginal form of transport in many rural areas. In addition, people's journeys have become longer as local shops, schools, and other services such as health care, post offices and banks have disappeared from many communities. For people without access to a car this meant increasing difficulties accessing employment opportunities and essential services.

Many of your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not have access to a car. In my constituency some 40 per cent. do not. That is bad enough in an urban area but the problem is even worse in rural areas. Walking or cycling to the nearest services is not an option, particularly for the elderly or those who are disabled in some way. That lack of accessibility is a significant cause of social exclusion in rural areas. We recognised this in the commitments made in both the 10-year plan for transport and the rural White Paper to invest in rural transport, to improve the transport infrastructure and to enhance rural accessibility.

The measures we are taking are having a positive impact. New and enhanced bus services are being delivered across all rural counties. They are improving links between market towns and halting the decline in bus use in rural areas. More than £50 million will be spent this financial year alone on the rural bus subsidy grant. More than 2,000 new and enhanced bus services are now being funded from that grant, supporting some 26 million passengers per annum. We have succeeded in stopping the gradual decline in the rural bus network and provided a much-needed boost to many rural communities.

Additional resources for conventional bus services are not the only answer in rural areas however. We fully recognise the potential contribution of more flexible, demand-responsive services and community transport solutions in meeting local needs. In doing so, in 2001 we extended the fuel duty rebate scheme to a wide range of community transport services, helping them with their fuel costs and providing not inconsiderable assistance. We have made changes to the regulations governing bus registrations, which will ensure that outdated rules and regulations are not a barrier to the introduction of demand-responsive bus services. We shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's point about section 22 in the forthcoming review of the permit regime. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to consider other issues, we shall certainly give them careful scrutiny, although we cannot guarantee that we shall take them on board.

I am grateful to the Minister, because my point was about a concrete issue. Can he say something about the time scale for decision making and changing things?

I cannot, but my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is more familiar with such issues than I am, so I shall get him to pen the hon. Gentleman a line.

We want still further improvements in rural accessibility, with better targeting of resources by local authorities to meet accessibility needs, greater promotion of rural transport services and a more joined-up approach, linking public transport and the less conventional services that I just mentioned. All such initiatives can help to make more services available to more people.

The Department has a number of initiatives aimed at supporting the community and voluntary sectors in both rural and urban areas, where social exclusion also exists. One of the most significant initiatives has been the extension to community transport operators of the bus service operators grant, which was formerly the fuel duty rebate. Since the introduction of the grant in May 2002, nearly 800 community transport operators in England, including Vale Link community transport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have been awarded eligibility. The grant is continuing, not time limited.

On the interests of rural communities, since 1998 the Department has provided significant funding to improve the provision of bus services in rural areas. Our rural bus subsidy grant and the rural bus challenge schemes have been widely welcomed as having a real impact on the transport needs of rural communities around the country. I am pleased to say that the challenge scheme in particular has opened up new opportunities in many areas for community transport operations to play a bigger part in addressing local needs. Although we have helped to stimulate many such initiatives, I should also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication that community groups have invested in improving quality of life for the many people who rely on them. As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, south Gloucestershire has benefited from that funding for rural services, having successfully received awards for four projects totalling £2.1 million from the rural bus challenge and some £294,000 from the rural bus subsidy grant.

We of course recognise that the funding regimes that I have outlined do not provide a long-term funding base for schemes. The hon. Gentleman said that the grants cannot go on for ever, and I agree. However, that was never our intention, and we have made it clear from the outset of the rural bus challenge that it was never intended to be a source of permanent revenue support. The main aim was to get projects under way, which would then become part of mainstream funding. Although I recognise the pressure on local authority resources for revenue support of buses, the overall Government grant has increased by 7.3 per cent. for next year and by 30 per cent. since 1997.

Some authorities have an exceptional record of working in close and supportive partnership with community transport. Others, however, have not yet recognised the value of working in partnership. In particular, many authorities continue to provide funding support one year at a time. That is no basis for forward planning or development.

Now that local authorities have the benefit of funding on a five-year basis rather than annually, we hope that they will pass that benefit to the schemes that they support. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recognised is that security of funding over a long period gives local government a better opportunity to plan. However, those who rely on such funding should also benefit from the certainty of the five-year forward planning.

In the same vein, it is important to engage community transport providers in the local transport plan process at a strategic level in recognition of their contribution to public transport delivery. The LTP guidance to local authorities emphasises the need to encourage active involvement from that sector. However, too many community and voluntary transport providers continue to be treated as some sort of optional extra in the transport mix. Clearly in south Gloucestershire there is evidence of engagement and, as we have heard, projects have been taken forward under the rural bus challenges.

Where do we go from here on funding? We all recognise that community and voluntary transport schemes are vital in the mix of transport provision. The Government want to do all that we can to ensure that they thrive. Funding is, as we have heard today, a key factor in determining how the sector is able to continue and to develop effectively. It is important that all those involved in funding, including national and local government, as well as other funding providers, are aware of how their decisions can affect the future viability of community schemes. It is important that they are able to share their experiences, learn from others, and develop their funding policies with a broad understanding of the sector.

In August last year, the Department hosted a seminar for the major funders of community and voluntary transport. Its purpose was to discuss funding and to consider what we could all do to enable the community and voluntary sector to develop to the benefit of the communities—both rural and urban—that it serves. As a result of that seminar we have commissioned the CTA to produce a good practice guide to funding. It is due to deliver the guide this summer and we intend to make it widely available to all involved. In addition, funding will be considered in the context of a research project that we have commissioned to consider the role of community transport in reducing social exclusion. One of the aims of that work is to identify and evaluate the funding regimes that are available to the sector. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Finally, as part of our commitment to the compact with the voluntary sector, we have worked closely with it on "Working in Partnership with the Voluntary Sector—Strategy and Action Plan", which we are soon to publish. That document will outline how the Department has met and will continue to meet the aims of the compact. By liaising with the sector, we aim to obtain views on the Government's transport agenda and to identify and better understand the barriers that voluntary organisations have to overcome if they are to provide a full and sustainable service.

In conclusion, we are actively considering the impact of funding on the voluntary and community transport sector. There is no simple solution, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. Our role is to provide a national policy, regulatory and financial framework so that the transport system works for everyone. We must engage others, local authorities in particular, in recognising the implications for local communities if community and voluntary transport schemes are not supported.

This has been a useful opportunity to explore some important issues. I am sure that this debate will not be the last that we have on an issue of enormous interest to my Department and to the constituents of many hon. and right hon. Members.