I apologise for the fact that I have a streaming cold; I suspect that my contribution to the debate will be even more irritating than usual because of my rather nasal tone.

I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to initiate this debate. It will be no surprise that I was prompted to do so by the recent publication of the report of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, chaired by my long-time friend and colleague Dr. Richard Stone. The report makes an important contribution to the debate. The previous report, published in 1997, has acquired vastly greater significance since the events of September 2001.

I believe that Muslims in Britain are now at the sharp end of race hatred and xenophobia, something that the Muslim Council of Britain recently described as

"a relentless increase in hostility towards Islam and British Muslims".

I venture to suggest that one of the reasons for that is the extent to which Islam, asylum, immigration and terror have become conflated in the public mind. That does not mean, however, that there is no race discrimination, xenophobia or disadvantage targeted at Britain's other minority communities. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may want to speak on that subject. I was disturbed to read in today's newspapers of the attacks on synagogues in his constituency. As was outlined in a recent debate in the House, we have seen a significant increase in anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic attacks. We condemn that absolutely and unequivocally. Race hatred and xenophobia are not divisible. Hatred directed towards one community affects us all. When condemning it we should not suggest that hatred of one community is worse than hatred of another.

Last night saw the timely launch, which I welcome, of the Alif-Aleph manifesto for promoting understanding between Britons, Muslims and British Jews. That, too, involved my friend Dr. Stone. The manifesto reminds us of the limitless potential for understanding and tolerance between communities, as well as of the sadness of the scale of race hatred and race attacks, even in our country.

We need to understand why the Muslim community in Britain perceives its sense of discrimination and disadvantage so acutely. I shall give some objective figures in a moment, although we need to understand that the "relentless increase" in race hatred is global. I do not wish to spend much time on that, because it warrants many debates. However, although some may argue the point, it is worth reminding ourselves of the strong perception among British Muslims that the international situation is revealing them to be second-class world citizens. Some of that is rooted in opposition to the Iraq war; but the war itself is compounded by the horror of the abuses in Abu Ghraib, the deaths of civilians in Falluja, the desperate plight of Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank, and the suppression of human rights among Muslims held in Guantanamo bay. All have an effect on the psyche.

Linking the domestic to the international agenda, there is real fear and anxiety over the return of failed asylum seekers to the shattered state of Somalia. That is sending out a shockwave across Muslim communities in my constituency and elsewhere. Muslims are not alone in their reaction to the global situation. Much could be said in response to all those points, but there is little doubt that the international situation is having an impact on domestic debates at a level that we have not seen before. That reinforces the importance of entering into dialogue at all levels, so that the anger and fear in those parts of the community is not simply pent up.

My core comments have more to do with the domestic agenda. Antagonism and prejudice are being fuelled by competition for scarce resources, which arises as a consequence of social inequality, and disadvantages Muslims and other minority groups. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) will comment if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the northern towns are experiencing a different version of the competition for work and regeneration funds. In the south, the competition is for housing.

The Government's efforts to tackle the scars of poverty and inequality in Britain, from the regeneration programmes through to public service investment, have had a major effect. Much still remains to be done, however, not least because society has not stood still in the seven years since many of those programmes began. I have seen that in my constituency, which is one of the parts of London that has undergone rapid change in the past two decades. Regeneration agencies describe it as "an area of arrival". That is nothing new. A short walk around Paddington and North Kensington and, indeed, a few meals there demonstrate the large number of communities that have arrived and settled in the area. There are the Irish and Spanish communities, for example, and the Caribbean people who arrived on the Windrush.

We now have several Muslim communities, which, I venture to suggest, are the most disparate in the world. In my constituency, there are Bangladeshi and Moroccan communities, as well as people from Iraq, Iran, Kosovo, Bosnia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and Algeria—to name those community organisations with which I am familiar. According to Westminster's draft ethnic minority needs audit, Westminster has the 13th highest proportion of Muslims in the country.

The danger of lumping those disparate organisations into the catch-all description "Muslims" is obvious. Some are refugees, but many are not. Some are relatively recent arrivals, but others, such as those in the Bangladeshi community, have been a settled feature of local life for decades. Some are from severely impoverished countries and failed states, such as Somalia. Others, such as those from Iraqi and Kosovan communities in particular, are disproportionately likely to have professional and highly educated backgrounds. Some of the communities that have settled around the Edgware road in central London have extremely wealthy backgrounds. Some of the Muslim communities are secular. Some attend mosque but keep their faith largely private; others are informed by their belief in every aspect of their political and daily lives. A few are extremists.

Diversity is a key element of the Muslim community, as it is in modern urban society as a whole, but my daily experience tells me—and my conclusions dovetail with the commission's recent report—that we know far less than we should about the needs, characteristics and even the numbers of many of our minority communities. What we do know about such things as the concentrations of poverty is already sufficiently compelling to make the case for more substantial and targeted action. We know that the scale of disadvantage facing many in the Muslim communities is institutional and indirect, and flows from the challenge of demography as much as from any explicit policy.

We know that we need to do more to work with the Muslim community to ensure that their interests and needs are reflected in the infrastructure. Schooling is a very good example, but another issue that has been brought repeatedly to my attention in the past few years is the need to address the shortage of burial grounds for Muslims. Those are the sorts of very practical but important issues that we need to do more to address.

Some of the statistics that we do have make the case about disadvantage. Children from black and ethnic minority communities are most likely to be living in poverty. A staggering 75 per cent. of Pakistani and Bangladeshi households live in poverty. Some 17 per cent. of all children, but 35 per cent. of Muslim children, are in workless households. In London, the figure rises to 24 per cent. of all children and 41 per cent. of Muslim children. Some 16 per cent. of Muslims of working age have never worked and are long-term unemployed.

In the census, all ethnic groups reported particularly high unemployment among young men, with 40 per cent. of young Bangladeshi men out of work. The conjunction of demography—the high and rising child population—and high unemployment should have triggered a sharper response, but the new deal, for example, has not reached as many unemployed young people of black, Muslim and other ethnic minority backgrounds as it should have done.

Westminster's audit of ethnic minority communities further underpins the deprivation case. It shows that the four wards with the highest scores in the most recent index of deprivation account for a quarter of the total population but between a half and three quarters of the African and Bangladeshi communities. Yet, some of those wards do not even benefit from the Sure Start programme.

Sadly, there is no equivalent study for North Kensington. despite the obvious pressures in the area. We can only assume that the Moroccan community in Golborne, for example, experiences similar problems, but it would be good to be certain. That is another example of the need for us to do local, rigorous work to establish the community's needs.

My friend Bashir Ebrahim-Khan, the deputy director of the North Kensington Muslim cultural heritage centre, recently wrote to me, saying

"decades of social exclusion in North Kensington has produced an underclass of people cut off from society's mainstream, without any sense of shared purpose".

Yet, more than a quarter of North Kensington is not included in the Sure Start programme, and half was not covered in the council's most recent children's centre plan. Furthermore what will happen to regeneration funding if the neighbourhood renewal fund dries up in 2006?

Housing is a particularly acute pinch point. Data from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the extent of housing deprivation, estimating that 2 per cent. of white families, but 22 per cent. of Pakistani families, 30 per cent. of Bangladeshi families and 15 per cent. of African families live in overcrowded accommodation. The Greater London authority has just provided me with research showing that 42 per cent. of Muslim children are in overcrowded accommodation. Homelessness is also a particular risk factor for African, Bangladeshi and Pakistani families. My experience as a constituency MP is that there is a chronic and growing overcrowding problem, which is impacting particularly on Muslim households. As the deputy director of the Muslim cultural heritage centre emphasised to me,

"Something drastic has to be done to reduce housing overcrowding."

In addition to poverty, unemployment and housing need, Britain's Muslim communities are increasingly concerned about crime and policing, including stop and search. Members or black, Muslim and other ethnic minority communities are at particular risk of being the victims of racially motivated crime, and that was true even before 2001. A survey in 2000 found that the risk of racial attack was 10 times greater for Pakistani and Bangladeshi families than for white people, but the situation has undoubtedly deteriorated since the events of 2001. Indeed, the Muslim Council of Britain referred to recent figures from the Metropolitan police, which show a 41 per cent. increase in attacks.

There is work to be done on the other side of the equation to ensure that police and community relations are well managed and that legitimate efforts to tackle crime and the threat of terror do not alienate young Muslims and risk undermining the flow of intelligence. North Kensington is probably one of the least likely problem areas, because of the history of racial diversity and good relationships with the police in recent years, but a meeting attended by Moroccan and Somali residents last week reported an increase in attacks on places of worship since 11 September, including abuse of and assaults on women wearing the hijab, under-reporting of racial assaults and abuse, and a sense of being disproportionately targeted for stop and search without charge. Indeed, there was anecdotal evidence that some people had been picked up as often as five times in one day. We all know that stop and search plays an important role in the fight against crime and terror, but nothing tackles either so well as good intelligence and good community relations. A proper balance must be struck.

Taken together, the national, London and local figures paint a picture of disproportionate poverty, worklessness, housing need, rising populations of children and young people, a rising incidence of racial attacks and harassment, and a strong perception among members of young Muslim families—borne out by the figures in some cases—that they are being targeted for stop and search. All that implies the need for a far more comprehensive approach that responds more closely to such complex and varied patterns of disadvantage and opportunity.

The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, which inspired me to apply for this debate, quite rightly found that there have been important developments in recent years, which have done much to improve the Government's response to the needs of Britain's Muslims. That includes the outlawing of discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion, the inclusion of religious discrimination in the remit of the single equality commission, more severe sentences for offences aggravated by religious hostility, the establishment of the faith communities unit in the Home Office, and the development of Islamic mortgages However, there is more to do, with the world changing as fast as it has been in recent years.

The commission's report sets out a number of key priorities and the monitoring of progress against the indicators flagged up in the 1997 report. Can the Minister tell me how the Government have interpreted the commission's report? Will some of the main recommendations be taken forward? In particular, will the Government respond to the need demonstrated in their opinion polls for the agenda of tackling racial discrimination in the delivery of services to be one of the highest priorities? How will the Home Office take the lead to ensure that the institutional disadvantages in social and economic policy that I have outlined will be tackled?

To what extent does the latest information from the census and other sources about the cultural, social and economic problems facing British Muslims inform the work of Government across Departments, so that there is a concerted drive to tackle those problems? What are the next steps for promoting community cohesion? Unfortunately, the Muslim cultural heritage centre in North Kensington missed out on the last round of community cohesion investment. We know that there is a real sense that Muslim organisations do not have the opportunities to apply for the funding that they would like, both to strengthen their own communities and to develop outreach and partnership with other communities.

Once again, the commission is to be congratulated on its work. It chimes with and reflects a reality that I see everyday in my constituency. There is real potential, even in the stressed circumstances of the years since 11 September 2001, to demonstrate that Britain can be the most successful multi-faith and multicultural society in modern times. However, that means tackling head on some of the challenges, needs and disadvantages that face British Muslims today.

The hon. Lady coped with her cold very well. To help the Chamber, I should say that it is my intention to start the winding-up speeches at half-past 10. I hope that those who catch my eye will bear that in mind.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly bear your words in mind and be brief. I want to deal with some specific points about the discrimination and disadvantages faced by Muslim citizens in rural areas such as my own, particularly in areas where there are either few Muslim people or high numbers but a low density of Muslim people.

The subject is interesting to me, as the situation is akin to that faced by Welsh speakers, particularly in the south and east of Wales. There are large numbers of them but it is difficult for them to access services because of a lack of official recognition, which results from the lower density. Equally, in my part of Wales at least some Muslim people face similar problems of obtaining social and official recognition as a group. There are practical problems, such as accessing services as Muslim people. We know what that means—problems with diet, with residential services for Muslim elders and with religious observance.

Conventionally, such problems are seen as affecting urban areas, such as Leicester or Bradford. However, they also occur not only in rural parts of Wales but, I am sure, in rural parts of England. Muslim people are isolated and there is a lack of support from kin or other members of the community, for practical reasons of density and distance. In addition, because there are comparatively few Muslims in the locality, awareness is low among other members of the community who would be sympathetic.

There is no reason to suppose that Wales is any less racist or less prone to discriminate. It is a matter for dismay that 700 people in my county voted for the British National party. That was disgraceful. I was amazed and I hope that they are not fervent supporters. The leader of BNP is a north Wales resident and a BNP youth training camp was recently held in Snowdonia, in my constituency. I am grateful to hon. Members who signed my early-day motion opposing that camp.

In my constituency, which is in a very white and Welsh-speaking part of north-west Wales, there have been racist attacks targeting members of the Turkish community and their businesses. That is why I welcome the renewed vigour of the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, particularly in north Wales, where it has established an office at Colwyn Bay.

We do, however, have a greater concentration of Muslims at a very local level in the town of Bangor, which is outside my constituency. It has a comparatively large Muslim community because of the university there, which attracts many foreign students, and the local hospital, where a number of Muslim people work. In some ways, their needs are unrecognised because of the general lack of awareness in public bodies and local authorities. There are also Welsh people who are Muslims: people who have lived in north-west Wales since the '60s, whose children were born there and are Welsh-speaking Muslims, and some local people who have converted to Islam, too.

I hope that the Government recognise that there are particular problems in areas such as mine. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether any attention has been paid to them or action taken about them. The local mosque, which was established with considerable difficulty because of the low numbers and small resources available, now faces a drastic problem. Like many businesses and institutions in the constituency, it has found that its public liability insurance has shot up for no reason that it can discern. I spoke recently to the imam, Mr. Khan, who tells me that the existence of the mosque is precarious and its future is endangered by the huge increase in costs. That is disastrous, given the low level of support available locally.

I shall close by asking the Government whether they have considered the problems that mosques—particularly the one in Bangor—face in obtaining insurance and whether they have they come to any conclusions. I also pose again the general question about discrimination and disadvantage in rural areas where there are low concentrations of Muslim people.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on having secured this important debate. It is timely, in view of the report on Islamophobia, and it is appropriate to pay a short tribute to the work of Dr. Stone, who chaired the commission. He is a personal friend and was my GP before he retired from medical practice to devote more time to inter-faith dialogue. He has done a magnificent job and played a leading role in that work.

Like my hon. Friend, I have a diverse community in my constituency. I was pleased that she remarked on the appalling attack on the synagogue in Hendon. We do not know who did it—police inquiries are ongoing. What made it particularly bad was the fact that the attack was on texts, books and learning. I know that Muslims take great pride in the fact that Islam was able to keep alive so much learning anal knowledge during the dark ages in the west and then return a lot of it to us, so I know that Muslims in my constituency will be as horrified as everyone else by the attack on the synagogue. All decent-thinking people of any faith would condemn any attack on any place of worship. In my constituency, we have worked hard to maintain good and harmonious relations between all the different faiths. The police have worked hard to achieve that, not just by making sure that mosques and synagogues were protected against any possible backlash after 11 September, but in setting up a dialogue over many years.

One problem that we face is the way in which extremists seem to have hijacked the media agenda regarding Muslims. I have, perhaps, built a reputation as an arch-critic of extremists such as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed. Some of those extremists have branded me as a despicable, Islamophobic arch-Zionist—I think that that was the last quote. If I am a despicable Islamophobe, I am afraid that quite a lot of the Muslims in my constituency also fit that category. I know from talking to people in my constituency that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims want nothing to do with those extremists and actively condemn them.

However, Muslims are concerned that they are called upon all the time, as other people are not, to condemn extremists. Why should the Muslim community be treated any differently in that respect? As an elected politician, it is my job to voice their concerns on their behalf—which I do, although I am occasionally criticised for it—in the same way as I voice the concerns of all the other communities in my constituency. That should be adequate they should not be called on time and again to express their views and condemnation, while others are not. As a result, we see a disproportionate coverage of extremists, who do not in any way reflect mainstream Islam in this country, but we do not see similar condemnation of other extreme fundamentalist religious groups. Some of the activities of the Christian far right strike me with as much fear as the activities of those extremists.

My hon. Friend mentioned the hatred and vilification of asylum seekers and people seeking to settle here. I know from my work on this issue that very few asylum seekers have anything to do with terrorism—a handful, if that. Yet, all asylum seekers seem to be lumped in with that campaign.

Just for the record, will my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of Muslim refugees who came to this country to apply for asylum were fleeing the very fundamentalism from which they are called on to disassociate themselves?

My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks to the word—perhaps because we have known each other so long. That was my next point. There is an unhelpful mixing up of domestic and international politics.

The real issue is not what should happen in the middle east, but that has become a flashpoint. If one talks to people in the Jewish and Muslim communities in my constituency, one finds great agreement on what the solution should be: apart from extremists on both sides, both communities recognise the need for a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state and an Israel secure within her borders. Yet it has become a divisive issue, and a symbol of something far greater in terms of the problems facing Muslims in this country.

The war in Iraq has been treated similarly. We all have our reasons for the way in which we voted. I supported the war, not so much over the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but because I have spent my life campaigning against evil dictators, and for once we finally had the chance to get rid of one, who has killed something like 1.5 million Muslims—more than any other person in history—and who was oppressing his own people, who are almost all Muslim, with horrific torture, imprisonment and murder. It is clear that the people of Iraq had no prospect whatever of freeing themselves from his tyranny. It is right to say that many Muslims died, but many more would have died if we had not intervened, and they would have died in horrific circumstances over a long period. We have not found the weapons of mass destruction; we have found the mass graves first.

In considering the Government's international activities we should remind people that our first military intervention was in Kosovo. We intervened to protect hundreds of thousands of Muslims from ethnic cleansing by the allegedly Christian Serbs under the brutal dictator Milosevic. That shows a degree of even-handedness in international intervention.

My hon. Friend referred to terrorism. I know that there is concern about police action in that respect. I have had many dealings with the police over the issue, and I have great respect for the people at Scotland Yard. Contrary to popular belief, they approach it with a significant degree of sensitivity. There has been no "Casablanca" moment of rounding up the usual suspects, although many Muslims have been detained. The police tell me, "Yes, we have detained people. A lot of people have been charged and are awaiting trial." They believe that when some of the trials are held people will begin to recognise that they acted legitimately.

It is also important to bear in mind the fact that we have banned not just Muslim groups but other groups. There was an outcry in my constituency over the banning of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the context of the Tamil liberation movement in Sri Lanka. This is not a numbers game. There just happen to be more organisations involved in terrorism associated in some way with Islam; perhaps other groups are more cohesive.

As for international issues relating to detention, I share many of the concerns that have been expressed about Guantanamo bay. I support those bringing a case to the United States Supreme Court, and hope that it will recognise some of the rights of those involved. However, it is also right to recognise that Belmarsh is not Guantanamo bay. There are significant differences. The people there are not held incommunicado. They have access to lawyers of their choice and their detention is overseen judicially, as we have seen in connection with recent challenges to Government decisions.

I should also say that indefinite detention is not recognition of human rights. We have had to derogate from the European convention on human rights to be able to do that. I support the power of detention, but detention cannot be for ever. It is important to try as far as possible to bring proper cases in court against the people in question. I have looked into the records of one or two of them, and I think that there is a case to answer. I am surprised that one, in particular, has not already faced criminal charges. However, the key is perhaps the review of the law that is now under way, with particular reference to the rules of evidence. For example, if we were allowed to use intercept evidence in court, as happens in other countries, it might be possible for those involved to go on trial and face justice, and to be released if innocent or face the penalties under the law if not.

I am surprised that we have still not comprehensively outlawed religious discrimination The issue is of particular concern to the Muslim community. We have, in the teeth of much opposition in the other place, introduced a law to outlaw discrimination in employment, but as my hon. Friend outlined in her statistics, we have a long way to go to ensure implementation of the law. We know that Muslim people are more likely to be unemployed and to be in low-paid jobs.

We now have laws under which Islamophobia can be taken into account as an aggravating factor, as we have laws on race in general. However, the willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in such cases is a factor. I know from my work not only with the Muslim community but with the Jewish community that there is a feeling of injustice—a feeling that although the police have come a long way and are interested in investigating offences reported to them, the Crown Prosecution Service has a long way to go, and could perhaps make bolder decisions.

It is appalling that we still have no law against discrimination in the provision of services, even by the Government's agencies. We still do not have equality of opportunity in the civil service. That is why, for the second or third year, I am promoting a private Member's Bill, the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, to open the civil service to competition on merit, reserving only a small number of posts, where necessary, for people of UK nationality.

I am appalled that three Conservative Members went out of their way to block the Bill last Friday and that one in particular, who says that he does not believe in a multicultural society and revels in his rejection of it, can undermine such an important measure. I hope that the Government will bring forward their own proposals if I cannot make progress with the Bill. That is the sort of thing that we have to do because the present arrangements discriminate against Muslims in particular. I hope that the Government will see fit to legislate, if I cannot get my Bill through.

Education is also important. There are a plethora of schools in my constituency, serving not only the Jewish community but every branch of the Christian faith. However, if we are to have religious schools, it is only fair that Muslim children and parents should have the same opportunity to go to the schools of their choice. Although dozens of schools cater for other faiths, it is regrettable that only one or two schools in the state system cater for the Muslim faith. Similar issues arise when we consider the school curriculum.

I have taken up with the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education the important question of student loans. Being expected to pay interest may be a matter of concern for students of the Muslim faith, although I know that the Minister is discussing the issue with the Muslim Students Association, to see whether there is a way through the problem.

There are social issues, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North talked about the reform of stamp duty, for example, but one could also mention halal or, in the Jewish faith, shechita. The Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendations pose significant difficulties in that respect, so I am pleased that the Government have indicated that they will not act on them.

My hon. Friend talked about recognising the need for cultural centres. There is a huge demand for a cultural centre for the Muslim community in my constituency. However, trying to get together the different agencies and finding the land and money is proving an insurmountable obstacle, no matter what I try to do to help. My hon. Friend was lucky in that resources were available to build the centre in North Kensington, which my constituents hold up to me as a flagship. They ask, "If they can do it in North Kensington, why can't we do it in Hendon?" That is a good question, to which I am afraid I do not have a sensible answer, other than to recognise the fact that we have significant difficulties. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that I am an appalling MP, but let us put that the other way round: she is an excellent MP, for achieving the centre.

I did not say that; I said, "We're poorer than you." I was not referring to the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but merely pointing out that one of the reasons for our success is that some areas in North Kensington have high levels of deprivation and poverty, which has allowed us to lever in sources of funding into the community.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Levering in such funds is a difficult job.

The Muslim community in Hendon is significant and growing. We must try to recognise their needs, but actively engaging the local authority has been difficult. That was even true when we tried to organise a celebration for the Eid festival last year. Little was done, compared with the efforts made to commemorate the festivals of other faiths. We have a long way to go in that respect.

I had intended to talk about poverty and bad housing, but my hon. Friend dealt with those issues extensively and effectively. They are the root causes of many of the difficulties that we face. If we are serious about helping the Muslim community in our country, we must do something about child poverty and the appalling deprivation in which those children grow up. Otherwise, it will not be surprising if we create dissatisfaction in which—to return to my earlier point—extremism can flourish and find recruits. The problem is not confined to London, although it is particularly severe there. The Government must take steps to deal with those serious issues.

I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). She has consistently campaigned on issues that affect not only the Muslim community, but any community in her constituency or mine that is at the sharp end of deprivation.

This debate is timely, given the publication of Dr. Richard Stone's report on Islamophobia. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said that it was appropriate to pay a short tribute to Dr. Stone, although I think that it would be appropriate to pay a long tribute. He has worked tirelessly in this field for more than four decades. He has many genuine friends among faith communities and among those of no faith. I believe that he should be able to sit in the House of Lords, but at least we can benefit from his work on Islamophobia.

I have no doubt that Islamophobia impacts negatively on the lives of many of my constituents. The same is true for Muslim communities across Britain. Not only do British Muslims suffer social exclusion; they suffer cultural and financial exclusion. The two largest Muslim communities in Tower Hamlets are from Bangladesh and Somalia. I naturally wish to highlight the situation facing those two groups, although I recognise that other Muslim groups in the United Kingdom—many of them have members living in my constituency—are from countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey and Morocco.

In Britain as a whole, 2.7 per cent. of the population is Muslim. In Tower Hamlets, the figure is 36 per cent. Many issues affect the Muslim community. We hear from the media about religious discrimination, hate crime, policing, the criminal justice system, drug misuse, attitudes post 11 September, Islamophobia and so forth. However, I want to concentrate on three issues: housing, education and employment. Everyone should have the right to a roof over their head, a decent education and a job to keep themselves and their families out of poverty. All research shows that the biggest indicator of poverty is households where no one is in employment.

Housing is the most fundamental public service. I was delighted that, in answer to a question that I and others raised recently, the Prime Minister said that in a third Labour term—were there to be one—housing would have to be as important as education and health were when the Labour Government came to power. We have poured a lot of money into housing. For example, the amount of money available for social housing in Tower Hamlets has trebled. I have said repeatedly, however, that that is not enough The extent of overcrowding in Tower Hamlets is horrific. I once took a housing Minister to visit an extended family of 16 people living in two bedrooms. That was the most extreme case, but I am regularly contacted by constituents who live six, seven people to a bedroom. We recognise that the overcrowding standards, which date from the 1930s and were based on 1880s legislation, must be changed.

I and other MPs here this morning, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, have been campaigning on the issue of overcrowding. I have tried to make clear the link between overcrowding and institutional racism towards the Muslim community, inadvertent though it may be. In Tower Hamlets, Bangladeshi families are 14 times more likely to live in overcrowded housing than white families. The children of Bangladeshi and Somali families are suffering the consequences in terms of their health, education, employment prospects, the problems of family breakdown and the crises that it causes, and the huge levels of depression and mental health issues, which have been raised in various recent reports on the Muslim community All of us can testify to the fact that such problems are widespread. For example, although my evidence is anecdotal, well over three quarters of the people who contact me about overcrowded housing or immigration are suffering from and receiving treatment for depression or other mental health problems.

Although the issue is not specifically in the Minister's brief, I should like her to encourage colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that our new standard for tackling overcrowding is ambitious. We also urgently need a programme to free up family- sized accommodation. The Housing Corporation should be encouraged to ensure that its new system of preferred partner registered social landlords leads to more family-sized accommodation.

The situation with education is not all doom and gloom. We have had spectacular successes in Tower Hamlets. Many hon. Members will know, as I have said so many times, that Tower Hamlets has achieved the greatest educational improvements of any borough in the country. That is a great tribute to the teachers, parents, governors and, of course, children. However, an Ofsted report last month showed that a lot more could be done to improve the progress of Bangladeshi teenagers in particular. The report showed that pupils of Bangladeshi heritage were doing better than some other ethnic minorities between key stage 3 and GCSE. The actions that some schools have taken include extra support in learning and using English, adapting the curriculum to make it more relevant to the pupils and their heritage, and working hard to involve parents in school life. I encourage people to have a look at the report's recommendations, particularly on the need to analyse pupils' performance data to track progress and plan appropriate action that is relevant to their needs, and to be versatile and innovative in the range of strategies used to improve Bangladeshi pupils' English language skills.

My final point about education is about race segregation in our schools. The problem is very serious in Tower Hamlets and is bound up with many other issues, including housing and perceived racism. We hear a lot about "white flight", for example, but we also hear from Bangladeshi parents about the isolation of Bangladeshi students, on which I did a documentary in 1998. Many of those students go to a schools where not a single other pupil from a single other ethnic group attends—be it from the white majority ethnic group or the Afro-Caribbean group, for example. Given that London is one of the most diverse cities in the world, what does that say about our theoretical proclamation about diversity and its virtues? We are failing in that area. I learned when doing the documentary how frustrated Bangladeshi parents are. They told me that their children had to survive in mainstream society and that they did not want them ghettoised, but that many never met white children. Their parents felt that the educational establishment was isolating and marginalising their children.

There is obviously a direct link between that and employment. The employment rate in Tower Hamlets among the white community of working age is 73 per cent., whereas among the Bangladeshi community of working age it is only 33 per cent. That 40 per cent. differential leads to many other differences in later life. We need to address the problem of children being brought up in workless households I recently worked on child care provision and the problem of how we reach Asian women, should they wish to overcome the many barriers that prevent them from entering the labour market. We need to ensure that appropriate child care is available to them. In a recent big conversation event in my constituency, which I arranged, the Asian women, who were all Bengali, said that their greatest problem was that child care was not affordable. As a result, they see no prospect of being able to enter the labour market.

We heard about the need for Muslim communities to have community centres. We have had an astonishing success in Tower Hamlets with the new London Muslim centre, and the Muslim community deserves full credit for being responsible for opening one of the largest centres of that kind in western Europe. Prince Charles attended the opening, which was held the week before last. The centre caters for 10,000 to 15,000 worshippers. One of its aims is to teach women and young people the job skills that they lack and how to balance work with other roles.

Representatives of the centre say that they hope to improve dialogue between Islam and other faiths, which is desperately needed. Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais from Saudi Arabia, the very respected imam of the Ka'ba, Islam's holiest mosque in Mecca, who came to open the centre, said:

"Muslims should remember that throughout this long history Islam has carried the message of building communities, not isolating themselves."

I hope that education professionals will heed his advice when we draw up education policy and consider ways of breaking down barriers and reducing segregation. I should also say that the block of buildings that house the new centre includes one of the east end's oldest synagogues, which was built in 1899. In the spirit of Dr. Richard Stone's launch of the organisation Alif-Aleph last night, I hope that we will continue to build relationships and bridges between, for example, the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Members of the Somali community in Tower Hamlets face many of the problems faced by other residents, including poor housing, low employment, poor access to education, antisocial behaviour and drug misuse. I stress, however, that their problems are made so much worse by the fact that the immigration status of many of them often prevents them from accessing mainstream services. I confess that what has distressed me the most as a Member of Parliament is seeing members of the Somali community entirely isolated, in almost all senses of the word, and prevented from accessing mainstream life and services.

Many of the women in the Somali community are single parents, which points to a very sharp difference between them and the Muslim community. Some have lost their husbands in war; others have suffered breakdowns in their relationships. Many have left children behind, or their children have been killed. The Somalis who are granted leave to remain in the UK find it difficult to access English classes and work. Those who are refused access are left destitute with no access to work, to housing or to benefits. Perhaps they are concerned that they will have no access to health care in the future either, although I hope that the Minister will ensure that that does not happen. Disability is a huge issue in the Somali community. Somalia has no Government, no services and no transport. It is not a country that we would recognise as a state. People have been dispossessed in every conceivable way. My plea to the Minister is that she will consider asking her Department to look into the problems of the Somali community and clarify for that community some of its fears over recent announcements about deportations and returns to Somalia, given the situation there. That practice is wholly inappropriate at present.

I would like to thank the hon. Members who have taken the time to be here for this debate, and to mention again the levels of deprivation affecting the Muslim community. However, I want to end on a positive note. I do not think that there are any children brighter and more eager to learn than the children in Tower Hamlets, the majority of whom, in many areas, are Muslim. I know that the Government will want to give them the opportunities that they deserve.

I too congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this vital and timely debate, and I am glad to be able to respond on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I represent a constituency with a large Muslim population.

In preparing for the debate I trawled through some statements made by the Home Secretary, the Minister and the Prime Minister. Their words were reassuring and I have no doubt about the genuineness of the Ministers' sentiments and of statements such as these:

"Expression of religious freedom is a core British belief",

"Mosques play an important role in community cohesion and civil renewal",

and

"Many faiths build one nation".

The problem is that when I speak to Muslims in my constituency and organisations that campaign on behalf of Muslims they tell me that the actions do not match the words.

I shall quote a statement made by the Muslim Council of Britain in 2003:

"It is the view of the Muslim Council of Britain that very little progress has been made in tackling the horror of Islamophobia in the United Kingdom since it was brought into sharp focus by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia in its report published in 1997."

The statement continues:

"we strongly feel that the government has done little to discharge its responsibilities under international law to protect its Muslim citizens and residents from discrimination, vilification, harassment, and deprivation."

Others have spoken of progress that has been made, but clearly to the Muslim Council of Britain an enormous amount still needs to be done.

Others have spoken eloquently today on social exclusion issues—particularly the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. However, when I speak to Muslims, the No. 1 issue that they raise is antiterrorism legislation—particularly section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Searches of individuals suspected of terrorist offences rose from just over 10,000 in 2001–02 to more than 32,000 in 2002–03, which is an increase of more than 200 per cent. The vast majority of those stopped were in London, but just 1 per cent. of those stopped and searched under section 44 were arrested, compared with a 13 per cent. arrest rate for stops under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, suggesting that section 44 is being used indiscriminately. The Home Office is not doing any kind of ethnic monitoring of that, and given the impact on the Muslim community, that is of grave concern. The indiscriminate and unmonitored use of stop and search powers contradicts the recommendations of the Macpherson report that powers should be used only proportionately and on suspicion that an offence has been committed. I urge extreme caution in the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The imprisonment without trial of terror suspects at Belmarsh under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act has also provoked widespread anger. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says that there are enormous differences between Belmarsh and Guantanamo bay, and there are, thank goodness, but people's human rights are still being flouted. It is a basic human right that people should be given a fair trial and either released or, if they have committed an offence, imprisoned. Given the backdrop of the war on terror and the attack on Iraq, which many Muslims perceive, rightly or wrongly as an attack on Islam, we must understand that they see terrorism legislation as a direct attack on them.

Before the hon. Lady moves on from the issue of detention at Belmarsh, I should say that there is no great difference between us in principle. In my view, we need to put people on trial, but only once have we amended the law on evidence. However, is she saying that the people in Belmarsh—particularly Abu Qatada—should be released immediately?

The Home Office needs to consider a variety of options for dealing with the problem, because the present solution is simply not an acceptable long-term way of dealing with terrorism. [Interruption.] I am not going to comment on a specific case; that would be highly inappropriate. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently considering other options, which I hope will be widely debated and implemented when they are made public. However, the Liberal Democrats opposed the extension of the present powers because, as the Government said when they introduced them, they were intended to be a short-term measure. Clearly, they are no longer a short-term measure, but a long-term one.

When Muslims are tried in a court of law, there is a widespread feeling that justice is not done in an even-handed way. Following the appalling riots in Bradford in 2001, the Institute of Race Relations found a huge discrepancy between the sentences handed out to the Manningham rioters and those handed out to rioters from a neighbouring estate. It was concerned that the sentences were designed not to reflect

"the severity of each individual's actions"

but

"to discipline an entire community".

Those words are frightening, and I have heard them used by others who have talked about the terrorism legislation.

There are similar concerns about racism in prisons, and the failure to act appears to have led to the murder of the British Muslim, Zahid Mubarak, in his cell. I accept that there has been enormous progress in prisons, but there is still considerable work to be done.

The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North discussed attacks on Muslims, and there is widespread concern about how the media report the arrests of Muslims under the Terrorism Act. The hon. Member for Hendon talked about Muslims' feeling that they must always distance themselves from extremists and about how their expectations differ from those of other members of the community. Many of those issues underline the need for an equality Bill. Discrimination on the grounds of religion is being outlawed in employment, but as others have mentioned, it has still not been outlawed in other areas of service provision. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches argued strongly for the Bill introduced in the other place, which was the subject of widespread cross-party agreement, but, unfortunately, the Government did not support it. They have agreed to merge the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that is welcome, but what do they intend to do to bring together all the piecemeal discrimination legislation?

Other hon. Members have discussed the deprivation figures, which are startling. Muslim children account for about a third of the children living in workless households—twice the number for white British children. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who is not in her seat at the moment, talked about the problem of overcrowding, and I certainly empathise, given the situation in my constituency. Tragically, it is typical to find eight people living in a two-bedroomed flat; such cases are not among the worst. That is why so much more work needs to be done. Similarly, three quarters of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children live in households receiving less than the national average wage and 54 per cent. of them are in homes that are on income support. There are much lower rates of employment among Pakistani and Bangladeshi men, and the average earnings of Muslim risen are 68 per cent. of those of non-Muslims. That is staggering.

The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North discussed the fact that fewer Muslims are represented in the new deal than might be expected. There is an argument for much more individualised programmes to deal with specific problems; that is much more likely to get people back into work.

Poor health has also been mentioned, which is so often associated with poor housing. The two are dramatically interlinked. Whore there are overcrowding, poor health and poverty, there is often also educational under-achievement I am delighted to hear that there has been so much improvement in Tower Hamlets. However, the statistics are still very worrying. Particularly significant is the widening gap in performance between boys and girls of Pakistani origin. Just 34 per cent. of boys of Pakistani origin achieve five grades A to C at GCSE, whereas 48 per cent. of girls do so. Both those figures are way below the national average.

A report published earlier this month drew attention to problems in education, and said that the state sector was failing Muslim children. The solution is controversial across the House—hon. Members of all parties support faith schools, while others adamantly oppose them. Regardless of one's view the issue has to be addressed. Many of the problems can be tackled by improving housing and health, but that is not the only solution. I should be interested to know what the Government intend to do specifically to target the under-achievement of Muslim children.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be discussing student loans with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies in the UK and Ireland, but I wonder whether a simpler solution would be to abolish the dramatic increase in the burden of debt by voting against the Higher Education Bill on Wednesday.

We have all mentioned discrimination and social exclusion, but I want to close on a more positive note. I do not want to leave hon. Members with the impression that Muslims are passive victims. Those of us who represent constituencies with large Muslim populations know that that is not true. We know of the contributions that individual Muslims, local mosques and community centres make. The many organisations that have been mentioned today represent the expression of the best of Islam in this country. The Al-Khoei foundation in my constituency, with its academic, diplomatic and educational work, is the embodiment of Islamic values, tolerance and inclusiveness; the political campaigning of the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee is the expression of Islam's passionate fight for social justice and fairness; the supportive work of the An-Nisa society in Brent shows Islam's emphasis on compassion and mercy; and organisations such as Alif-Aleph bring British Muslims and Jews together to demonstrate Islam's meaning of peace.

Perhaps the injustice in this country is not only that suffered by Muslims but the fact that society is unable to benefit from what individuals and communities have to offer.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on having introduced the debate. Without exception, speakers have contributed to it sensibly and thoughtfully. It is an example of how useful these debates can be.

Many organisations with which I am associated, both secular and Christian, are beginning to come to terms with the issue in a way that they have not been in the past. Overwhelmingly, they want to show respect and to deal with the subject positively, and I think that they hope for a reciprocal response. The terms of the hon. Lady's debate rightly drew a distinction between discrimination and disadvantage. The first is a matter primarily of law; the second is a complex matter—a mix of public policy and private sector and personal responsibilities.

Over a period of years, I have become interested for a variety of reasons in equality issues. I welcome debating with the Minister in due course the establishment of the single equality commission. It is clearly important that we should have a statement in law about what is or is not discrimination and what is or is not acceptable. We should also remember in the process of legislating that it does not by itself achieve the means of redress. That means of redress may be set out in law, but people have to have access to it and not be frightened of using it. We should also recognise that ethnicity is not the sole source of discrimination; there can often be overlapping issues. Particularly in relation to Muslim communities, there may well be gender and disability issues. It is not a matter of a one-shot approach.

So far, I have been talking on a personal level. However, on an institutional level, there is obviously also work to be done. Anybody who has read the Lawrence report knows that the concept of institutionalised racism or, more generally, institutionalised discrimination has to be faced. I do not think that it is an easy concept to tackle. To start to tackle it requires firm leadership from the top to show that such practices are not acceptable; to show an emphasis on professionalism, which makes it clear, for example, that it is bad policing if one is prepared to deal with the problems of citizen A but to disregard the problems of citizen B, whatever their elements of difference; and to show a readiness to drive on with such actions and to uproot a massive cultural flaw, of which we still see examples. On the discrimination agenda, I think that we can all easily be at one in saying that such practices are not acceptable, that they need to be tackled and that they need to be tackled effectively.

Disadvantage is clearly a more complex issue. That is not to understate it or in any sense to diminish it. I will pay the Government the compliment of quoting from their "Strength in Diversity" document. I entirely concur with that title as a broad aspiration; I think that we all would. As it states in chapter 4, the fact is that

"67 per cent. of people from Black and minority ethnic communities live in the 88 most deprived districts in England, compared to 37 per cent. of the white population."

In round terms, that is two thirds compared with one third. That is a heavy loading of deprivation which we should accept as being the case.

There will always be differences of interpretation, and I would give some measure of qualification. The first point is the historic one: anybody who considers discrimination issues or equality issues over the years realises that simply legislating does not make the problems go away. We need only to look at equal pay, for example. It will take a very long time without other actions for the legislation and its intention to come together.

We should also remember that some of the population, particularly those who are relatively newly arrived, may live in conditions that are significantly better than those of other members of their family who live in their origin countries. Of course, at the same time, it is highly difficult, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, if people live in gross comparative or relative deprivation in this country compared with other citizens or neighbours. There are welcome signs of social mobility, and that must be right. I think that we would all accept that the Government, the council, cannot do everything. We need to consider what we can do.

I turn specifically to some of the Muslim community issues. First, we should realise that there is an association with deprivation. There is no point in arguing about that. I do not want to turn this into an example of victim culture. It is right not to wish away or pretend away the issue of lslamophobia, particularly after 9/11—it is a horrible by-product of that horrible event—but it should not drive the Muslim communities into a shell from which they will not be prepared to emerge in dialogue There is also a need for strong public policies about asylum seekers, for example, so that we know who is here, and so that the stuff that appears in tabloid papers without justification can be exposed, because we have control of the situation—but that is a debate for another occasion.

Secondly, there is a strong element of ignorance throughout the majority of the country. My constituency has very low ethnicity; that does not mean that the problem does not exist in rural areas, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) rightly reminded us, but it does mean that people do not focus on it, although that does not make it any less unacceptable. It also means that some of the things going on in our cities that have great positive elements—as well as creating problems; there are opportunities as well as difficulties—are completely overlooked. We must work hard to start joining up the public dialogue.

One case that I will mention to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow concerns a school in her constituency, which, through an organisation with which I am involves, the Country Trust, sees what goes on in the country. Those exchanges need to work both ways and to be developed. They should form part of the public debate, because it is our country in the rural areas as it is in the towns and it is just as much the country of her constituents as it is that of mine.

Thirdly, we need to appreciate the complexity of Muslim communities and their histories. This year, for various reasons, I have had to deal with the parents—who are, incidentally, Christian—of a Caucasian supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who is imprisoned in Cairo. That is interesting, not least because of the nature of the representations and support that he has received.

Equally, we have communities such as the Dawoodi Bohra, which is prepared to have international conferences, with which I have had constructive discussions. I will be participating in its conference. Therefore, we should not see these issues as simple and as having one answer, but should, in a sense, rejoice at the complexity and the opportunities offered.

I want to pick up briefly on a point about education: the English language is extremely important in that respect, as is the engagement of women in the education process, although it is difficult culturally. It is also important to acknowledge the historic role of education in enabling people from disadvantaged communities to work their way up through the system. I personally would like more after-school facilities for Muslim faith education in schools, rather than the setting up of separate madrassahs, which may send the wrong signals. Regeneration is clearly important, although I want it to be on a human scale rather than the "big bang", which does lot work.

We should remember that these are new communities, which often have practical needs such as the need for a place of worship, or the need for sensitive treatment of the bodies of the dead, as with the new certification system for coroner s. We know that we need to make changes, but they must be practical. I was interested to hear about bodies being taken into church with the agreement of everyone involved. That may be an example of the way in which communities can help each other. Civic involvement has not been mentioned yet. We need to ensure that there are more Muslim councillors and parliamentary candidates joining our debates.

"Strength in Diversity" is a tentative and modest document; it is good that the Government are being modest. The document touches on many areas of concern, but I want to make two points more clearly than it perhaps does—no doubt, the Minister will disagree. The first point is about the involvement of the commercial private sector. We need people to employ Muslims. We need banks—clearing banks, for example—to be representative of the communities that they seek to serve, and to have a sensitive attitude to interests. All those things can be managed, and are being tackled. We also need the sector to work actively in local regeneration.

Secondly, part of the underlying change that is coming about is the development of civic society at all levels, including the political. It is a matter of getting voluntary organisations in the Muslim communities to talk to their counterparts. Young people should talk together, not in order to proselytise or convert one another but simply to share their problems and experiences. If we are to tackle the problem, it is important that we reach out for our common humanity, that we respect each other's traditions, including faith traditions, and that we make ourselves comfortable with living together in one country—whict we are very lucky to do.

The irony of these debates is that I am asked many questions but never have as much time as everyone else when it comes to answering them. None the less, I shall gallop ahead.

I echo the kind remarks made about Richard Stone. He is a star. He has been a friend of mine for a long time, and he makes a substantial contribution to intelligence and tolerance in Britain today.

It might be helpful for me to make my response to the debate in the context of the Government's paper "Strength in Diversity". For a Government paper, it is surprisingly tentative; it poses 13 questions rather than giving millions of answers. It organises them in categories: inclusive citizenship, identity in belonging, eradicating racism and extremism, tackling inequality, opening opportunities and building cohesive communities. All those subjects were raised during the debate.

I shall put the contributions to the debate towards the Government's consultation on our race equality strategy. When we produce it, I promise that the solutions will be underpinned by clear levers for delivery. It has been said that we need to ensure that our ambitions are turned into reality with straightforward practical measures, ranging from uniforms that allow police officers to wear a turban or a hijab, to prayer rooms in prisons. Such measures are at the heart of providing a genuinely equal society.

I shall answer first the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Her overall theme was of discrimination and disadvantage. The Government recognise that Muslim communities, particularly those in our inner cities, have experienced more discrimination and disadvantage than other groups. However, I would argue that that is probably not because they are Muslim. That is important. The experiences of Muslims with an Indian background are different from those with Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds. Household income and the likelihood of living in disadvantage are different. It is important to separate the factors that contribute to those disadvantages, and to ensure that we tackle them.

The other issue raised by my hon. Friend is the way in which matters such as policing can make a community feel victimised. The subject was raised by several hon. Members. We clearly need to prevent disproportionality in the use of stop and search powers, and all stop and searches should be recorded. We have established a stop and search action team to help Departments to take action to reduce disproportionality and to increase community confidence in the use of the power.

With the help of the action team, we are developing a circular to advise the police on the use of section 44 powers. In doing so, we consulted closely with Muslim community organisations. We have established pilot schemes, and we will ensure that monitoring of all stop and search powers, including those under section 44, will shortly be in place. It is not right that people should not know how a power ought to be used; nor is it right that a community should suffer a lack of confidence because it feels targeted.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North pointed out, we need to ensure that work across Government is informed by our commitment to eradicate racism and Islamophobia. That is one of the reasons for publishing "Strength in Diversity"—as a way of working towards a race equality strategy to inform the work of every Department, including, I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The hon. Gentleman's point about the experience of isolated minorities in rural areas was a serious one. I am glad to be able to assure him that only yesterday I was talking with civil servants about the issues of insurance in the voluntary sector, and how we shall work with insurance companies to ensure that access to public liability insurance becomes fairer. I believe that that programme will include problems such as those faced by the mosque in his constituency, along with other voluntary organisations.

I join the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation of the extremism of the British National party. "Strength in Diversity" makes a connection in this context. The threat is a dangerous one. Hon. Members have rightly pointed out that the debate that is going on seems to suggest that extremism is of one kind only. The worst and most dangerous extremists in Britain today seem to me to be those associated with the British National party.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggested that one way of tackling such issues is to consider legislation to outlaw religious discrimination. We have certainly made progress on the issue of religious discrimination, through the proposal to establish the commission for equality and human rights and through measures under article 13 of the European Union treaty of Amsterdam. However, there is still a debate about the extent to which religious discrimination adds to the disadvantages of minority communities.

I know that there is strong support in the Muslim community for more effective legislative protection. One reason for that is the way in which the courts have interpreted the Race Relations Act 1976, which has in practice given power to the faith communities that are not as racially diverse as the Muslim community, as our discussion has made clear. Therefore, the Muslim community is not protected in the same way as, for example, the Sikh community. We need to continue to focus on that issue, because I am not confident that we have resolved all the problems now arising from it.

We are, however, making progress in increasing the eagerness of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in relevant cases. I have visited local CPS teams to ensure that crimes motivated by religious and race hatred are prosecuted effectively, to ensure that the additional penalties in the legislation can be enforced. There is a greater eagerness to do that, with greater specialisation in some CPS teams, which enables it to work well.

We are making progress on Muslim schools. Six have now been approved. We should remember that only a few years ago a state-funded Muslim school was impossible. Although progress may not be as fast as people want, it is substantial.

My hon. Friend also pointed out difficulties in gaining resources for community centres. I was interested that it was clear from his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North that the resources exist in areas of disadvantage; often the issue is finding mechanisms to bring the elements together. A challenge for us as we consider such issues is to create centres that are not exclusive to one faith tradition, but that belong to many.

I was privileged to attend the opening of the east London Muslim centre, although Prince Charles was not—Ronald Reagan's funeral took him away, so we had him there only in video form. It is important to consider how such centres, which are expressions of citizen action, can be used to form connections with other communities.

The progress that has been made in educational achievement in the Muslim communities is significant, but needs to go further. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about ghettoisation and single-ethnicity schools is a serious one. If that is what choice leads to, we should perhaps try to ensure that every child, whether they are in Hampshire or Bethnal Green, receives an opportunity to meet people of other faiths and races.

The Chair deplores it when Opposition spokesmen take longer than they should, thus leaving the Minister inadequate time to reply to the debate. I hope that that will be noted, because I deeply regret the fact that the Minister had inadequate time to reply to the many valid points that hon. Members raised.

In welcoming the opportunity to raise the issue of cannabis reclassification, I make no apology for continuing the ongoing debate. I hope that the Minister and the Government will not regard my contribution in a negative light, but is an attempt to raise the genuine concerns about reclassification that many groups and individuals in my constituency have expressed.

I believe that the reclassification of cannabis was a dangerous mistake and that history will confirm that view. The 90 minutes that were allowed for debate in the House left many MPs unhappy and concerned. Many felt that there was no opportunity to scrutinise the evidence that led to the Government's decision to reclassify cannabis. Heroin, cocaine, cannabis and other illegal substances are dangerous and addictive, so unless there is substantive evidence to the contrary, Governments should not tinker with either the classification or the legality.

Many groups and individuals are involved in drug counselling or drugs support services. Their experiences ensure that they can speak with authority, but their views are often conflicting. That is why a comprehensive examination of all factors should be undertaken before any change. For example, in my constituency, an individual whom I regard as an expert on drug councillors strongly believes that cigarettes and alcohol are the real gateway to addiction and to progression on to hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. He has expressed his concern about the quality of the cannabis sold on our streets and in our neighbourhoods. He believes that it is impure and dangerous, and a major source of the growth among young people of throat and mouth cancer. In his opinion, legislation is needed to control the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, as they are the real gateway to drug misuse. He has asked me on many occasions to get involved in a private Member's Bill to deal with the issue, but I have resisted. He would also argue for the legalisation of cannabis, to ensure that a high standard of the product is available. Obviously I do not share that view either.

I shall quote a few experts and drugs professionals. Professor C. H. Ash ton of the department of psychiatry at Newcastle upon Tyne university said:

"Cannabis intoxication can precipitate severe psychiatric reactions including paranoia, mania and schizophrenic-like states",

adding:

"Few, if any doctors, will deny that the symptoms of schizophrenia are made worse by cannabis".

Professor Griffith Edwards of the National Addiction Centre has said:

"There is enough evidence now to make one seriously worried about the possibility of cannabis producing long-term impairment of brain function".

Judge Keith Matthcwman said:

"Perhaps people who say the drug should be legalised should sit where I do and see the devastation it can cause to other people as well as the defendants"

Cannabis damages the unborn child and is much more dangerous than tobacco in the damage that it causes to lungs. Cannabis takers have a higher risk of heart attack. Cannabis leads to the impairment of skills and contributes directly to road, rail and air accidents.

There are differing views, even among those with expert knowledge on drugs. That is why legislation should be approached with caution. We need to separate the necessarily inexact and best guess areas of classification and law from the more certain areas of what science is saying about thy harm caused by cannabis, especially to the mental health of our youth. The Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drugs cannot continue to do both. I understand its role and its advice to reclassify. However, the advice and judgments of any body often depend on the question asked and the response received. Without doubt, reclassification sent mixed messages about the dangers of cannabis. Despite information to the contrary, many young people believe that cannabis is now legal just like cigarettes and alcohol. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if she disagrees.

Cannabis is clearly a danger to physical health. That was demonstrated by research at the university of California, which has shown that THC, the major psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, is likely to impair the body's ability to resist cancer. Research has also shown cannabis smoke to be more dangerous than tobacco smoke. There is also large and growing evidence, as demonstrated by the reported doubling in the past decade of those seeking treatment at drug treatment centres for cannabis use that cannabis is a major contributory factor in the on set of mental health problems.

A paper published by the Department of Health in 1998 entitled "Cannabis: Clinical and Pharmacological Aspects" warned in its conclusion of long-term dangers, commenting that

"One cannot expect the human pathology of this drug to be written before one or two decades".

The evidence of links between cannabis use and mental health problems ranging from depression to schizophrenia became clear in October 2002 at a British Toxicology Society seminar. More importantly, three studies published in the November 2002 edition—we should note the date—of the British Medical Journal supported the link between frequent cannabis use and mental health problems. They also indicated a strong correlation between cannabis use and the onset of schizophrenia. The headline figures from these studies are alarming. They cite daily cannabis use among young women leading to a fivefold increase, in the incidence of depression. In addition, as Professor Robin Murray from the Maudsley hospital said:

"The conclusion was that, if you took cannabis at age 18, you were about 60 per cent. more likely to go psychotic. But if you started by the time you were 15, then the risk was much greater, around 640 per cent."

The editorial accompanying the research was subtitled "More evidence establishes clear link between use of cannabis and psychiatric illness". More recent work indicates that 80 per cent of new cases of psychosis in some hospitals in the US have been triggered by cannabis use, and continues to highlight the correlation between mental health problems and cannabis use. I invite hon. Members to compare that with the concluding sentence of paragraph 5.1 of the advisory council's report, which recommended reclassification. It states:

"The high use of cannabis is not associated with major health problems for the individual or society."

That is completely at odds with additional medical evidence that has come to light since the report.

The Government have of course relied on the advisory council's March 2002 report as justification for the decision to reclassify cannabis. When responding to concerns about cannabis use and health problems, the Minister has indicated several times that those concerns are misplaced because the advisory council has fully explored them. Can she confirm that again today?

The breadth of the advisory council's role has become unsustainable. Trust in its scientific assessments has been damaged by its attempt to comment on the science and health consequences of cannabis misuse and then to urge contentious decisions to be taken on reclassification. The chronology is important. In October 2001, the Home Secretary asked it

"to review the classification of cannabis preparations in the light of current scientific evidence."

The advisory council's statistics information research committee then conducted private research before the publication of the March 2002 report. That was based on scientific research published until November 2001. In November 2002, eight months after the report, the damning research studies from New Zealand, Sweden and Australia were published. Can the Minister confirm whether the advisory council took those studies into account before recommending reclassification? It is important for us to know that.

Over the past few weeks, I have submitted a series of parliamentary questions seeking to clarify whether the advisory council had indeed discussed the British Medical Journal articles, but I have not yet received answers. I am not complaining to the Minister; it is due to the timing of the questions. The advisory council has made no pubic comment on the BMJ studies and has issued no addendum to the March 2002 report. That must give rise to concern.

On the basis of that chronology and the March 2002 report, I seriously question the Minister's assertions, such as those in a 9 March written answer, that the advisory council has adequately responded to recent research on the links between cannabis use and mental health problems. The Minister might not be able to respond fully now, but I trust that she will be able to write to me detailing exactly when the advisory council discussed what, and when its views were conveyed to her. I live in hope—I am a super-optimist—but I know that it is a difficult issue and am not convinced that the Government will reverse their mistaken decision to reclassify cannabis. They should look at the evidence that has accumulated since the 2002 report.

I accept that some of those who are concerned about the growing health problems are ambivalent about reclassification. After the confusion and problems over the reclassification of cannabis and the discussions that have surrounded it, we need to reconsider the role of the advisory council. Perhaps it needs to be restructured so as to separate the science, enforcement and treatment aspects of its work from the wider direction of drugs policy. As a first step the statistics, information and research committee of the advisory council should consider meeting more regularly and publishing public reports. We should then consider whether to replace it with an independent scientific review body.

Two weeks ago, I raised the issue of cannabis and mental health problems in oral questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and suggested that more Government-funded research into the link between mental health and cannabis was needed. The long-term consequences of increased cannabis use on the health of today's teenagers cannot at present be adequately assessed; some predict substantial increases in mental health problems over the next 10 years. We need to set up an independent body to assess the health implications of drugs misuse—both by commissioning research and by bringing together other research—separately from considering the policy aspects of combating that misuse.

I therefore urge the Minister to consider setting up a commission, separate from the advisory council, to take on that body's responsibilities for the research and science side of drugs misuse, and to accept the wider remit of informing the debate independently. By recommending cannabis reclassification as part of its current role, the advisory council has become a party to the debate. It was established in 1971, more than 30 years ago. We need to re-examine its role in a modern setting. I still believe that the reclassification of cannabis was a mistake that we will come to regret, and we need to consider how to avoid such mistakes in future.

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the Police Federation of England and Wales, asking me to make it clear in my contribution today that

"Policing is all about prioritisation and it is clear that cannabis did not need to be reclassified to be reprioritised. Put simply, reclassification gave a wholly wrong message. In reality, only a properly balanced three-pronged attack encompassing education, treatment and enforcement can combat the insidious forward-march of drugs in society.

Despite costly government attempts to increase public awareness as to the change in the law, many people now believe cannabis has been legalised. In addition, many users feel more comfortable to purchase and smoke the drug in public. This not only contributes to community degeneration and a sense of lawlessness, but also brings with it known—and possibly as yet unknown—consequences upon their personal health. An increasing body of eminent medical professionals believe what has long been suspected: Cannabis usage can contribute to psychosis and other associated mental health problems.

We believe the government should U-turn on its decision. Society must ensure that reclassification does not spell the beginning of a gradual 'softening' of policy on other illicit drugs.

I would encourage you to take account of the views of our members".

The federation encourages me to take account of those views, and so, too, should the Minister.

If the advisory council did not consider all the relevant medical evidence before recommending reclassification, there is an urgent need to address that serious admission. I sincerely believe that this debate gives the Government the opportunity to do so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing this Adjournment debate.

In dealing with illegal drugs and the criminality that surrounds them, we cannot simply pass a law and move on; we must always be watching for developing trends. Despite its reclassification, that goes for cannabis, too, and for any of the drugs in schedules A or B. The Government have tried to consider the problems of drugs in an open and honest way. My hon. Friend did not pay much attention to class B and class A drugs, but it is important to do so because the reclassification of cannabis, as well as the drug's harmful effects, must be seen in relation to other drugs.

It is clear from debates in the House and from other discussions that I have had that there is an issue about how young and, indeed, older people perceive such drugs. I have never said that cannabis is a harmless drug, and nor has the advisory council. In fact, cannabis has several harmful effects. However, it must be seen in relation to other drugs, such as amphetamines, or class A drugs such as crack, heroin and cocaine. The Government have said that cannabis is harmful, that regular use can be addictive and—I shall go into more detail about this later—that it can have an impact on those with a propensity to mental illness.

The Government wanted to ensure that there was no risk of young people who had experimented with cannabis being tempted to move on to amphetamines in the belief that the potential harm was of the same order as for cannabis, which it clearly is not. Following advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, therefore, we decided to take action.

My hon. Friend said a lot about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and we should remind ourselves that it is a fully independent, non-departmental public body, whose membership is drawn from a wide range of disciplines and is highly respected worldwide for the quality of its reports, The ACMD's March 2002 cannabis report clearly set out the scientific evidence for the risk of harm fro n cannabis. Setting cannabis in the context of other controlled drugs, the council concluded that class C was the most appropriate level of classification.

As I said, the advisory council is an independent and impartial body, and it provides evidence-based advice to the Government. To ensure that it has a balanced membership, it is required to include representatives from the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and chemistry. It should also include representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and people with wick and recent experience of the social problems connected with the misuse of drugs. Furthermore, the appointments are made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Following reclassification, we did not end discussion on the issue. I have met the chair of the ACMD, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, as well as the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs subcommittee and chief constable of Norfolk, Andy Hayman, to discus, what we should be doing in the wake of the reclassification of cannabis.

My hon. Friend made several points about the research. Much of the research was known to members of the advisory council when they considered the reclassification of cannabis. They felt that the new research added no significant new knowledge and was consistent with earlier research. All research shows that early use of cannabis is associated with a higher likelihood of mental health problems developing in later adulthood. However, that has not been shown to be a causative association and might be explained by other factors.

Some evidence suggests that young people with a vulnerability to later mental health problems may start taking cannabis younger than their peers, or may be more likely to use illegal drugs, including cannabis. The ACMD report was based on all the available data included in the Nutt and Nash report, called "Cannabis—An Update 1999–2002". The report was drawn up by Professor Nutt and Dr. Nash of the psychopharmacology unit at the university of Bristol, and is a fully comprehensive study of the evidence available. It is accessible from the Home Office website.

The committee looked clearly at all areas. During the discussions on changes to the reclassification, I had discussions with Professor Robin Murray, who was sometimes interviewed on television and radio at the same time as me. It was clear that Professor Murray was and is concerned about people who have mental health problems using drugs—I should sad that that does not just mean cannabis, but any drugs—but he did not say that he thought that the reclassification of cannabis was wrong. He was concerned that more work needed to be done in that area.

Following our meeting with Sir Michael and Chief Constable Andy Hayman, as well as discussions with officials in the Home Office, we have agreed that it is vital to monitor arrest patterns and the work that is now ongoing between forces and the Home Office research unit to assess the impact of reclassification at street level.

We made sure that the message retched young people at the time. My hon. Friend made a number of comments about people thinking that cannabis is now legal. We have evaluated the campaign and found that 93 per cent. of those under 18 understood the message that cannabis is illegal. However, we clearly cannot give up on that and need to do more.

There may have been some confusion among young people about the consequences, but people know that a number of offences are illegal although they do not necessarily know the consequences. It is enough for them to know that the act itself is illegal. The evaluation of the campaign found that, but we should not just accept that—we have to get the message across constantly.

We are devising a series of health messages on the harmful effects of cannabis, with general information that young people and parents can access through the "Talk to Frank" campaign, as well as targeting specific groups such as frequent and heavy cannabis users as well as those with mental health problems. We will ensure that the campaigns are properly researched and that they will be evidence based. To that end, officials have been liaising closely with a number of organisations, including mental health charities and interested individuals.

The technical committee of the ACMD played a key role in drawing up the evidence base for the main council's consideration, and it now has the issue of cannabis as a standing agenda item. The committee will monitor closely all new research developments. I hope that that will assure my hon. Friend that we do not think that the issue is not important because of reclassification. Cannabis is still an illegal drug, and as I have tried to point out, it is harmful—an approach echoed by the ACMD.

There is now a thought-out regime for policing cannabis. For those aged 18 and over, there is a presumption against arrest. However, a police officer may exercise the power of arrest in specific aggravating circumstances, such as when someone is smoking in public view. Dealing with younger people raises other issues, because we want to engage with them to ascertain the problem.

I was interested by the comment made by my hon. Friend about one of his constituents, who talked about cigarettes and alcohol. I have been engaged in discussions about how, from an early age, young people could put themselves at risk from drugs later in life. We must consider such risk-taking activity, even with substances that may be legal for those above the age of 18. For example, I visited Rotherham yesterday and met two men in their early 30s who had become involved with drugs through solvent abuse. We must consider how young people start. They do not start with class A drugs. We need to consider what other drugs they use and what other risk-taking behaviour they may indulge in—even truancy—that could lead them to meeting in groups and being put at risk of gaining access to harder drugs in later life.

No approach to the drug problem is without risk, but I hope that the measures that we have implemented will provide the best opportunity to make our drugs education programme credible, and to get the priorities right on law enforcement and treatment for dealing with class A drugs. It is the latter drugs that cause the harm, but we should stand back from that to consider what influences children. We should tackle and prevent the early involvement with drugs.

Early indications from police forces show that the change in the law on cannabis has freed up significant resources, which can now be redeployed to preventing the supply of class A drugs. I am pleased to say that since reclassification we have agreed a young people's treatment budget for local drug action teams. That has brought together pots of money from various Departments. That will result in less bureaucracy. We hope that the teams will be able to consider a range of intervention measures for prevention and treatment.

Since 1998, drug use among 16 to 24-year-olds has shown some modest reductions. I say modest because I do not want to sound complacent. The British crime survey showed a reduction in the number of people admitting to taking drugs from 31.8 per cent. to 28.1 per cent. More specifically, the figures for cannabis show a fall from 28.2 per cent. to 25.8 per cent. We must be mindful of the figures, but we should not stray from the fact that we still need to bear down on the health implications of using drugs, for young and older people alike.

The advisory council considered schizophrenia, and the possible links between cannabis use and mental illness. It did not find evidence of a causal link, but it recognised that cannabis use can unquestionably worsen an existing mental illness. Those real issues need to be discussed with colleagues in the mental health sector and the Department of Health.

We also need to consider how individuals are managed in the process. I was in Crawley a few weeks ago, and met an individual in his early 60s who, at various times throughout his adult life, had been defined as a drug addict and as someone with mental health problems. He was also an alcoholic. He said that he sometimes needed an agency that would deal with all those issues rather than being shunted from one agency to another. The label itself is not as important as the help that individuals receive. I hope that our discussions over the past few months will produce some ideas on that subject. Again, it is for the Department of Health to consider its mental health services, with a read-across to tackling drug addiction for users of those services.

We know that heavy cannabis use can produce a psychotic state, as can other class A and class B drugs, although for cannabis it is mostly short lived. The advisory council acknowledges other concerns—for instance, acute effects include damage to the ability to learn and carry out tasks, including the operation of machinery and the driving of vehicles. Wearing another of my Home Office hats, I can say that we are considering the sort of tests that might be used on people who drive cars under the influence of drugs. We hope that they will feature alongside alcohol testing.

I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend, at least to an extent. We have not ignored the health implications of cannabis, nor has the ACMD. It can provide independent advice to the Government. I have given information on what new things the ACMD has been doing since reclassification. My door is always open should my hon. Friend wish to discuss the issue further.

I am pleased to have secured this debate, although I am concerned that it may appear rather presumptuous for any Member to lead a debate from the Back Benches about whether the composition of Parliament is appropriate, or whether we should review how the House of Commons is composed.

I first raised the issue with a ten-minute Bill on 15 October 2003, in a debate entitled "Representation of the People (Consequences of Devolution)". Now that powers have been handed out to the nations of Scotland and Wales, and there is the prospect of handing further powers to the regions of England, in addition to the Greater London authority and the Northern Ireland Assembly, I asked whether it was appropriate for the House of Common to continue to consist of 659 MPs.

People who take a more jocular approach might think that we each have a personal list of people whom we would like to have removed—having raised this debate, no doubt I am at the top of some lists. On a serious note, however, if we are to reconnect with the electorate, we need to consider whether the efficiency that all parties believe we should perpetually aim for in the public services might not be applied in our approach to the House as well.

One of the triggers for my raising the issue was this year's Electoral Commission review of the constituencies in Cornwall. The population of Cornwall is now more than half a million, which gives each of its five constituencies on average an electorate of more than 77,000. According to the Electoral Commission, that means that our constituencies have at least 7,000 people more than the quota. The rapid increase in Cornwall's population in recent years means that we should now have six Members of Parliament. I strongly agree that Cornwall should be proportionately represented in Parliament. However, we would have to consider which bits of each constituency to lose. I represent the west of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and would rather lose a limb from my body than a square inch of my constituency. I defend every part of my constituency with vigour. Of course the Electoral Commission must complete the review, and of course the sixth Member of Parliament must be fitted in somewhere in Cornwall. However, the problem raises questions, not only for Cornwall but for the rest of the country, about whether we are going about things the right way.

The idea of having 659 MPs is not written in tablets of stone, and was not preordained by God. We can change the situation ourselves; it should be a matter for review, and of course it has been. From 1688 to 1707 there were 513 Members of Parliament—if that can be believed. Given the electoral system in those days, each of those MPs must have known every one of his electors personally. The figures increase over time: from 1707 to 1800 there were 558 Members of Parliament, and from 1801 there were 658 very close to our present number— a level that was maintained after 1826. From 1885 to 1918 there were 670 MPs, and from 1918 to 1922, 707. The number then fluctuated, reaching a low of 625 in the mid-1950s, before rising to our present total of 659.

The reason for my belief that Parliament should take a lead in reviewing the number of Members of Parliament is that if we are keen, as I am, to devolve certain functions and responsibilities of Parliament to other Chambers, whether in Scotland, Wales or elsewhere, we will find that we have less to do here. Therefore, we should review our justification for maintaining 659 MPs. However, I do not wish to reopen the can of worms that is the West Lothian question. Although that touches on important issues, it can be left for other occasions.

We have, of course, gained further layers of elected representatives. Only a week ago had the results of the elections to the European Parliament—another layer of representation that was not in place during most of the history that I have recounted. Then there is discussion about possible elections is to the second Chamber—a matter that I shall return to later if we have time, as it appears that we might.

Part of the political context in which the review takes place is the perpetual drive for efficiency savings in the public sector. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget his intention to achieve efficiencies by reducing the civil service by at least 40,000; it numbers over half a million at the moment. I understand that the Chancellor might come to the House next week, too, to make a further statement about his spending plans, and possibly about the publication of Sir Peter Gershon's review of the civil service and other matters.

On 8 June, the Financial Times claimed that

"Gordon Brown is poised to announce the loss of more than 80,000 public sector jobs when he unveils his review of public spending this summer as the government strives to make big savings on back office functions and the purchase of goods and services."

Those savings are likely to go still further. Responsible representatives of all political parties must press for efficiency savings in the public sector. Things do not remain in aspic, and it is incumbent on all of us to achieve such savings when we can.

We cannot do that and be respected by the electorate, or by the civil servants who are losing their jobs, unless we also turn the focus on ourselves, and see what efficiency savings we can make in this place. There is certainly a perception out there that we in the House of Commons lead a charmed and luxurious life—

What?

My hon. Friend questions that—I am sure that his life is one of sackcloth and ashes—but among our constituents there is a perception that we have a luxurious lifestyle in comparison to them, and that we vote ourselves generous pay rises and allowances, and more favourable pensions than we offer them. If we are to reconnect with the people who put us here, we need to gain their respect by acknowledging that we need to consider efficiency savings.

It may help to consider how many people Members of Parliament in other westernised democracies represent.

What does the hon. Gentleman make of the fact that the rules on the distribution of seats, in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, state in paragraph 1(1):

"The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613."

Yet we have 659 constituencies. Can he explain that?

I suspect that that is a question for the Minister, but that anomaly may be a result of the process of rounding up within certain geographic boundaries that I described earlier in connection with the review of constituencies in Cornwall.

When compared to countries with populations of a similar size, the UK appears to be rather overrepresented. Germany has a population of nearly 82.5 million and 603 Members of Parliament, so each Member represents about 136,000 people. In comparison, the average population that UK Members of Parliament represent is 89,400, although there is, of course, significant variation: I represent a population of about 100,000. Spain has a population of 40 million and 350 representatives, each representing 115,500 people. Similarly, in France 577, Members each represent an average of nearly 103,000 people. Italy has 630 representatives, who each represent an average of 90,000 people, so they are closer to us in that respect. The Netherlands has a population of only 16 million and 150 Members of Parliament, each representing an average of 107,000 people. If I were to extend those comparisons across the Atlantic, the UK would look inappropriately over-represented.

I shall now talk about the financial implications of what I propose. In its annual report, the House of Commons Commission says that each MP costs about £211,000 per annum, including pay, allowances, office costs and so on. I am sure that many of my constituents think that that is just my pay—if only it were—but it covers a range of costs. However, it is not clear whether such an estimate would cover all the implications of reducing the number of MPs, which would include fewer calls on the Library and the Refreshment Department, lower Select Committee expenses and so on.

Based on the House of Commons Commission's estimate, reducing the number of MPs from 659 to about 500 would result in savings of about £40 million per annum. That may sound a lot of money to the public, but in the overall scheme of things it is a relatively small amount. Nevertheless, although it is a small part of overall public expenditure, it is still important and it would better spent on other public services. If we Members of Parliament were to ask our constituents whether they would prefer improved health services and more police on the beat, or an unfeasibly large number of MPs, we would not need to wait for an answer.

The practical implications of reducing the number of MPs need to be studied. I am not sure whether the House would able to scrutinise everything. Indeed, the Government might welcome the idea of fewer MPs, as they would ask fewer questions. However, the Executive would be no less held to account if the number of MPs was significantly reduced, and the opportunities for each Member of Parliament to engage in the high-profile debates on the Floor of the House would be improved.

I represent a rather complex constituency. It has four local authorities, with a single unitary authority—the Isles of Scilly—which makes unique demands, different from those of the mainland. From my experience, it seems that MPs would find it impossible to cope with the work load, and the possible implications of a further increase in the office costs allowance to take account of the need to deal with a larger case load might counterbalance the savings that I have mentioned. In practice, however, the situation would not be unworkable.

While we are concentrating on the implications, I have to say that I am not sure that the collective wisdom of a House with 500 Members would necessarily be much different. I am not sure at what point the marginal benefit of having extra Members contributes significantly to the collective wisdom of the House; perhaps someone should make an objective study of that. At what point would those additional Members make a significant difference? Some might think that their wisdom was sufficient and they would not want to trouble the electorate—they could manage quite happily on their own. However, some Chambers manage with 150, 200 or 300 Members. It would be interesting to compare the level of scrutiny and accountability, what gets missed and what slips through the net in different Parliaments.

While we are talking about collective wisdom, let me add that one of the reasons for having a second Chamber is that it is supposed to provide an opportunity for sober second thoughts about what comes from this House. Although the primary purpose of today's debate is to raise the issue of the composition of the House of Commons, as the Minister who is here is responsible for the policy area, and as it would fall within the title of the debate, it might be worth reflecting on the impact of any House of Lords reform. That issue appears to have been kicked into the rough, if not the long grass, by the Government. The debate so far appears to have been obsessed more with process than product—in other words, how the Members of the House get there, rather than what they do when they have got there.

When the Government wish to bring the issue back to both Houses of Parliament, it is important that they reflect on the purpose of the second House, rather than on their apparent obsession with process. If, as I have argued, the second Chamber is primarily a chamber for sober second thought, it is important that as a result of the process by which the Members get there, it does not become either a cause of logjam or a lapdog for the Executive.

My concern—although not all members of my party would necessarily agree with it—is that if we were to elect all or a majority of Members to the second Chamber, and if the second Chamber's membership did not reflect the Government of the day, it would become a cause of significant logjam. Those Members' democratic origin would also give them a great deal more spirit when it came to taking on the Executive, which would put a significant constraint on the process of government.

Conversely, if the Chamber largely reflected the political persuasion of the Government of the day through an electoral process, it would be more likely to become a lapdog for that Government than the effective constraint and source of reflective analysis that the second Chamber should, and does, provide.

Before the debate, I gave the Minister and his Department a number of questions, which I hope have helped him to frame part of his answer. Has his Department undertaken any kind of review of the composition of Parliament in recent years? Has it looked at that, or undertaken an analysis of it? In the conduct and process of the Government's commitment to devolution, has the subject been raised at all? If it has been raised and assessments have been made, what are the results? Have the Minister and his Department had the opportunity to reflect on the implications of devolution? The West Lothian question certainly prised the issue open, but the question of what justification there is for having 659 Members of Parliament must have arisen among Ministers.

If the Chancellor wants to make the efficiency savings that he says he wants to make in the public sector, he should accept that if we are going to do that to civil servants, we should turn that level of scrutiny and drive for efficiency savings towards this place, and seek to justify the number of Members. If the Minister's Department is going to reintroduce a Lords reform Bill, will he also reflect on the composition of this place, and on the need to ensure that the other place is a Chamber of sober second thought, as I argued a moment ago?

I have spoken to many Members. Some of them sponsored my ten-minute Bill last year and others did not, but they all said, "You're absolutely right," "This must be done," "That's difficult to justify," and so forth, but getting them to stand up and say that in the House of Commons is not easy. However, I still think that we need to ask ourselves difficult questions such as those that I have asked. I hope that, having had the opportunity to look into this matter and reflect on it, the Minister will ensure that in future the Government come back to the House with concrete, worked-out proposals for ensuring that the subject is reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Before I call the next speaker, I think that I am entitled to express from the Chair regret that more Members are not present in Westminster Hall to take part in an important debate of fundamental importance to the future of this House. The main Chamber is debating another matter of fundamental importance to the House, so I can only assume that there are more Members there; that, too, is something that could be debated, but not today. Because I have no alternative, I have to call another representative of the Liberal Democrats immediately after the one who opened our debate.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I echo your regrets about the small number of Member taking part in the debate and your hope that the reason for that is that they are all busily debating the electoral system, which is also a very important issue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on raising this matter. He did so at a timely moment and on the basis of some pertinent and relevant factors. The impact of devolution must certainly be reviewed, and our own workings in this House should be reviewed in the light of it. Devolution is a process that has begun, but it has by no means finished. It is also right that we should look at possible reform of the second Chamber because that has a direct and profound impact on how the House of Commons works and should work.

It is right that we should in any case review our own workings and operations, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend alluded to. Everybody else in the public service is examining efficiency, and there is no reason why we should be immune from that. Also, although it seems to have been forgotten for the time being—by the Government, at least—the recommendations of the commission chaired by the late Lord Jenkins on the electoral system for this House are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in a Government Department.

Although I very much sympathise with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's case, I would certainly not wish to see any reduction in the number of Members of our House, unless that were accompanied by a significant change in the electoral system. Some of the grotesque distortions that the current electoral system serves up would be made worse by degree if we were to move to a smaller House of Commons but continue electing it by the first-past-the-poet system—a system that, in my view, corrupts the will of the electorate.

I will start by looking at devolution. So far, we have seen a real and meaningful devolution process in Scotland, a less substantial and rather unsatisfactory measure in Wales, and, in the case of London, something so unsatisfactory as to invite questions about the point of it all.

Later this year, there are to be referendums to see whether the northern regions of England want to set up regional assemblies, whose powers, it would be fair to say, will be broadly comparable to those of the Greater London assembly. As an enthusiastic supporter of devolution in England, I find the Government's proposals for regional devolution timid. It is regrettable that the Government are not looking to devolve meaningful power or the resources that could give effect to the decisions that the exercise of such power would involve. It would not surprise me if there were a negative outcome in the referendums, as those who deplore the whole idea of devolution to the English regions combine with those who would like it to be Far more meaningful and who regard the Government's proposals as such a botch-up as not to warrant active support.

Let me make it clear that I would like much more devolution in England. The British political system is horrendously over-centralised. It is perfectly ludicrous that Members of Parliament should have to raise questions about the administrative and operational details of their local hospitals in the national legislature; it is absurd that we should run the system on that basis. Ministers also have far too much responsibility for micro decision making in individual constituencies. We must go further with the process of devolution, whatever structure we put in place. We might even devolve power to the existing county councils, which would be well capable of exercising much more power, responsibility and authority.

Although my hon. Friend resisted the temptation to go into the West Lothian question, I shall not, because the issue is relevant. It is often said that the answer to the West Lothian question is devolution for the English regions, but that would not answer the question at all, unless the powers that we devolved to them were equivalent to those that we give Scotland or that we might give it in future. Unless one is serious about allowing people in the east midlands to drive on the left while those in the west midlands drive on the right, and about different regions having different criminal law, or East Anglia having different abortion law from the south-west, one must accept that some decisions will still need to be made at the England level, without the assistance—however kindly we may thank them—of our colleagues from Scotland. Some things might also be done on an England and Wales basis, but we need that England tier. It would not be practical, helpful or useful to elect a separate English Parliament, and the public would not welcome one, but there are occasions when those who are elected as Members of Parliament for English constituencies should sit in this House in English session to make decisions that apply only to England.

We also need radical reform of local government.

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to range widely, but I would be grateful if he could associate his remarks more closely with the composition of Parliament, which is, in fact, the subject of the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have, indeed, allowed me to range widely.

Unless we are inviting the public and the public purse to pay out for more and more political representation, we need to accept that, as we diffuse and disperse power to other places—in local government, regional government, Scotland or Wales—and more people are elected to exercise it, there is a powerful case for reducing the number of Members of Parliament in line with that dispersal of power. It is incumbent on us, for that reason and for reasons of the efficiency of our operations, to respond in that way.

When the hon. Gentleman started, he said that he was against reducing the number of Members of Parliament. Now he has said that he thinks that there is a strong case for doing it. If we were to give away powers to regions as he suggests—of course, the Liberals would like to do that in Europe, too—might we not just as well rename this Parliament the UK county council?

The hon. Gentleman clearly misheard me. At no stage have I said that I was against reducing the number of Members of this House. I am emphatically in favour of doing so, and that is the entire burden of my remarks. For Parliament to resemble in any way a county council, we would have to be stripped of a great deal more power than would go as a result of my suggestions.

We are, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has described, one of the largest legislatures in the world. Although there have been some welcome modernisations of our proceedings in recent years, there are far too many of us, and, as a result of that, opportunities for individual MPs to ask Ministers questions or to take part in parliamentary debates are reduced.

It would serve our constituents much better if their Member of Parliament represented a somewhat bigger seat but had more opportunities to raise issues of significance to that seat or area. If we represented larger seats and if the best part of 500 Back Benchers were not competing for opportunities to raise points, our constituents would get a better service.

It is hard to think of anywhere with a larger legislature than this one. I know that the European Parliament has just grown larger than we are. It remains to be seen how efficiently that will operate. The only other example that I am aware of was one of the former Soviet republics, which had just over 700 members in its second chamber. However, it was hardly an advertisement for democracy. Some might say the same of the European Parliament, but to pursue that would be to stray from my brief.

My hon. Friend outlined the situation in various other countries, and pointed out that elected representatives in other countries represent more people than MPs here. It is interesting that the US House of Representatives has only 435 members representing a population four times the size of the population of the UK. Their Senate, of course, has only 100 members.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States has a federal system and has a much more proximate degree of local and state-based government than this country?

I entirely recognise that; it was the purpose of what I have said this afternoon about wanting the UK to develop a comparable system, with far more power exercised nearer to home. That would be a justification for electing fewer Members to this House. Modern technology also lends itself to helping a representative to cover a larger area and a bigger population.

We also need to ask ourselves questions about the role of an MP. I have talked to Scottish colleagues about how having an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituency and being responsible for making representations to Scottish Departments has affected their work load. If there were meaningful devolution to English regions or counties, English Members would experience the same impact. I also have great sympathy with a colleague who once said, after having been in the House for a couple of years, that if he had wanted to be a social worker, he would have gone into social work.

We could do worse than look at the system that operates in some Scandinavian countries, where each parliamentary constituency has, in addition to an elected member of the national legislature, a multi-purpose ombudsman. An individual with an administrative problem, such as not getting their pension through efficiently, takes it to the ombudsman. If someone has a problem in principle—perhaps they do not think that the state pension is large enough—they take it to the elected Member of Parliament. I do not necessarily advocate that system, but examining it would be a worthwhile exercise.

On how our workings might be made more efficient, Government Whips might like to reflect on whether their lives might be,made easier if slightly fewer of the more than 400 Labour Members of Parliament needed occupying all the time. I remember when Francis Pym, who was Chief Government Whip during the 1983 election, expressed the hope, rather foolishly perhaps, that the Government 's majority would not be too large. He discovered after the election that he was no longer a member of that Government. Having more than 400 Members from one party is, frankly, rather ridiculous.

My hon. Friend also rightly touched on the role of the second Chamber. We cannot arrive at a rational view about what the composition of the first Chamber should be without considering the function and composition of the second Chamber. The Government seem completely to have lost their way on that. In 1997, they were committed to serious and fundamental reform of the Lords. They swept out all but 92 of the hereditary peers, but thereafter became lost and confused. We are now invited to settle for a largely—probably even an exclusively—nominated House of Lords, a system that carries through neither the spirit nor the letter of the commitments that the Government made when they were originally elected.

I do not believe that there is any great validity to a nominated House and I probably disagree with my hon. Friend, who said that members of the party might do so. It is debatable whether people who enter the House of Lords on the basis of the useful service rendered have any more validity that those who are several generations down from people who once did so—one could even argue that the intervention of two or three generations made such people more legitimate.

We must ask ourselves what the second Chamber is for. As my hon. Friend said, its purpose is to revise, occasionally to press the brake pedal and to provide checks and balances. The second Chamber should not be able to initiate legislation—it is precisely the power to do so that has allowed the Senate to get the upper hand in the US—nor should it have Ministers in it. If people in the second Chamber are jockeying for position, we will end up with the sort of pork-barrel politics that the public complain the whole system is bedevilled with. Ministers from the House of Commons could, quite sensibly, go to a slimmed-down and modernised second Chamber to answer Questions.

The numbers in the second Chamber should also be small. I had sympathy with the proposal that election to a second Chamber should be for a relatively long term, but that it should not be renewable. We should elect Members for, say, 10 years, perhaps half of them at a time every five years, and they should not be able to seek re-election. That would give us a second Chamber with a detached, robust and independent perspective and members who were not jockeying for position. If we did not want them to be too powerful, we need not give them too many powers. They could have just enough carefully codified powers to enable them to fulfil the brief of revising, pausing and, as my hon. Friend suggested, adding a little wisdom and providing a useful check and balance. Electing half of them every five years at the same time as slimming down the House of Commons might provide a useful escape route for some of those who were squeezed out at the outset.

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's comments about the shape of the second Chamber. However, I caution him against attaching too many conditions to the revision of the composition of the primary Chamber. He has already made the condition that there should be proportional representation and that the House of Lords should be inextricably linked to the revision. Does he accept that if he adds too much to this shopping bag, he would risk losing the support that we require?

My hon. Friend is right, and I do not seek to build a series of conditions. The only one that I would stipulate would be a charge in the electoral system. I am describing the comprehensive constitutional settlement that I would like.

The last matter that has to be analysed is the electoral system, which is being discussed elsewhere. There is on the shelf an official report by an official Government-appointed commission, recommending a change to the electoral system for this House, and making a proposal about what the new system should be. I strongly support the recommendation of a system called AV-plus, with a top-up component—[Interruption] I hear the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) guffawing, but this is not a distant relative of the systems that have been introduced in Scotland, Wales and London.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to say a word or two about the d'Hondt principle, while he is on the subject?

I shall resist saying anything about the d'Hondt principle, as it is a method used only for dividing on regional list PR systems, which I do not support. We should do away with d'Hondt and its alternatives as a red herring.

The system proposed by the Jenkins commission is a close relative of those used in Scotland, Wales and London. It suggests that the top-up element should be between a sixth and a third of the House of Commons. At a sixth, it would not do a great deal of good in terms of proportionality, but at a third, it could. If we were to have a House of Commons with about 300 Members elected to single-member constituencies and about 150 as a top-up, providing a total of about 450, that would serve our democracy well, and would provide an efficient size of House of Commons, which would work better than the current one. That would be an extremely valuable step forward, although at the outset as many as 200 Members of this House would be squeezed out. At any election some would be retiring anyway, but if others were squeezed out, the concurrent reform of the second Chamber might form a useful parachute for them—I mention that only in parenthesis.

Devolution is not going far or last enough, but it is happening and it is real. As power is devolved and dispersed, the case for there being quite as many of us as there are at the moment becomes weaker. In any case, a smaller House of Commons would be more efficient. MPs would be more effective, because a smaller House would enable us to conduct our business more briskly and in a more businesslike way. We await further Government proposals about the reform of the second Chamber, which is very necessary. The second Chamber is completely ridiculous at the moment, and the Government's proposals for it will not be tenable into the future. Moreover, a slimmed-down, modernised and more efficient second Chamber would work very well alongside a slimmed-down and more efficient House of Commons.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, however, I would apply one condition: we should not reduce the size of the House without fundamental change to the electoral system. If we move from 659 MPs to 500, which my hon. Friend suggested, or to 450, which I suggest, and continue with the first-past-the-post system, the anomalies and statistical corruptions of that system will become even worse. I therefore very much hope that the Government, who have responsibility for devolution, electoral reform and advancing proposals for the second Chamber, will take all those points on board, and that they will continue to make the progress towards constitutional settlement with which they vigorously began their period in office, but on which they seem to have lost their way of late.

I agree with the previous speakers that it is a bit of a poser that, in 1832, we had 658 Members of Parliament to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, which at that time included Ireland, at a time when we directly governed a third of the world, and we now have 659 MPs at a time when we have lost a good deal of that geographical area as well as particular areas of power: we have lost the empire and we are losing powers to the European Union and the regional assemblies. If the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) had his way, we would also lose powers to the county councils.

There is undoubtedly an argument that one should look at the divisor, or the electoral quota, and see whether reform of the number of MPs is required. The calls for reform started, I believe, with Robert Rhodes James in 1986, and continued with Sir Peter Emery in 1991, Robert Blackburn, the academic, Spencer Batiste in February 1995, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) in January 1998. A striking feature of Governments, including the current one, is that they do not seem to have much appetite for this subject. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister will undertake to review the divisor, or the electoral quota, and the rest.

It is odd that the review rules, which were made in 1986, state:

"The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater…than 613",

and add:

"The number of constituencies in Northern Ireland shall not be greater than 18",

which makes 631. Since then, however, Parliament has somehow managed to grow to 659 constituencies. It is, of course, right that some constituencies, such as Isle of Wight, have as many as 100,000 electors. There is a case for considering whether an element of saving can be made by having a smaller number of MPs.

I must make one or two points about how Parliament works. The fact that the Government have a massive majority—there are more than 400 Labour MPs—has affected how we do our business. For example, the Government can boldly say that the House will have only one day to debate important matters such as Iraq even though as many as half of our number want to speak. Indeed, that is what happened; I asked for two days and we were given one. As a result, many Members had no say. The problem is particularly acute for Labour Members because there are so many of them. The same happened with tuition fees; I asked for two days of debate and we were given one. Again, numerous Labour Members were unable to speak. Debates on foundation hospitals and trial by jury saw the same thing happen. When it came to the local government settlement, which used to be an occasion in the parliamentary year, not one Back Bencher was able to speak in the debate despite the fact that I had asked for more time.

We have ended up with an arrogant, manipulative Government with a large majority who are able to do pretty well what they want. The troops meekly go through the Lobbies as required. It is wrong. Not only has Parliament lost a lot of its power to Europe, the other Parliaments and regional assemblies, but the Government are actively manipulating the procedures of the House so that important subjects are not given the necessary debating time.

The sort of matters that we are debating in the House over the next two or three weeks are very light. Members sometimes look at the business that the Government have offered for debate and simply go home. The truth is that we have lost something like three days because the anodyne topics served up by the Government were not what the public wanted.

Order. I have to be even-handed. In a modest and courteous way, I reprimanded the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for straying from the subject. The Opposition spokesman is doing likewise. I suggest that he relates his remarks directly to the composition of Parliament.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to say that we do not get many Members of Parliament in the Chamber these days. That is because, as I said, the Government are manipulating the business of the House. The interesting subjects that people want to debate do not get enough time, and the subjects served up for debate do not seem to interest MPs. However, it may be necessary to consider whether we have too many MPs, or at least to review the number.

The hon. Member for North Devon suggested that we move to AV-plus as a way to reduce the number of MPs. He also suggested that we should have an MP plus an ombudsman for each constituency, which would double the numbers.

I said that that idea was worth examining. It is operated in Scandinavian countries and is worth thinking about. I was not advocating it as a party policy or personally.

The only thing that I would say is that when we are on th doorstep we never hear people asking for a few more politicians. The idea of doubling the numbers by having an MP and an ombudsman is mistaken, bearing in mind the regional assemblies and all the other institutions. It would be difficult to find good people to go into politics because there would be too many jobs. I wonder whether the public think that a sensible way forward; I suggest that they do not.

The hon. Gentleman says that the regional assemblies will not have much power. Notably, we have not seen the Bill that would set up the regional assemblies. On the European constitution, we are told, "You have to pore over this document for months on end before you can have a referendum," but we do not even have to debate the regional assemblies before there is a referendum.

Before I go too far on that tack, if regional assemblies are being set up and they do not have much power, is not it legitimate to ask for the money to be spent instead on another 1,000 police officers in each region? Is it really necessary to have regional representation in Hertfordshire, for example, where I am based, and the eastern region? People ask what is the point of that. There is not much point. People think of themselves as either being from the UK, as being British or English, or as coming from Hertfordshire, but I do not know anybody who thinks of themselves as an easterner, or an "eastern regioner". I do not see what having regional assemblies is going to achieve.

In that case, what does the hon. Gentleman think to my alternative suggestion of devolving more power and resources to the county councils as an alternative to creating the regional assemblies?

I am very keen on the county councils, but having said that, this is an important sovereign Parliament. There are jobs to be done, and it is wrong that we are constantly trying to give them to somebody else. The public have the idea that MPs count for something and do something useful, at least in their own locality. Once all the responsibilities are removed and given to the county councils, to Europe, and to a Parliament or an assembly here or there, the work of the House will have narrowed to the point where an MP becomes somebody of little use. At that point, the public will be entitled to ask not whether we need 659 MPs, but whether we need any at all.

People do not want that. They want this Parliament to be a powerful and important place where things are decided and dealt with. Certainly, they want a more powerful and import ant place than the body that the hon. Gentleman described. Rather than reducing the numbers of MPs, we ought to ensure that we retain power here, not give too much away and, if possible, repatriate some of th power that we have already lost to Europe.

This has been an engaging debate. When I came into the Chamber I did not have much idea about what the hon. Member for St. Ives would propose, but I congratulate him on securing the debate and giving us an opportunity to consider the composition of the House of Commons.

We now await the Minister's response with trepidation and interest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he presented his arguments on an important subject. I also congratulate the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on taking part in the discussion and assisting us with the arguments in different directions. We are preoccupied with the composition of Parliament, but the purpose of our national Parliament is central to any discussion. We have heard comments on a range of issues, but I shall try to deal specifically with the points that the hon. Member for St. Ives so clearly set out.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the Government were not giving enough thought to the question of the size of the House. He asked in particular what assessment the Government had made of the justification for retaining so many MPs. I know that he has studied the subject with care; indeed, he introduced a private Member's Bill on the very subject. He will therefore be aware of the importance that successive Governments have attached to ensuring that the size and shape of the House is not determined by the Government of the day. I think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire alluded to that, although the Conservative Administration chose also not to enter that domain. I suspect that that is because it is difficult to launch a fundamental review of the question without facing the accusation of gerrymandering or attempting to gain some short-term political advantage.

Every time there is a redistribution of seats, those who are badly affected express concern. I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Ives held his hand up and admitted that there had been such redistribution in the south-west of England. Those who lose badly through such changes include some whose seats disappear, and they call for this sort of discussion. However, even those whose constituencies survive and who are not affected may see that wards that traditionally supported them are disappearing, and discussion arises not just of the composition of the House but the role and nature of the boundary commissions, independence and the important relationship between an MP and his or her constituents.

The boundary commissions, of course, do not take such matters into account in making determinations. Their concern is with the overall size of the electorate, and with respecting both the other administrative boundaries and the natural links or barriers in a region. That process, although disruptive and sometimes difficult, engages the minds of MPs in an area where such questions are being determined. I should point out, however, that the UK electorate are not over-burdened with representatives.

International comparison shows that the UK has relatively few tiers of government, even with devolution. When hon. Members list countries with the numbers of electorate per MP, two factors should be borne in mind: one is that the figures are based on the electoral roll. In all constituencies there are many people not on the electoral roll. It is for other nations to determine what qualifies people to be on the electoral roll, and how good their systems are in that respect.

The second factor is that tiers of government should be considered. Some of the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have a federal system, and others have different layers of local government. Some elect to virtually every office. Indeed, some elect their judges. There is a range of different approaches, but that has not been the general state of affairs in this country.

That evidence raises two questions—first, what are the Government doing to ensure that all those who are entitled to be on the electoral register are included on it, if he is implying that the Government are failing in that aim? Secondly, in making the connection between federal states and large population representation by Members of Parliaments, is the Minister acknowledging that as the Government progress further towards devolution of power, the argument for fewer MPs grows stronger? Perhaps the Government should begin to review that question now.

If the hon. Gentleman had let me, I would have gone on to explain that many hon. Members of all parties would then have a powerful discussion about the unique relationship between a constituency MP and his constituents. Give or take a few hundred people, our constituency quota is about 70,000. That relationship is zealously guarded across all sections of the House. There is the nature of our advice surgeries; throughout the country on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning, MPs sit in their constituency offices meeting and engaging with their constituents in a way that is envied around the world.

In 1983, the Labour party argued in the famous Foot case that the electoral quota of 70,000 that the Minister referred to should take precedence over county, borough and even geographical boundaries, and that equality in the size of constituencies should be the main feature of the distribution of seats. That would have the effect of limiting the rise in numbers of seats. Are this Labour Government still in favour of that? If so, do they have any plans to change the rules?

A cursory look in "Dod's" will reveal to the hon. Gentleman that I was 11 in 1983 so I cannot speak for what the Labour party was proposing then. However, I can speak for what the Labour Government are proposing now.

What I have to say is of relevance to a question that the hon. Member for St. Ives raised and to my second point on tiers of Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is asking me from a sedentary position to give way, but I have not finished what I have to say on this matter.

It is because of the absence of the many layers of government that exist in the federal and state-based systems of other countries that there is that unique relationship between our MPs and their constituents. That quota of about 70,000 means that there is a proximate and powerful relationship between the MP and his constituents in this country, which is unique. In discussions on this subject, Governments must be mindful of that.

If that figure of approximately 70,000 is passionately regarded by constituents and MPs and if it results in a rather magical and very special relationship between MPs in this country and their electors, is the Minister therefore arguing with regard to, for example, the Member for Orkney and Shetland with only 25,000 or 30,000 electors and the MP for the Isle of Wight, that one is very underworked and the other is impossibly overworked and is incapable of making a strong bond with his constituents?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I think that it was the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire who referred to schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. It is in that that there is the rule that

"The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613"

and where the quota of about 70,000 was established. It is important to concentrate on the words "greater or less than". That has meant that in subsequent reviews—and we are now on the fifth review—there has been a ratcheting up of that number.

In rule 5, the strict application of those rules are subject to disparity in the electorate in any particular constituency and a number of other factors. Therefore, there are areas of the country that are sparsely populated where there is one MP with a smaller number of constituents, and some London constituencies have been subject to keeping to borough boundaries. There are differences across the piece, and those are the determinations that the boundary commissions have to make and which the Electoral Commission will have to make.

Another important aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives was the impact of devolution and regional government. The change to the number of Scottish Members that will result from applying the same electoral quota in Scotland as in England is a sign that the Government do not shrink from action where they believe it to be justified. Clearly, the circumstances in Scotland were different, particularly in that, for historical reasons, it had a much higher density of MPs than England. The justification for that higher degree of representation lapsed with the ending of the need to pass distinctively Scottish legislation at Westminster.

With that exception, I do not think that a reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster is or should be a product of devolution, because MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a responsibility to their constituents regarding devolved matters. It is not clear—I say this as a Member for a London constituency—whether there is some overlap between constituency MPs and assembly members in areas in which responsibility is devolved, particularly when those responsibilities are strategic, as would be the case with any regional assembly.

For example, in a default assembly, there may be certain determinations in relation to policing numbers. That issue is of national importance to Parliament, but it may well have local or regional implications with which assembly members would want to wrestle and engage—that is certainly the case in London. There may also be planning or strategic transport decisions that impact on both those bodies. Therefore, it is not clear whether case loads will decrease. In that regard, in the words of the Carpenters' song: "We've only just begun" this journey. At this stage, it is clear that there is an important role for Members of Parliament and regional assembly members.

I am surprised that the Minister has heard of the Carpenters, given his youthful nature.

The effect of giving precedence to county and borough boundaries is that the number of constituencies will continue to rise; that has been the effect since 1983, when, I think, the Carpenters were around. Do the Government have any plans to review that or to see whether there is a way to limit the rise in the number of constituencies, or are they happy to see it go up to 680 or 700?

All boundary commissions are currently undertaking their fifth review, so it would be inappropriate to launch into an inquiry of that nature in the midst of that. For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government's instinct is to let well alone, but it is important that we revisit those issues from time to time. Of course, it is important that the independent Electoral Commission is well able to comment or report on such issues should it see fit to do so.

The hon. Member for St. Ives argued that we should take a more strategic view of the role of MPs in Parliament. I know that he is a fervent advocate of regional government, although not necessarily in the economic regions into which England is currently divided, and he has made clear his belief in the Cornish people. We are all grateful for the passion with which he has brought the debate to this House.

The Government agree that there is scope for a regional strategic assembly for the south-west region, should it wish it. However, we do not agree that that would have the sort of impact on the role of the MP or of the Westminster Parliament that would lead to a case for reducing MPs' numbers, any more than devolution does.

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising my strong arguments for a Cornish assembly. I confidently predict that the south-west region will never get off the ground because there is, unfortunately, no passion or demand for it, although we continue to favour devolution. However, crucially, the Minister said earlier hat the Government would avoid taking a leading role in opening this can of worms for fear that they would be accused of gerrymandering. Can he at least allow Parliament the time and the framework in which to raise the issue and to resolve it, even if the Government are not prepared to take a lead?

I think that Parliament is, in this debate, giving time to the subject. What I said was that there are difficult issues. I do not hear MPs clamouring for us substantially to reduce our numbers, but it would be wrong for the Government to launch into such an inquiry while four boundary commissions are undertaking reviews. That is the context in which we are having this discussion.

Parliament and central Government will remain responsible for UK-wide matter, such as defence, foreign policy, European policy, relations with international bodies, taxation, the passing of primary and secondary legislation—the things that preoccupy us from week to week. They will also retain responsibility for areas of England-wide importance, such as the NHS and education, and will continue to be responsible for legislation, even in areas in which the regional assemblies have a considerable role to play.

In considering what the right number of MPs is, we need to examine both ends of the spectrum. How many MPs do we need to ensure that we do our jobs properly here, and how many to ensure that we do our jobs properly in our constituencies? The answers may well not be the same, so we have to balance the two sets of considerations. That is one of the issues that feeds into the work of the boundary commissions. We have, for many years, concluded that that balance is best kept with an average constituency size of about 70,000 electors. As our population has increased, that has led to an increase in the number of Members of this House. It is possible to look at the equation from the other end, and to decide that we need a certain number of Members to deliver the objectives of the House. In that case, we might end up with a slightly different number. However, if that method led to an increase in the average number of constituents, that would have to be taken into consideration. That could be the consequence of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

The Government do not agree that we should simply equate a reduction in the number of MPs with efficiency, although, of course, we should always look to improve the service that we offer our constituents. I acknowledge that there are arguments for reducing the number of Members, irrespective of devolution. Fewer Members would mean more opportunities for the remainder to participate on the Floor of the House, and fewer Members who would find no place on a Select Committee, and it would probably reduce pressures on facilities and cost less than is currently the case.

On the other hand, having fewer Members would make those Members more remote from the communities that they serve, which is the point I sought to raise earlier. Personal contact would inevitably be reduced. Hon. Members could have suggested that new technologies might offset that to some extent; for example, some have suggested online surgeries. Clearly there is a role for modern technology, but in all our constituencies there are pockets of social exclusion and issues of access; certainly among the elderly those technologies could go only so far.

I accept that perceived inefficiencies in Parliament may harm the relationship between politicians and the public, but increasing the size of constituencies may make Members more remote, reducing the personal element and their value. The personal link between a Member and his constituency is a central and valued part of our political democracy. It is important that we place that at the centre of the debate. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency. We welcome the publication of the Modernisation Committee report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public". I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that we take further steps to engage more closely with the electorate and. indeed, the future electorate.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the rules by which the boundary commissions work are set down in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Those rules require them to start from the existing number of seats when devising the quota of constituents for each seat, so an overall reduction in numbers would require primary legislation. The present reduction in the number of Scottish MPs is possible only because Parliament has already agreed to remove the previous statutory minimum number of Scottish MPs and impose instead the same electoral quota as in England. There is no work in progress actively looking at the case for changing the rules to deliver a reduction in the number of MPs, and as all four of the boundary commissions are currently engaged in reviews, that would be wrong at this time.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should approach House of Lords reform by first looking at what we want a second Chamber to do. That has been the Government's approach. It is also important to ensure that, taken together, the powers and the composition of the second Chamber enable it to fulfil its role properly. We believe in a bicameral Parliament, and in that we follow the line of most large, mature democracies. But if we are to make the most of such a bicameral Parliament, we need to find a distinctive role for the second Chamber. In some systems that is easy because of the federal nature of the state and because in the second Chamber there is a role for representing one's constituency. That is not the case in our arrangements, which means that we continually revisit those issues. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have said that we will revisit the issue in our manifesto as the debate continues. He will be aware also of discussions about indirect election and other matters. However, the central nature of the House of Lords is that it is a revising Chamber.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. It is rare that we have the opportunity to discuss why we are here in the first place and the nature of what we do. I hope that I have satisfied him in answering his questions, even if I have not been able to go as far as he would in ratcheting down the numbers of Members of Parliament.

I am grateful to the Minister, not only for his reply but for finishing in the nick of time. We now pass on to the next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who is making her second appearance today in Westminster Hall.

It is a great pleasure to have been able to secure this debate about education in Brent and to have the opportunity to bring to the Minister's attention a number of issues, particularly about funding. My constituents, local schools and the council—it is Labour-controlled, but we have been working together—have raised the issues with me.

Those who know my constituency will be aware that Brent is a highly diverse borough, but also an area of great need. Brent, East borders Camden to the east and Westminster to the south. It stretches north-west up to Neasden, taking in Kilburn, Queen's Park, Willesden Green and Dollis Hill en route. Most of my constituency lies within the tube's most central zones—1 and 2.

The Audit Commission has said that Brent is an area of significant deprivation. It is the 13th most deprived London borough. Unemployment in Brent, East stands at about 6.9 per cent., a third higher than the average figure for the UK. Deprivation is particularly apparent in the south of my constituency in Carlton Vale, the area that borders Westminster.

The picture is similar in the schools. A recent report by the Audit Commission and Ofsted on Brent local education authority said that

"Brent is an outer London borough but faces many of the same challenges as those in inner London with high levels of deprivation in five wards in the south".

Brent's schools have many inner-London characteristics. For example, 31 per cent. of pupils in my constituency are eligible for free school meals, compared with an inner-London average of 39 per cent., an outer-London average of 19 per cent. and a UK average of about 17 per cent.

Brent is one of two boroughs in which whites are a minority. Its schools are even more diverse: 72 per cent. of pupils in Brent's schools are from ethnic minorities, and around 130 languages are spoken in those schools—an extraordinary figure. English is an additional language for more than half of all pupils. Pupil mobility is high and is growing. That diversity and pupil mobility are partly due to the large number of refugees in the borough; there are about 17,000 refugees and asylum seekers, some 7 per cent. of the overall population. Children of refugees and asylum seekers make up 8.3 per cent. of children in Brent's schools.

There are 27 schools in my constituency: 24 primary schools and three secondary schools. Of the constituency's primary schools, 12 are voluntary aided, 11 are community schools and one is a foundation school. In addition, the borough supports five special schools, four nursery schools and two pupil referral units. Between the two most recent Audit Commission and Ofsted reports in 1998 and 2003, Brent's primary schools steadily improved, as did the progress of vulnerable pupils. The borough's secondary schools were praised in the last report for highly satisfactory progress. The report noted, however, that most of the poor performance issues stemmed from underfunding of education, and I want to turn to that.

Despite the inner-London characteristics that I have highlighted, Brent, along with five other London boroughs—Ealing, Merton, Newham, Haringey and Waltham Forest—has a legal obligation to pay inner-London weighting. However, that obligation is not recognised in the funding that the borough receives from central Government through the formula spending share, which assumes that it is an outer-London borough. The obligation appears to stem from the pay board review of 1974 and subsequent legislation, but is now defined in the teachers' pay and conditions requirements of the Department for Education and Skills.

Brent LEA has estimated that it costs around £3.5 million a year to pay the extra London weighting to its staff. Brent's contention, and that of the other five affected boroughs, is that they are penalised by having to pay the inner-London weighting because they do not get the compensatory funding via the FSS from central Government, unlike the other inner-London authorities. The argument is that the imbalance should be remedied by a specific grant to the six boroughs concerned, which would be much simpler than trying to tinker with the highly complex funding formula.

The Minister may argue that those councils receive more than the difference between inner-London and outer-London weighting through other money from the grant system, taking into account their outer-London status. However, he will be aware that the inner-London element of the FSS takes into account factors other than pay or inner-London weighting, such as the need to pay extra to retain teachers by moving them more quickly up the pay spine. Whatever the solution, the situation is clearly an injustice. Will the Minister please consider this or another proposal to resolve the funding shortfall in Brent?

What are the implications of that shortfall for schools? As a result of the budgetary pressures, Brent LEA spends a much higher percentage of its school budget on pay—85 to 90 per cent., compared with an average of about 70 per cent. for other LEAs. That is highly significant. High wage costs result in reduced funding for other areas; that is common sense. Brent cannot provide the teaching assistants that it feels it needs; it cannot refurbish buildings; and it has a higher proportion of schools in budget deficit than the rest of London. Some 12 Brent primary schools, about 20 per cent. of the borough's total, are in deficit, compared with 12 per cent. in Greater London. Five Brent secondary schools are in deficit, 37 per cent. of the total, compared with 24 per cent. in Greater London.

Refurbishment is a particular concern for such schools. The executive summary of the Government's consultation document, "Building Schools for the Future", stated:

"School buildings are important to pupils' education."

The research showed a clear link between capital investment and school standards. In practical terms, the budgetary pressure has prevented the council from taking action to replace the portakabins in the John Kelly secondary schools. Brent has a poor stock of school buildings; the lack of available cash for maintenance means that many have a large backlog of minor repairs that may well be more expensive to fix now than if they had been dealt with sooner. Brent is desperate to be part of the second wave of "Building Schools for the Future", which is due to be announced in the autumn. At the moment, some schools are forgoing expenditure in the hope—indeed the expectation—that BSF funding will be made available soon.

The budgetary pressure has other implications for Brent schools. Although most special educational needs support comes from the non-delegated part of the schools budget, the growth of some of the more innovative and exciting schemes is being hampered by pressures on the delegated portion. For example, the council is keen to provide extra, preventive, support for pupils with special needs through behaviour support teams in mainstream schools. Such work is highly inclusive and works with children ahead of their being statemented; they may never be statemented, but they need that extra support. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that is vital work.

The Minister may argue that Brent council is not spending the expected spending share allocation on education, although it has passported 100 per cent. of the FSS increase in the past two year That underspend is largely due to a large historic debt burden, owing to decisions made by the council when it was under Conservative administration. It made decisions to lay off many staff and pay for early retirement, and the heavy costs of paying pensions continue to be a problem for the council.

The Minister will know that a council can find it difficult to get out of the trap of underspending in a particular area, because of the various checks and balances that tie its hands. For example, Brent's revenue support grant is, in effect, capped by a ceiling on the percentage increase in the FSS. If the council attempted to raise more revenue to meet that or any other shortfall, it would have to resort to local revenue-raising powers. However, the gearing effect in local government funding means that that would require a substantial increase in council tax, and councils were warned that if they increased their council tax too much, they would be capped. So the council finds itself in a Catch-22 situation. In January, extra funding was announced for local authorities, and Brent received a relatively generous £4.2 million from a total of £340 million. However, those extra funds were intended to ease budgetary pressures on environmental and social services. It would be disingenuous to imply that such funds would solve the problem in education.

In addition to the problem of inner and outer-London weighting, Brent suffers as a council because of the ceiling on possible increases in Government funding. The council estimates that that cost it about £1.3 million this year.

A similar funding dichotomy affects Brent's further education sector. The Learning and Skills Council is implementing revised area uplift costs in further education and reducing the number of London areas from three to two. Brent is the only borough not to have moved from the old London area B to area A. Its uplift therefore remains at only 12 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. for those in area A. That affects sixth-form colleges, but it particularly affects the College of North West London in my constituency. As the Minister will know, the college is already at a disadvantage because the LSC agreed in evidence to the Education and Skills Committee that further education colleges are under-represented in funding compared with sixth-form colleges. That college has a high proportion of students who are asylum seekers or refugees, and it suffers particular disadvantage. On Friday, it heard that it would have to cut 220 full-time students in 2004–05, which is equivalent to about 1,000 part-time students. There is no additional funding for any college covered by the London West LSC, even though it knows that it is one of only four LSC areas to have exceeded its overall targets.

The schools whose sixth forms are funded by the LSC to the tune of about £15 million have also lost out because of the lack of uplift. That translates to an annual cost of about £800,000. Hon. Members may not think that that is very much, but it probably equates to about two teachers for each of the 13 sixth-form colleges in the borough and is highly significant.

I want to make a final point about the implication of funding pressures in Brent for the provision of voluntary aided status to two faith schools in my constituency: the independent Jewish Menorah high school for girls and The Avenue independent Islamic school. Following provisional agreement of VA status for those two schools, Brent council obtained permission from the DFES to include their pupils in the borough's pupil level annual schools census return for 2004. That is important, because it means that the schools' pupil numbers will be included in the Government's calculation of Brent's RSG for 2005–06. However, as annual increases in funding cannot rise above the Government's ceiling, granting either or both schools VA status would mean that Brent might not obtain any additional funding for the schools in 2005–06. The council has argued that the simplest solution to that problem would be to amend the 2004–05 education formula spending share baseline by the amount that those extra pupils would have attracted in that year. The additional grant would not then be treated as a pure gain for Brent and hence would not be subject to the ceiling or scaling factor.

The transfer of independent faith schools to VA status is very much in line with the Department's policy of encouraging as wide a spectrum of educational provision as possible in the maintained sector. Indeed, it has agreed capital funding of about £8.5 million for those two schools, and that will be at risk if the council cannot support the applications. I have written separately to the Minister for School Standards asking for a meeting about that, but I hope that the Minister who is present will be able to respond to those points.

In conclusion, I thank the Chamber for providing me with the opportunity to raise the important issues of education and funding in Brent. I ask the Minister to take action to address the shortfall of funding and its impact on students in my constituency. I accept that in all arbitrary funding calculations there are winners and losers. However, I am sure that he agrees that in an area of such considerable deprivation as Brent, East it should be a priority to remedy such an injustice.

It is a privilege to appear before you in Westminster Hall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has become a regular occurrence in the past few months. I congratulate the hon. Lady on speaking in her second Adjournment debate today. Her productivity is to be commended. This is an important issue, and I acknowledge at the outset that there are legitimate, important matters that need addressing. I will attempt to do that in my response to her contribution.

I must first make some general points. She will forgive me for making political points; this is a political environment. Her contribution was slightly misleading. For example, advocating faith schools and their expansion is not a policy that her hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has shared. This Government have proudly advocated that since they were elected in 1997, and they have expounded the importance of newly created faith schools and of giving existing ones the opportunity to come into the state sector from the private sector. In fact, the Liberal Democrat party has been hostile to the concept of expanding the number of faith schools in the maintained sector. I must say to the hon. Lady that that is another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one community and then attempting to give an entirely different impression in another.

The Minister should be aware that the Liberal Democrats' official policy is to leave the matter up to local authorities to decide. It is at their discretion depending on local need. I personally think that faith schools can play an important role as part of the multiple provision of services in an area, but they are not the sole source of that provision.

I would not pretend that faith schools were the sole form of providing education. They are part of a diverse education sector, in which parents have access to a range of choices that meet their needs. I remember some hostile contributions that her hon. Friend made about faith-based education and single-faith schools. Frankly, it is not good enough to say, "I personally believe", when the Government have fought for the right of the faith-based sector to expand where appropriate and when the Liberal Democrats have opposed such moves at every opportunity.

The other issue in the political context is about finite resources. The Government's level of investment in education is unprecedented, historic and sustained—I shall come to the figures for Brent, which highlight that. However, let us be absolutely clear about the spending commitments, as I understand them. The Liberal Democrats said that they would increase the 40 per cent. rate of tax to 50 per cent., which would pay for two things: the subsidy for university graduates, so they would not have to pay fees; and free care for the elderly. There would not be a penny piece more under Liberal Democrat spending plans for local government, schools or further education. We should not attempt to mislead constituents in these debates into thinking that the Liberal Democrats would make significantly more resources available for schools or further education colleges than the Government. It is disingenuous of politicians to pretend that there are infinite resources. The hon. Lady knows full well not only that the Government's record of investment is unprecedented, but that hard decisions will always have to be made.

The increase in taxation from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. would not only pay for the two things that the Minister outlined, but enable us to lower the burden of local taxation. We would also give more freedom to local councils to raise revenue, depending on their priorities. As the Minister knows well, I am arguing about fairness for the borough, which is out of step with other areas; I am not arguing for a complete change in the formula spending share.

I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I can see the "Focus" leaflets emerging which say, "We advocate higher taxation"—at local discretion, of course—"but you can significantly put everybody's local taxes up." I look forward to hearing about the Lib Dems' election results in local authority areas where they make that offer overt in their election literature. Of course, that was not the offer to the people of Brent in the by-election. Then, as I remember, people were promised that everybody would get a council tax subsidy. However, the leader of the Liberal Democrats subsequently said that that offer was only for the period of the by-election and would not be sustained on a long-term basis. We now hear the hon. Lady talk about local discretion to increase council tax to significantly higher levels.

Let us focus on the amount of the funding increases that Brent has received. In 2004–05, the increase in Brent's school formula spending share was an above average 6.8 per cent. per pupil. When the increase in its pupil numbers is taken into account, Brent's overall FSS increase was 8.1 per cent. Over the longer term, between 1997–98 and 2004–05, we estimate that Brent's total funding per pupil will have increased in real terms from £3,590 to £4,660. That is an increase of more than £1,000 per pupil. Brent received an 8 per cent. increase in formula grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003–04 and a 7.5 per cent. increase in 2004–05. The hon. Lady was good enough to refer to the extra £4.2 million that the local authority received—in January this year, I think. Even to suggest that resources that could be provided are not being provided is therefore slightly disingenuous.

Everyone in this place advocates making available more resources for their constituents and it is appropriate that the hon. Lady should make the case for Brent. My constituency was one of the biggest losers under the old local government finance regime. My colleagues and I fought for a fairer share of that settlement, and we were delighted that the Government reorganised the local government finance settlement. My local authority would never say publicly that it had enough money, because local authorities never do, but its share of resources is fairer. In that context, other local authorities would say that they have ended up worse off as a consequence of the change.

In any reorganisation of the local government finance system there will always be winners and losers. The question is whether the system is fair or fairer than it was prior to the changes. The current local government finance system is considerably fairer than the previous system, and I sure that it could have be even better from the point of view of some authorities.

One reason why there are ceilings is that there has to be a phasing in of the gains over a period of time—again, in terms of real economic and realpolitik. If the gains were not phased in, the horrendous short-term consequences for local services of the "losers" would be devastating. It is about a sensible and balanced approach, and trying to create a fairer system. It is good news if Brent is at the ceiling, rather than somewhere near to the floor, because that means that there is a recognition of its needs.

On the hon. Lady's comments on "Building Schools for the Future", we are proud that the Government are rebuilding from top to bottom the secondary school stock in this country over a 10 to 15 year-period. Local authorities such as Brent that are facing genuine deprivation and challenges, which the hon. Lady outlined, as well as local education authorities and local partners that are able to demonstrate innovative and imaginative proposals, will be considered sympathetically as part of the decision-making process.

The hon. Lady was hoping that Brent would feature in the second wave of "Building Schools for the Future", and if an application is made, it will be considered. Consideration will be given to the priority of upgrading the stock in Brent in comparison with other LEAs, and to ensuring that the proposal is genuinely imaginative and innovative and would create 21st century schools. I have no reason to believe that that is not so. I will speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards about the comments that she has made about the "Building Schools for the Future" programme.

The hon. Lady commented on the area costs weightings, which are complex and technical and a source of contention. We acknowledge that there is a long-standing discrepancy, which is owing to the different origins of pay and funding systems. The pay boundaries date back to the Burnham recommendations, to which the hon. Lady referred. The area cost maps and weightings for schools are determined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and for colleges and schools by the LSC, through research into costs—most significantly into wage rates in the locality. I accept that that is difficult. The pay arrangements were first developed in the 1960s. Funding arrangements for schools in inner London were set up later on a different geography and to serve different purposes.

School funding has developed to accommodate that partially, but Brent schools remain on the outer-London funding rates. We accept that funding systems need to be updated regularly to respond to local needs, but it is difficult to keep chopping and changing on whether somebody gets an inner or outer-London salary. Local and regional pay discussions, for example, may have a future role in considering any changes, but it has to be acknowledged that that is a long-standing issue and I cannot make any commitments today that those differences will be reconciled. That not to say that I am closing the door, and it does not mean that we will not consider the genuine case that is being made for Brent local authority and others, but I can make no firm commitment today on the changes that the hon. Lady seeks.

In relation to the post-16 sector, the hon. Lady referred to funding affecting the Learning and Skills Council. I accept that there are genuinely serious issues. There were particular problems to do with the College of North West London, to which she directly referred. The LSC has made efforts in its funding allocation to provide the College of North West London with additional funding in recognition of the particular problems that the funding system creates.

The LSC is advised on these matters by the national rates advisory group, an independent body whose members include representatives from the learning and skills sector. The group commissioned the research that informed the advice that it gave to the LSC. The LSC accepted that advice and the case for change, and started implementing some of the changes in 2003–04. The NRAG and the LSC have been willing to review those decisions. I understand that the NRAG re-examined the data for Greenwich and decided on reflection to change its recommendation. Unfortunately, it also re-examined the data for Brent and decided to stand by its original advice. The LSC has accepted those recommendations.

It would be very difficult for us to ask the Learning and Skills Council, supported by the advisory group, to consider such situations objectively and reach reasonable conclusions, only for Ministers to intervene and undermine the process. That would be inequitable and undesirable. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to intervene at this stage. However, officials from the Department for Education and Skills, the LSC and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently met as part of the planning for the next review of the LSC's area costs for implementation in 2006. As part of those discussions, we will consider area costs as they affect schools, colleges and providers. As I said, I cannot give the hon. Lady the assurances that she seeks today, but I do not totally close the door on continually monitoring any funding difficulties and funding challenges to ensure that we can create the most sensible and objectively fair system.

The hon. Lady has made representations to the Minister for School Standards about the two faith schools, on which I am sure he will reflect and respond in due course. I am also sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the very generous capital allocations of millions of pounds that the Government have been prepared to make available for each of the two faith schools, thereby demonstrating their commitment to supporting those schools' becoming part of the state sector. I genuinely hope that those schools will be able to enter the state sector as soon as possible. That is consistent with this Government's policy of welcoming faith schools, although it is slightly at odds with the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on those matters.

In conclusion, I say again to the hon. Lady that it is perfectly legitimate to make representations on behalf of one's constituents and constituency for a greater share of the cake. It is equally important that the Liberal Democrats say the same things in every setting about finite resources and the fact that we must have credible economic policies, yet they offer no additional resources whatever to schools and colleges as part of their spending plans. I congratulate her on securing the debate. I take seriously some of the issues that she raised, but I am also very proud of the additional sustained investment in education from which the people of Brent have benefited as a direct consequence of having a Labour Government.

It is a great privilege to be in the Chamber with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair. I know that you will keep me in order as the debate unfolds.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the Lyons review, having been involved for some time in making representations to various Ministers, not least in the Treasury. I shall say more about that later. The review is important to my constituents and to the whole of Ayrshire, which covers five constituencies. They would all benefit greatly from some of the elements in the review. Ayrshire is one of the most beautiful areas in the country, and it has the potential to be one of the most dynamic, which is one reason for my applying for today's debate. I want to show the advantages of the review, and its economic disadvantages.

Not only is Ayrshire a beautiful county: it contains some of the gems of society. It has two championship golf courses, Troon and Turnberry, which will be hosting the Open tournament in July. A course in my constituency known as Dundonald is a potential third course for the Open. Those courses will clearly be an attraction for civil servants. The area also has some of the best transport links: it is served by two airports, at Prestwick and at Glasgow, and in recent months we have seen fairly substantial expenditure on the uprating of the A77, the main arterial road out of Ayrshire.

The economy of Ayrshire is changing, as is the economy of most of the United Kingdom, but without doubt we are seeing a change in the number of jobs affected by tourism. Ayrshire is one of the most attractive areas, and it is attracting tourism.

I said that I would mention the Treasury. First, I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), for being here, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), with whom I had a fruitful meeting on 3 December. The debate is the follow-up to that meeting. I also thank the many civil servants who have helped me with some of the statistics.

I shall take an overview of some of the statistics of Cunninghame, South and, more generally, of north Ayrshire. The latest statistics are for May 2004. Unemployment in my constituency is the fifth highest in Scotland and the 40th highest in the United Kingdom. The total number of unemployed is 2,047, or 6.6 per cent. of those eligible to work. That is made up of 1,536 males, or 8.7 per cent. of those eligible to work, and 511 females. That is a significant figure; it is one reason why I want the Minister to concentrate her mind on my request. We have analysed the unemployment figure and determined that it is always 1.5 to 2 per cent. higher than the national average. I argue forcefully, as does my local authority, that that is due to the lack of public sector jobs.

Another unwelcome statistic is that income in my constituency is among the lowest in the country. Only 10 per cent. of the population earn less than £11,340 a year; and only 10 per cent. earn more than £507 a week, which is £33,000 a year. The latest blow was the finding by the marketing company Axciom that some 15 per cent. of households in Irvine, the main town in my constituency, have a monthly household income of less than £400. That figure was based on an extensive shoppers survey.

I now turn to the Lyons review and the King Sturge report. On the basis of what I have seen, it does not recommend relocation to north Ayrshire, which I argue—and will continue to argue—is an area in greatest need. I am concerned that the idea was not looked at; there was no suggestion that King Sturge should look at it, and it is not in its report. I would argue that that is due to the fact that it was not included in the terms of reference by those who were responsible for instructing King Sturge. That is an oversight that must be corrected.

The remit given to King Sturge for its report suggested that areas—towns—must have a population of 100,000. Since that stipulation was made, quite a bit of flexibility has been shown elsewhere in the country, but none in the west of Scotland. Only six areas in Scotland have beer identified, four of which are cities. Although the report is only advisory, it will have a major impact if Departments come to choose to act on it; otherwise, it could be argued, why have the study? I do not believe for one minute that Departments will look at the 102 sites considered by Sir Michael Lyons and discount them in favour of an area not recommended in this review. That is why I argue forcefully that this debate is very important.

Unemployment is one of the greatest indicators. None of the other areas have anything close to the unemployment rates that I have mentioned. The unemployment rate in Cunninghame, South is 6.6 per cent.: Aberdeen's unemployment rate is 1.6 per cent.; Edinburgh's is 2.5 per cent.; and the Financial Secretary's constituency of Bolton, West, which is one of the 100 recommended areas, has a rate of 1.6 per cent.

We cannot simply look at population size when considering these matters. I call on the Financial Secretary to ask King Sturge to commission a review in north Ayrshire and the surrounding area. North Ayrshire council has produced a report suggesting that there is a way round the issues. I do not want to add to that report, but I know that the Treasury has a copy and that the Financial Secretary has seen it.

Today, my office spoke to Dr. Angus McIntosh of King Sturge. I am informed that such reviews have taken place elsewhe -e for smaller towns—towns with a population of fewer than 100,000—such as Durham, and Carrick in Cornwall. However, no such reviews have been called for in Scotland. I ask that such an instruction now be given.

At 1 April, there was also a disparity in the number of public sector jobs in different parts of Scotland. There are 10,804 public sector jobs in Edinburgh and 8,823 in Glasgow, but in the whole of north Ayrshire, which has two constituencies, there are only 805 such jobs, and in my constituency there are approximately 150. We can therefore see that there is a crying need for public sector jobs, and on the basis of what I have said that need must be addressed.

We have to contend not only with a north-south divide, but with the east-west divide in Scotland, which must be looked at. It is widely accepted in north Ayrshire and elsewhere that civil service jobs have a strong beneficial effect on the areas that they go to. North Ayrshire is generally held to be one of the most under-performing areas in the United Kingdom, and all the indicators demonstrate that. Public sector jobs would give an enormous boost to its economy. They create stability in the job market, which the north Ayrshire economy demonstrably lacks. They would bring high wages to an area in which private sector jobs have consistently paid lower wages.

Public sector jobs can also boost are area. They attract industries in a way that nothing else can, as clearly shown by indicators in the economy of north Ayrshire, such as the fact that we do not have a Marks and Spencer. They have them in the east and the south, but there is none in the north. That takes me back to the point about the shoppers survey that showed the obvious deficiencies in north Ayrshire that have to be addressed urgently.

Looking at public sector earnings, one can see that full-time employees on adult rates consistently earn more than those in the private sector. Within that category, the rates are highest in government— particularly central Government—and public corporations. That is why I have spent some six to nine months forcefully arguing about the Lyons review. Before that, I was making representations to the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments that had indicated that jobs might be dispersed, to ask for those jobs to be sent to Ayrshire, particularly to north Ayrshire. Given my arguments, I hope that the Financial Secretary will reassure me that north Ayrshire will be considered as part of the Lyons review. If it is not included in the top 100 locations in that review, our unemployment will continue at 1.5 to 2 per cent. above the national average. The Financial Secretary could do something about that at a stroke in her response.

In conclusion, while I understand that relocation is not an exact science, I believe that I have outlined a compelling argument that cannot and should not be ignored. I cannot see—and have not been able to find anybody who can tell me logically—why Aberdeen or Edinburgh should have been chosen to be in the top 100, when there is practically no unemployment there; one could argue that there is none at all in Aberdeen. Those cities might be attractive, but the fact that housing prices in the north-east are far higher than they are in my area is not a great consolation to somebody seeking the redeployment that will result from the transfers. I firmly believe that that should be taken into account by the Lyons review, but from what I have seen, it is not.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree that north Ayrshire should be considered a priority and that all my representations as well as those of my colleagues in Ayrshire will bear fruit. I hope that we can proceed in an atmosphere in which north Ayrshire prospers and, moreover, its prosperity is considered to be one of the jewels in the crown of benefits that we have accrued by having a Labour Government for the past seven years.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) about the Lyons review, and to set out the rationale behind it. I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate and on championing the merits of his constituency, north Ayrshire and the rest of Scotland. I note his comments about the beauty of his constituency as well as its economic potential. I know that he has had meetings with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and that my right hon. Friend has listened to his concerns. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the constructiveness of the approach taken by civil servants towards his case.

In his Budget 2004 statement on 17 March, the Chancellor rightly welcomed the Lyons report, which was published two days previously and has since been generally well received across the country. The Government accept that the concentration of activities in London and the south-east has not always represented the best value for money or served the country as well as it could have done. Advances in modern telecommunications and working methods, and the ability to deliver efficient, high-quality and value-for-money public services in different and varied locations, made the Chancellor's and Deputy Prime Minister's request both timely and appropriate. It is not surprising that those technological developments and new working methods have contributed to the possibility of more widely and evenly spread public services. They now provide greater opportunities for many different parts of the UK to contribute to the efficient running of our country.

Sir Michael Lyons's report provides a sound basis for the future dispersal of public sector activity and the creation of a more rational distribution of public sector services outside London. The relocation programme will be an integral part of our overall efficiency agenda, which will be driven forward by the efficiency programme, about which I shall say more in a moment. Sir Michael's recommendations chime well with the Government's commitment to the prosperity and development of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as to the prosperity and development of the regions of England. Once they are implemented, they will strengthen our objective to create a modern, more responsive and regionally based public sector that is closer to the people whom it serves.

The Lyons recommendations provide us with a clear blueprint for achieving the important goals of improved public service delivery, greater efficiency and better value for money for the taxpayer. Sir Michael confirmed that 20,000 posts could be relocated to other parts of the UK as a first tranche. He estimated that more than 2 billion could be saved for the taxpayer over 15 years as a result of dispersing those posts. Those are significant prizes by any standard. We accept that it is our duty to ensure that we win them, and we will.

In his report, Sir Michael recognised that the current pattern of locations of Government business is no longer consistent with the Government's objectives for the regions or the development of regional economies. He acknowledged that London, as a capital, needs a governmental core supporting Ministers in order to set the strategic policy framework, but that the status quo is open to challenge in every other respect. The Government accept that challenge and will work to implement Sir Michael's main recommendations in taking forward our public sector relocation agenda.

As the Chancellor pointed out in his Budget statement this March, the Government shall respond to those recommendations as part of the forthcoming 2004 spending review. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say at this stage what our response in the spending review will be to the recommendations, as the review is still being completed. Nevertheless, I will say a few words about certain aspects of the report and about what has been happening since it was published on 15 March.

We fully accept Sir Michael's main recommendation that 20,000 jobs could be relocated from London and the south-east as part of the efficiency agenda. He also made several other important recommendations, including that the Government must be prepared to make the necessary investment in relocation, that departmental headquarters should be slimmed down, and that Departments should implement relocation alongside their efforts to align pay with local conditions. Those important recommendations and themes will very much inform the Government's response to the Lyons report. Indeed, Departments are already addressing those issues as part of their efficiency programmes. In addition, with the advances made in telecommunications and more flexible working patterns, Departments are fully alert to the possibilities of locating services outside London and the south-east in order to take advantage of the often more favourable market conditions elsewhere.

Sir Michael said that there should be a strongly enforced presumption against London and the south-east for new activities such as back-office work and call centres. I assure my hon. Friend that we have already acted in that respect, in that Departments and bodies that are seeking to acquire new properties, to operate lease-backs and to sign or renew property leases in London and the south-east must now consult the Treasury on the appropriateness and cost effectiveness of staying in London in light of the potential opportunities that relocation could provide. That requirement has been in place since September. We also accept the case for a more tightly managed and coordinated approach to the civil estate generally, and we are actively considering how that might be achieved without unduly impairing or interfering with Departments' business needs and priorities.

Sir Michael rightly proposed that there should be continuing political and departmental leadership of the Government's relocation agenda. Their new efficiency programme will take that agenda forward under the leadership of John Oughton. It will also help to integrate relocation into the efficiency programme, assist Departments in realising their relocation plans, and ensure that they are fully co-ordinated with each other, as far as possible.

My hon. Friend raised a specific point about the role of the Treasury in promoting his constituency and Ayrshire. We maintain that it will be for Departments to choose their new locations on the basis of their business needs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide central locational guidance to Departments and organisations that are planning relocation. The guidance will advise them on the factors that they should take into account when considering relocation. The ODPM will ills seek to ensure that Departments across Whitehall, and other public bodies, are fully up to date with the various attributes and advantages of particular locations and that they work closely with each other and with local interests where possible. Those responsible for relocating activities will no doubt read the Hansard report of this debate and take into account the particular attributes of my hon. Friend's constituency.

I cannot stress this point enough: unless the area is in the top 100, the chances of any Department of state deciding, on the basis of preference, to relocate to somewhere such as Ayrshire is lessened. That is the very nub of my argument.

Let me turn directly to the King Sturge report on the assessment of locations, which accompanied the Lyons report recommendations. Sir Michael commissioned independent research into possible sites for relocated activity, which was carried out by the property consultants, King Sturge. As my hon. Friend pointed out, King Sturge limited its assessment to towns and cities with populations of 100,000 or more, in order to limit the size of the sample. I emphasise that that list was not intended to be exhaustive, and it certainly was not intended to be prescriptive. I assure him that Departments will be expected to consider the widest possible range of locations.

There have been changes since that specification was included in the consultants' terms of reference. As I understand it, the list now includes Carrick in Cornwall, whereas it did not before.

What more can be said about departmental plans will be set out in the spending review, which will shortly be announced. Clearly, I cannot add any more about which locations will feature in the departmental spending plans, but I can say that the King Sturge list was purely illustrative, and was not intended to underlie the business cases of individual Departments.

Does the Minister concede that, regardless of its position, a location that is not on the list is at a disadvantage to those that are, as they can pursue work with vigour, and that there are advantages to being on the list?

I do not accept that it is intended to be a definitive guide for Departments. However, they may subtly choose to relocate activity to areas that do not meet the 100,000 population mark that was examined in the King Sturge report, which was independent. Indeed, when he commissioned that independent research, Sir Michael Lyons had no control over what King Sturge subsequently did with its report.

Will the Minister concede that in the original report the towns had to have populations of 100,000 or more, that there have been changes subsequently?

I certainly accept that King Sturge, which was commissioned to carry out the independent research, selected a minimum population size of 100,000. Naturally, it wanted to control the amount of work to be carried out in response to the Lyons request. However, as I hope I have made clear to my hon. Friend, that was purely to illustrate the fact that there could be locations outside London and the south-east that would be attractive to Departments. However, it is not for Departments to base their business plans on the King Sturge report; they have to make an underlying business proposal, which will inform spending review announcements. Of course it is for them to consider all possible locations. My hon. Friend makes his case eloquently, and I am sure that they will take notice of what he says in forming their plans.

The relocation of activities is firmly on the Government's efficiency agenda. As I have said, during the spending review, Departments will come forward with plans to move activities and functions out of London and the south-east. The Government support Sir Michael Lyons's recommendation that relocation should be mainstreamed as part of Departments' normal business planning, and they are considering ways to ensure that that happens. As the Lyons review made clear, central co-ordination is also important, to ensure that Departments and organisations do not operate in their own silos, but work together to the benefit of the public good.

Although at the end of the day the Departments will make the final decisions on what activities should move and where, we shall put in place mechanisms to ensure that they implement their relocation plans in a coordinated way that is fully consistent with their efficiency programmes and with the best outcome for the public and taxpayers.

As I have made clear to my hon. Friend, the relocation decisions are not just about England, but about Scotland. He underlines the fact that Ayrshire unemployment levels remain above chose of the south- east of England, and are among the highest in the United Kingdom. Unemployment will obviously be one factor taken into account when the decisions are made.

Will the Minister concede that that will be the major issue? If anything is to be done to change what has been a trend for a great number of years, it would be common sense to make that a major factor in considering the reallocation of jobs. I am talking about the areas in which it has been clearly identified that unemployment is 1.5 to 2 per cent. above the national average.

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. However, it would clearly be for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to outline the guidance that should apply, and for Departments to make a business case for moving jobs outside London and the south-east. We firmly believe that efficiency gains could accrue to Departments by relocating jobs, and clearly unemployment will be one factor that they will take into account. It will inform the business case that they make—for example, how it might affect recruitment and retention levels in the area.

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give any commitments in an Adjournment debate shortly before the spending review in which some of the proposals will be examined in more detail. I am sure that he will accept that in his constituency the unemployment count has fallen by about 30 per cent. since 1997. We both share the objective of making sure that that continues in future.

We are at the beginning of a major relocation programme, and Departments have been asked to consider as wide a range of destinations as possible to establish what workforce skills, accommodation and communication are available.

Order. The Chamber congratulates the Financial Secretary on her reply and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South on his persistence.