With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about allocations to primary care trusts in the national health service in England.

I am today allocating revenue resources to England's 303 PCTs for the financial years 2006–07 and 2007–08. PCTs have already been informed of their allocation for 2005–06, so they will now be able to plan for the medium term, knowing with certainty their allocation up to March 2008. I have written to all hon. Members with details of the allocations to the PCTs that serve their constituencies.

This Government believe in the NHS. We believe in its founding principle that there should be equity of access, free at the point of need, for everyone. Furthermore, we believe that the NHS can be reformed and transformed as well as improved, so that health care can be delivered to the standards of, and in a way expected by, today's public. That is why in 2002 the Government outlined our plans for an unparalleled increase in expenditure in the NHS over the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08.

Today, I can tell the House that I am allocating more resources to the NHS front-line services than have ever been allocated before—£64 billion in 2006–07 and £70 billion in 2007–08. That contrasts with £45 billion only four years ago. That means that PCT allocations will grow in 2006–07 by no less than 9.2 per cent., and in 2007–08 by 9.4 per cent. On average, PCTs will have, compounded, 19.5 per cent. more resources in 2007–08 than in 2005–06. The increases between 2003–04 and 2007–08 represent a faster growth in resource allocation than ever before in the history of our NHS.

The distribution of those resources has had regard to four main principles under this Labour Government. The first is that the increase will allow the NHS to take significant strides in improving access to health services for everyone throughout the country. Secondly, places with greater need will receive an even greater allocation of resources. Thirdly, for the first time, this allocation will allow significant resources to be used for the prevention of ill health and for health improvement. Finally, there will be a floor to the allocation to each primary care trust today. No primary care trust will receive an increase in funding over the two years of less than 16.8 per cent. Not one primary care trust in England will receive less than a 16.8 per cent. increase over the two years.

For the five years between 2002–03 and 2007–08, allocations to primary care trusts will increase by more than 56 per cent. In terms of real people, by 2007–08, £1,388 will be allocated per head, compared with £907 in 2002–03—an increase of 53 per cent. in allocated resources for every single man, woman and child in England. We have done more than just increase our investment; we have made the distribution of resources more fair than ever before.

A key factor in distributing funding fairly is the count of the number of people served by each primary care trust. Since the last allocation round, the population data based on the 2001 census has been revised, so we now have a more accurate population count. In addition, the allocations that I am announcing today include projected increases in populations. That means that we are properly taking account of the challenges faced in areas of rapidly increasing populations.

If allocations are to be fair, they must also be based on need. Following advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, I am making some improvements to the formula to provide the same access to health care where there is the same need, and to support the reduction in health inequalities. I have also changed the way in which funding for primary medical services is distributed to make that fairer. For the first time, the majority of funding for GP services will be allocated according to the relative need for primary care services. The formula that we are using reflects the most up-to-date and best measures of differences in need for those services. The House will be glad to hear—many hon. Members have made representations to me—that I have also tackled the unfairness inherent in some areas being significantly under target in terms of the previous resource allocation.

Following the introduction of the new formula in 2002, we realised that, despite progress, some areas were still not receiving their fair share of funding. At that time, some areas were more than 22 per cent. below their fair share. We made some progress in reducing that unfairness in the previous allocation round, but despite that, in 2005–06 some primary care trusts are more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., and in one case more than 15 per cent., beneath their fair share. Such a disparity is unfair and unacceptable, so I have decided in the 2006–07 and 2007–08 allocations to accelerate progress towards a fair-share distribution. To reach that outcome, primary care trusts at the greatest distance beneath their fair share will receive more than those who were already receiving their fair share or more.

With the allocations that I am announcing today, based on need and fairness, by 2007–08, no primary care trust in England will be 15, 10 or even 5 per cent. below target. Indeed, I am able to tell the House that under today's allocation no primary care trust will be more than 3.5 per cent. away from their optimum fair share of the allocation. That is as substantial a move as I can make commensurate with the stability of the whole system.

Our general approach, therefore, has been to balance a significant and substantial increase in resources for every area, and for the PCTs of every Member throughout the House, with an even greater improvement in funding where there is greater need. No primary care trust in England—north, south, east or west—will receive an average increase of less than 8.1 per cent. Over the two years, that is an average increase of 19.5 per cent. for every one in England. That will ensure that all parts of the country will receive sufficient funding to see considerable further improvements in their health services.

At the same time as providing a 19.5 per cent. average and an 8.1 per cent. a year minimum, the funding formula rightly moves more funding to where it is most needed. I have already identified 88 primary care trusts as those that need the most urgent action. Since those are the most needy areas, they will receive a higher level of funding than other areas. By 2007–08, the funding per person in a spearhead primary care trust will be £1,552, compared with a national average of £1,388.

I can also tell the House, however, that by 2007–08, as a result of the fairer distribution, the 5 per cent. most needy areas and those facing the greatest need for funding, in both the north and the south of the country, will receive an average of £1,710 per person. The 5 per cent. most well-off areas with less need for funding will receive an average of around £1,190. That means that I am putting additional funding where it is needed to reduce health inequalities. That should help to ensure that by 2010 there will be a 10 per cent. reduction in health inequalities, as measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth. We will also see further reductions in killer diseases. We have already reduced premature deaths from heart-related disease and from cancer by 27 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively in the past six years. By 2010, there will be a fall of at least 40 per cent., from 1997 figures, in death rates from heart disease and stroke, and a 20 per cent. fall in death rates from cancer.

We also want to improve the experience throughout the NHS for all patients. By the end of 2008, for their planned hospital care, as a result of these allocations, all patients will be able to choose between a range of providers, including NHS foundation trusts and NHS and independent sector treatment centres. And because the investment announced today will be matched by the reform in working practices undertaken by staff, patients will be admitted for treatment in England within a maximum of 18 weeks from their first appointment with their GP to the door of the operating theatre, with no hidden waits. Having halved waiting times, we will halve them again and halve them once more for patients in England.

In addition, we can move away from treating illness and towards preventing it and encouraging health improvement. These resources will also allow us to make progress on prevention towards the original vision of the NHS as a true health service, rather than just a sickness service. Today's allocations include public health funding of £211 million in 2006–07 and £342 million in 2007–08 to help make that happen. All areas will receive their share of this funding, but again, a higher proportion will go to the most deprived areas, including the spearhead PCTs.

Of course, this is not all the funding available to deliver the health improvement agenda, but it is a significant proportion of it. It is being allocated directly to front-line PCTs to allow them to implement key initiatives such as improved school health and improved sexual health services. For example, we are providing funding so that by 2010, every PCT in England will be resourced to have at least one full-time, year-round qualified school nurse working with each cluster or group of primary schools and related secondary schools. And not before time.

Our public services must respond to what the public want by giving quality care at the public's convenience. Under this Government, the NHS's founding principles will remain firmly in place and will be enhanced by today's investment, thus giving equal access free at the point of need. But the way in which the services are organised is being transformed, giving patients a more convenient, personalised and responsive service within a system that is not only fair to all, but personal to each of us. That is a key aim for today's NHS.

The biggest ever investment in our national health service, the fairest ever distribution of resources and a massive programme of continued reform by staff will together give the increased capacity and diversity of provision that will offer patients faster access to better quality health services than ever before, all free at the point of need under a Labour Government. All those improvements are opposed by the Conservatives, who plan to divert money away from the NHS and to introduce for the first time into NHS commissioning charges for operations. Let the people make the comparison between the two offers and let them make their choice. I commend the statement to the House.

I am of course grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight—a typically generous 30 minutes—of the statement. It consisted of 25 paragraphs but he could have said it in one, because in fact, there is no extra money when compared with known planned NHS expenditure through to 2007–08. This is simply an attempt by the Secretary of State to divide the cake differently and—surprise, surprise—there is an election coming, so we are to have "spearhead" primary care trusts. [Interruption.] I wonder whether those trusts are located in the Labour-held seats that the Government are worried about.

One pity—[Interruption.]

Order. I have said it before and I will say it again: Members who shout are damaging only themselves, because I shall simply say that the Minister has delivered his statement and that the Opposition have responded. Those Members who want to ask supplementaries had better be quiet. I will be watching.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the pities is that we did not get an opportunity to see the text of the statement, which includes sub-headings that the Secretary of State did not read out, until he had finished delivering it, because the sub-heading before paragraph 18 contains an important truth:

"What the funding will deliver—inequalities".

Yes; inequalities between different parts of the country. To defend Labour-held seats, the Secretary of State will take away money from primary care trusts that are running deficits today in order to promise jam tomorrow for his spearhead primary care trusts.

The overall level of allocations to PCTs reflects the increase in NHS budgets, and to that extent no new money has been announced today. The NHS needs the assurance that under a Conservative Government or a Labour Government substantial increases in NHS budgets are planned. My right hon. Friends and I have committed ourselves to an increase of £34 billion by 2009–10 compared with the levels that we would inherit in the next financial year. We have made that commitment because we support the NHS and its values, which include the provision of comprehensive, quality heath care for all on the basis of need, not on the basis of ability to pay. We value the work done by NHS staff, and we intend to give them not only the resources, but the support and freedoms to ensure that they deliver the highest standards of care for patients.

A key point is not only to promise, but to deliver high quality care for the 17.5 million people who live with long-term conditions. That will require substantial investment in primary care services, and as we set out to the House in our debate on 11 November, family doctor services are at the heart of that delivery. The Secretary of State said nothing about opportunities to develop family doctor services. Genuine reform is required to back up the development of standards with resources and to give general practitioners the power to commission services and to support patients' right to choose. At the same time, we should ensure value for money by cutting bureaucracy, which currently consumes many resources that should be in the front line.

The Secretary of State's statement fails the test of reform. Over the next three years, for example, scheduled care in hospitals should increasingly be determined by patient choice, and GPs should exercise choice on behalf of patients, with money following the patient. Why does it make sense for that funding to form part of the PCTs' unified allocation in 2007–08? If GPs cannot manage the budget, they should not be expected to hold it, and if they have the power to commission services on behalf of their patients, they should receive their budgets directly.

Through the development of the general medical services contract, we have learned that GPs have populations with long-term conditions, like the asthma and diabetes registers. Should we not progressively move money from the general demographic assumptions that underpin the Secretary of State's proposal to specific factors determining GP budgets? The Secretary of State discussed assumptions about need rather than actual need.

The Secretary of State discussed cancer services, but the lack of progress in commissioning cancer services, which has been illustrated within the past fortnight by the Public Accounts Committee and Doctors for Reform, demonstrates that PCTs are not necessarily delivering progress on cancer services. A combination of clinical networks, GP commissioning and patient choice should deliver services more effectively. Those budgets also do not need to be routed through PCTs. The Secretary of State has failed to set out how NHS funding flows will be reformed. Instead, we have seen an old-fashioned exercise in dividing up the cake.

I have a number of specific questions for the Secretary of State. The previous intention was to move to target allocations by 2010. Is that still the Government's intention? In this financial year, the combined distance from target of PCTs is £1.1 billion. How much does the Secretary of State propose to reduce that total figure by in 2006–07? How much will PCTs that are currently above target be expected to contribute? The Secretary of State implied that there is no ceiling, and therefore every other PCT must contribute to the floors. Will he tell us the percentage contribution towards floors from other PCTs?

Last week, we heard that the Government are not incorporating 2001 census data in the local government finance settlement until 2006–7, but the Department of Health proposes to do so in the next financial year. Why are the Government taking one view on local government and another on health?

As the Secretary of State will know, many areas have fast-growing populations. The removal of type 2 funding for general practice left a serious gap that the Department had to plug. The Secretary of State did not refer explicitly to the growth area adjustment, which is contained in the new formula. Will there be an ability to fund the costs of infrastructure not only in the growth areas designated by the Deputy Prime Minister, but wherever large increases in population occur; and will the money arrive in time to match the population growth? In Milton Keynes, the infrastructure has been insufficient to deal with the increases in population experienced up to now, and the PCT is running a projected £6 million deficit.

The Secretary of State did not discuss the market forces factor, which continues to fail accurately to reflect NHS costs of provision in all areas. Has the Secretary of State considered moving from a general labour market approach to one based on benchmarked costs of efficient providers once the doctors' contracts and the "Agenda for Change" have been fully introduced? The Secretary of State should understand that promises of jam tomorrow are all talk, if at the same time NHS trusts are running deficits and the money that the trusts need is being eaten up in bureaucracy.

The administrative costs of strategic health authorities are more than £600 million, and of PCTs, more than £700 million. By cutting bureaucracy in both, we can get sufficient money through to the front line to meet the £1.1 billion distance from target of PCTs today. Putting resources and accountability into the front line is essential if Government-imposed cost pressures are not to mean continuing deficits.

Since the new year, one third of SHAs have published their forecasts for the end of this financial year based on figures from the end of December. The total forecast deficit from just nine SHAs is £227 million: all 10 PCTs in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are forecasting deficits; North East London SHA has a £22 million deficit in the year to date; Thames Valley SHA has a £41 million deficit; and Surrey and Sussex SHA is forecasting a £33 million deficit, half of which results from the working time directive, new contracts and the "Agenda for Change".

In my area, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA has forecast a £56 million deficit. That deficit includes PCTs such as my local one, South Cambridgeshire PCT, which is currently 8 per cent. above target. It is forecasting deficits and is above target, but in the Secretary of State's fantasy world it has more money than it needs. Across the country, PCTs are running deficits, demonstrating that the formula is way out by comparison with actual need.

The Secretary of State is promising money tomorrow while the NHS has deficits today. We could clear the deficit if the billions eaten up in bureaucracy got through to the front line. The Department of Health is imposing costs on the NHS with no idea of the effects. The statement does not deliver reform or urgently needed value for money, which it will be for us to do.

I have one final point for the Secretary of State, but Labour Members, and particularly Manchester Labour Members, may be interested. The Greater Manchester SHA board papers state:

"the year to date financial position for the Trust sector continues to worsen".

They also state:

"although trusts and PCTs are forecasting deficits, the SHA continues at this stage to report to the Department that overall financial balance will be delivered"

for Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State does not know what is going on, and it is about time that he moved aside for a Government who do.

I have waited a long time to hear with what ingenuity someone could turn a 10 per cent. expenditure increase into a bad news story. Today we have heard an attempt at that. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not Labour that is out of touch either with addressing people's needs or with improving the national health service; I fear that it is the Conservatives.

I shall deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. As usual, there was a dig at vast administrative costs, bureaucracy and waste. There is always a sting in the tail, with an attack on the staff of the NHS—but Labour will defend them. I shall give a couple of figures. In fact, PCT management costs are 1.5 per cent. of total expenditure. The costs of senior managers in the NHS, who number about 38,000 out of 1.3 million staff, are between 3 and 5 per cent., which is about a quarter of the management costs in private health care and about one fifth of the administrative costs in the American health care system, so is it not time that we praised the NHS for its efficiency?

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of deficits, as he has done before. I have two things to say to him on deficits. The first is that they are forecasts: every year for the past few years there has been a forecast deficit in the NHS, but in fact over the past four years the NHS has been in financial balance at the end of the year.

The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about forecast deficits, but I can tell him that the problem occurs when there are actual deficits. The last time there was a significant actual deficit—£500 million, twice the size of those forecast deficits, in a budget half the current size—was in the last year of a Conservative Government. In other words, the actual deficit then was three times higher than the forecast deficit the hon. Gentleman is worrying about now.

The hon. Gentleman asked me if we would reconsider the market forces factor. We keep it under review, but as he knows, the market forces factor was identified by the resource allocation working party as far back as 1976, so it is not new. Its development is overseen by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, and it is the result of many years of analysis by academics. The population figures from the 2001 census that we are using are, first, more accurate and, secondly, adjusted to pay some degree of attention to forward projections. There are four areas, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and the Thames gateway area, and they will be glad to know that we are taking account of that projected need. I was asked whether deprivation would be taken into account. The answer is that the projections take account of actual as well as assumed need. I could go on at length about that but I do not think that we need to take up more time, because for the past five years we have taken independent advice on the matter.

I finish on this point: the hon. Gentleman started off by challenging the methodology for, and thus the legitimacy of, the allocations. Does that mean that he intends to revisit them? Is he going to tell Members that these huge increases may be taken away from them? If so, he should say that today, because that will be another reason for people to be extremely careful about even considering voting Conservative when the election comes along. The truth is that under the plans of a Conservative Government, £1.2 billion will be removed from that expenditure: £4 million will be taken from every single PCT to subsidise the relatively well-off to jump the queue and go to the private sector if they can afford half the cost of their operation. That is an attack on the founding principle of the NHS, and I am sure that people out there will recognise the difference between investment in the NHS and an Opposition party committed to the virtual destruction of the ethos of the NHS.

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. As ever with these statements, the devil is in the detail. In broad terms, the Liberal Democrats welcome the allocations announced today and the increased investment that they imply. We see it as our task to continue pressing the Government to make sure that the investment going into the NHS is spent as wisely as possible.

The Secretary of State talked about primary care trust allocations. Can he tell us when he plans to make announcements about central allocations, too? He had a lot to say about improving public health and tackling health inequalities. In earlier proposals, he set out his plans for a partial ban on smoking in public places. If the intention really is to protect people's health, why does the health of customers and workers in pubs not need protection unless they are consuming food? How will that policy close the health gap between the richer and poorer areas of our country, which is, it seems, a Government priority?

Given that the latest National Audit Office report found that many GPs were seriously worried about the effects of the Secretary of State's patient choice policy on equity in the NHS, can he tell us what measures will be taken to address the real concerns of practitioners up and down the country? Does he agree that the NHS at local level should have the maximum possible freedom to decide how best to meet the health needs of local people, and that meeting those local health needs rather than hitting politically dictated targets should be the priority?

The Secretary of State said that there would be no more hidden waiting lists, but when will that be? Will he agree to publish, before the election, the hidden waiting times for scans and tests so that people can judge the Government's record for themselves? Will he also confirm that his target is that by 2008 up to 15 per cent. of procedures paid for by the NHS will be undertaken by the private sector? Does that not mean that in future the private sector will no longer simply be adding extra capacity to the NHS but replacing existing quality NHS provision?

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of his targets for PCT budgets? Will he confirm that the guaranteed contract payments for independent treatment centres mean that they will be paid regardless of the work they do, and that that is why 73 per cent. of NHS chief executives say that that does not offer good value for the taxpayer? Will the Secretary of State tell us why he thinks that after eight years of Labour Government, top NHS managers describe his approach as political, prescriptive and bullying?

More people are getting sicker in the NHS because of superbugs. More people are having difficulty in finding dentists on the NHS. More people are struggling to get appointments with GPs when they want them, and more people are waiting on hidden lists for scans and tests. That is the Government's real record, and that is what will count with our constituents.

The estimate that up to 15 per cent. might be added to capacity, or might be private operations, is just that—an estimate; it is not a target and it is not being driven. It will depend on patient choice. We are expanding the NHS and diversifying the type of treatment, making it much more efficient. It is free at the point of need, and in addition we are buying in bulk to push the price down and to give the patient the choice of quicker access to services. That is precisely why we have halved waiting times, and why we have taken 340,000 people off the waiting lists that we inherited from the Conservatives. Ultimately, it will be the choice of the individual—[Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is saying from a sedentary position. If he is asking whether that is a substitute for NHS operations, I can tell him that when the Government came to power NHS operations were below 5 million, and that about 6.5 million operations will be carried out directly through the NHS, so we are not taking anything away. In addition, there will be another 500,000. That is good for patients. For heaven's sake, I wish that for once the Liberals would think of these things from the patient's point of view, rather than always from the producer's or the provider's point of view.

For 60 years, no Government of either party have measured hidden waits, and we do not have the mechanisms to do so at present; but I have pledged that if the Labour Government are re-elected not only will we ensure that the maximum wait is 18 weeks, as opposed to 18 months under the previous Government, but that that will be the time for the whole patient journey. Previously, one third of the journey took up two years, we shall now pledge the time right through from the GP to the door of the operating theatre.

The hon. Gentleman asked about local decision making. At present, 75 per cent. of all money is distributed to PCTs, and they take responsibility for it. He asked about GP front-line engagement. Yes, we need more GP engagement in a range of areas, including the introduction of IT, which is why, recently, I put not only more effort but £95 million into that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about workers in restaurants and pubs. They will be protected to the maximum where smoking is banned completely. No restaurants will allow smoking, but even in the minority of pubs that continue to allow smoking, there will be restrictions around the bar area to protect all workers.

Finally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said when he started: he appreciated the 8.1 and 8.2 per cent. increases in his constituency—£35 million followed by £37 million. He was not in the least bit churlish, and he should not be, because he is getting an 8.1 per cent. increase. To put that in context, the person who was churlish—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Opposition spokesman—is actually getting a bigger increase: 8.2 per cent. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for his charitable and non-churlish response.

I warmly welcome the statement and wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing with the fair shares initiative—it shows the clear difference between us and that lot on the Opposition Benches—but do the increases contain any special recognition for areas such as mine that are having difficulties in recruiting GPs?

Not for the first time, we have extended the integration of the moneys provided for primary care services, including GPs, and I hope that that will help my hon. Friend's constituency. He may wish to know that in his case, the increases are 9.4 per cent. in 2006–07, and 9.3 per cent. in the following year, producing an additional two-year cumulative increase of 19.6 per cent., so his local services will have £21 million more. Those are the figures for the Doncaster, North area, and over in Doncaster, Central, there will be another £25 million—an even bigger compound increase of 19.7 per cent.

It would be churlish not to welcome these increases, particularly in my constituency, but does the Secretary of State not accept that if my local PCT, the East Cambridgeshire and Fenland PCT, had received its proper funding allocation—it had a shortfall of £8 million last year alone—it would not now be colluding with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mental health trust in closing a 16-bed mental health in-patient unit at Alan Conway Court, Doddington hospital? Perhaps my constituents can take some comfort from the Secretary of State's statement today when he said, "We must give the public what they want."

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for going so far as to say "thank you" at one point. One of his PCTs is getting the third largest increase in the country.

Long overdue.

Yes, it may be long overdue, but for 20 years under the Conservative Government, such an increase was never given. The hon. Gentleman is now being given a 31.2 per cent.—[Interruption.] I shall repeat that, lest he miss it: one of his PCTs is getting a 31.2 per cent. increase. He gets up and says, "We should have had this before," but has he forgotten that he actually voted against the increases?

My right hon. Friend never mentioned dentistry. He will be aware that there is more dentistry in the private sector than in the health service, so can he tell us whether he is encouraging dentists to return to the national health service?

Yes, indeed, I can. My hon. Friend is kind enough to point out that even the fairly huge aggregate figures that were allocated today do not include the £368 million extra that is being put towards our attempt to cope with the huge challenge of dentistry, particularly the fact that although there are more dentists, few of them want to do NHS work. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) has been tackling that issue robustly. We do not pretend that it is easy, but I hope that it will be made easier by the fact that in my hon. Friend's area, Northumberland PCT will receive a £69 million increase over two years, which represents increases of 9.1 and 8.9 per cent.—18.8 per cent., when compounded over two years—so there are 69 million reasons why he and his constituents should feel that improvements in the NHS will continue in his area.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), I welcome increased commitment to the NHS from whichever political party it may come. Is the Secretary of State aware that the two PCTs in my constituency are running at a substantial deficit, which is why, in turn, two hospitals were unable to become foundation trusts? Is he concerned about the gap between the rhetoric in Westminster and the reality on the ground in constituencies such as mine, where ill people read of financial recovery plans, ward closures, closed GP lists, fewer NHS dentists and a worse out-of-hours service? Is he not concerned that the increased allocation that he has just announced may simply be used to pay off the accumulated deficits?

No, I am not concerned about that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I thought that I caught a "Thanks" just at the beginning of his remarks—and I am sure that he will welcome the extra £30 million for the Mid Hampshire PCT, which represents a compounded increase of just under 17 per cent. There is also another £34 million for the North Hampshire PCT, which represents a 17.7 per cent. increase. I do not believe that those increases will be spent on the deficit—I have talked about the difference between forecast and actual deficits—but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate what the local management in his constituency would have to think about if they knew that instead of getting such an increase, they were facing the equivalent of £24 million being taken away to subsidise the Conservative party's policy of the patient's passport, which would go to about 8 per cent. of his local constituents, and the 92 per cent. of people who depend on the NHS would be £24 million worse off, rather than £64 million better off.

I thank my right hon. Friend for this continued investment in the increased health care provision in the health economy in Rochdale. He will know that Rochdale has one of the most profoundly difficult areas in terms of poverty. The new hospital and the recent announcement of £35 million under the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—project represent much needed increased investment. However, in relation to the uplift going to the spearhead areas under the accelerated fair share scheme, are the Government looking at the areas that have been historically underfunded for the past 50 years that did not gold-plate their services but undertook them at cost, and at the effect that that is having on issues such as investment in mental health?

As for whether we can help to compensate for historical deficits built up by decades of under-investment, even with the huge amount of money that we are investing based on deprivation, need, population growth and projected population growth, it is not possible to compensate everyone for what was effectively underfunding during the years of the Conservative Government. I am sorry that I cannot wave a wand and do that, but we are now giving fair shares. For example, my hon. Friend will find that her constituency is within 0.5 per cent. of the PCT target, because of a 19.6 per cent. increase, resulting in an accumulated £33 million extra over the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08. I hope that that will at least go some way, under this Labour Government, towards tackling the previous underfunding under the Conservative Government—although Conservative Members are apparently criticising this large investment today.

I agree with our Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that these increases are welcome, and far more generous than we ever received in Kingston, or elsewhere in south-west London, under the Conservative Administration. However, does the Secretary of State accept that Kingston is yet again at the bottom of the growth league for spending increases? For example, if Kingston hospital's budget had increased in line with health spending across the country, it would have £10 million more than it now has. He talks about fairness in health spending, but is he taking into account the massive increase in population in areas such as Kingston and the rest of south-west London? When will we get the health funding to match that increase in population?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks, but he should have pointed out that his area will still be about 8 per cent. above target. If we compare the need, the population and the projected population of Kingston with those of others, the people there are better off because many others live in areas that are up to 3.5 per cent. beneath target. There is a £120,000 project to upgrade the operating theatre at Surbiton hospital in May to increase capacity, and work has been carried out on the day surgery at Kingston hospital. The hon. Gentleman's area was roughly 11 per cent. above target. It will now be about 8 per cent. above the target for identified need, and as it will get 8.1 per cent. increases in both years, he would be churlish to try to pretend that his constituents are not doing rather well. No doubt while he is complaining about that here, he will claim the credit for it back in his constituency.

I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the people of Tamworth for today's excellent settlement of 9.4 per cent. this year and next year. I have no problem with that—apart from one small niggling issue. As he knows, my town is developing and has been accepting increased population numbers for many years. Our population will rise again this year. When he talks about money per head of population, is he talking about this year's population, or the population five years ago? Will he accept representations from me on behalf of my PCT so that we can get the figures right?

The short answer is that we have updated the projected population figures. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend.

The Secretary of State will know that NHS dentistry has largely collapsed in Lincolnshire. Does he agree that a sensible way forward would be for the primary care trust to pay a premium to NHS dentists to open in constituencies such as mine, where it is now impossible for a person to register with an NHS practice? If he does not agree with that proposal, what positive suggestions can he make?

This may astound the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do agree with that. We put more than £60 million into the access fund precisely to encourage people to do the sort of thing that he suggested. I have never pretended that we have perfection in the NHS, despite all the progress that we have made. We have a shortage of dentists, radiologists and radiographers, and we could do with more midwives. We have only started our building programme, and we still have long waiting lists, although they are almost 500,000 below their peak. Labour Members welcome any ideas, because we do not approach the matter dogmatically. We have already taken action similar to that suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this year.

I thank the Secretary of State for yet again recognising the historical inequalities in health care provision in the city of Manchester with a massive 15.5 per cent. increase in allocation for South Manchester, which will enable even better services to be provided in the new Withington community hospital, which opens in April. He is right to point out that the figures are based on the 2001 census projection. Will he confirm that they are now based on the 2001 census figures that had to be revised because of the failure of the Office for National Statistics to count the number of people living in Manchester?

My hon. Friend has been an avid advocate for his constituents, as have our other Manchester colleagues. Although we cannot offer compensation for mistakes made in the past, the fact that we now use a more accurate and verifiable version of the population figures goes someway towards providing recompense. As he pointed out, there is a 15.5 per cent. increase for South Manchester, which is compounded over the two years at 28.2 per cent. Of course, Central Manchester is receiving 26.4 per cent. There will be an additional £113 million over the next two years for those areas, which I hope will be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Manchester.

The Secretary of State's statement said that the figures accommodated both current and future projected housing growth. However, if we look at the detailed lists, we see that Southend PCT, in the Thames gateway area, gets the bare minimum, while Castle Point and Rochford PCT gets only a fraction more. May I tell him, without rancour, that given the massive house-building programme envisaged for the Thames gateway by the Deputy Prime Minister, the increases, while welcome, are nowhere near enough to provide—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] They are not enough to take account of the scale of house building that will be required. May I, in all sincerity, ask the Secretary of State to reconsider?

When the hon. Gentleman refers to the bare minimum, I take it that he means the 9.1 per cent. and 10.1 per cent. increases that he is getting. It is news to me that that is the bare minimum, especially compared with the amounts handed out in the years of the Conservative Government. I hope that he welcomes the £35 million extra for Castle Point and Rochford PCT and the £17 million for Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT. [Interruption.] I think that there was a nod over there, Mr. Speaker. We have again refined the formula to try to make it fairer. The four areas outlined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are precisely those on which we have been most engaged with the ODPM in trying to ensure that the figures are fair and take account of future development.

If the hon. Gentleman is really worried about deficits, he should worry about the £24 million that would be taken from the two primary care trusts that I cited to subsidise his party's policy of the patient's passport. I hope that he is being honest enough to tell his constituents that that £24 million would be taken away from the money that the PCTs already have. Additionally, NHS Direct would be closed down, as would the primary care trusts, as far as I can see from the James report. All the work done by primary care trusts would thus have to be done by the hon. Gentleman's local general practitioners, but they would receive no extra money. Has he told his GPs that?

My right hon. Friend knows from first-hand experience how badly we need new money in Washwood Heath and Hodge Hill. He also knows from first-hand experience the specific needs of the Kashmiri community in Birmingham, and I put on record our thanks for the time that he and his team have made available to hear our arguments for new money. Can he tell the people in east Birmingham what the settlement will mean for us? Can he tell us what it will mean for our campaign for two new health centres and more cash for front-line doctors? Will he tell the House what the consequences might be for constituents such as mine if the cash did not arrive?

If the cash did not arrive—fantasy though it may seem, let us consider the prospect of a Conservative Government—my hon. Friend's constituents would be millions of pounds worse off. They would have no access to NHS Direct and his local GPs would have the burden of all the commissioning of health care without any extra remuneration. Thankfully, that prospect is diminishing almost by the day, if we look at the opinion polls, so perhaps we can turn to the good news, which is that there is £69 million extra for my hon. Friend's constituents, or an increase of 22.3 per cent. over two years. That money will go to an area that badly needed it, because it was 6 per cent. beneath the assessed need expressed in the target. I would have liked to bring the figure on to target, but that was not possible. The area will be 3.5 per cent. beneath target, however, so I hope that that goes some way towards recompensing the efforts that my hon. Friend and his constituents have made to meet me and convince me of the need in their area.

Many surgeries in my constituency operate from cramped and outdated buildings. Does the allocation that the Secretary of State announced today include money to help GPs expand and improve their premises? If it does not, when will they receive such funding?

We are making £1 billion available for that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the LIFT scheme is now in full swing after a slow start, although I would have liked it to move quicker. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is overseeing the refurbishment occurring throughout the country, and I think that some 2,000 to 3,000 premises are being refurbished. The hon. Gentleman can tell all who are interested in their local health care, quite apart from the GPs who are integrally involved in it, that there will be an 11 per cent. increase in the first year and a 13 per cent. increase in the second year, which is compounded at 20.3 per cent. There will be £23 million extra, so although the area will be in roughly the same position in relation to the target, it will be substantially better off for resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be explaining to his constituents that the extra money is coming as a benefit of the Labour Government.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that my constituency has the highest level of disability of any constituency? More than one in three households contain at least one disabled person, which is quite clearly a legacy of the former mining industry. I thank my right hon. Friend for today's announcement and the improved funding situation for health provision in Barnsley. I remind him that historically, under the previous Government, Barnsley was the worst funded health authority in the whole Trent region, despite having some of the highest levels of health problems not just in the Trent region but in the UK as a whole.

Yes, indeed; and I can tell my hon. Friend that Barnsley, for instance, is now closer to target than it was previously. It is just 3.5 per cent. beneath, and a £61 million increase is going in over the two years; that is a 21 per cent. increase for Barnsley. I hope that that will assist in an area where there has been terrible deprivation. I know that there are a series of one-stop primary care centres, which have improved health care in my hon. Friend's area, and there are other developments. For instance, I think that some additional GPs have come into the area recently.

We must never forget that although we have spent a lot of time today talking about the allocation of moneys, which is what this is about, at the end of the day this is about improving patient care, and there is no doubt in my mind that all the signs on the ground now are showing that, month by month, we are getting much better patient care. This morning I was in Newham, where five years ago there was one consultant in accident and emergency; there are now five. Where there were 50 nurses there are now 80. Where they were waiting 10 months for a scan only two years ago, now they are waiting less than a week. That is where this money is going—it is going to the patients, and that is as it should be.

rose—

Order. I am obliged to move on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order, of which I have given your office notice. Anyone who reads the third report of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the debate that was held on the Floor of the House last night cannot fail to conclude that the subject of that report, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), did not properly apologise to the House for his conduct as the report required. Indeed, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who chairs the Committee, said as much in his report.

The response of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was, effectively, "I did not do it but I will apologise anyway". Surely that was a discourtesy to the House. Is this a matter on which you will rule or on which the House needs to take a stand? If it is referred back to the Standards and Privileges Committee, does there have to be a complaint of its own standing or can the Committee carry on the investigation?

I notice that in his speech during the debate, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee made the following comment:

"The Committee on Standards and Privileges will need to reflect on whether"

the hon. Gentleman

"has responded fully to our recommendation that he apologise fully to the House in the light of some of his qualifications".—[Official Report, 8 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1465.]

I am content to leave this matter to the good judgment of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you or your office received any requests from the Prime Minister's office for the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement on the subject of the wrongful convictions of those who were blamed for the IRA bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich? You may be aware that it was widely reported on television this morning that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would be seeking to catch your eye, and apparently after discussion with the Prime Minister's office anticipated that such an apology would be made.

The hon. Gentleman was not able to catch your eye—we all know that it is not always possible—but we now learn that the Prime Minister has made such an apology. It is reported on the BBC website that Mr. Blair said:

"I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice"

and that this apology was made in a statement recorded for television. Surely, if apologies of this nature are to be made, they should be made here, in the House. The House deserves rather better treatment than this.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I speak for many in the House in saying that you handle these matters impeccably. Nobody should be able to announce on the radio that a certain question is to be asked to the Prime Minister and answered in a certain way, and I would like to thank you for upholding the dignity of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask you to confirm, in ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), whether there is in fact no procedural obstacle to the Prime Minister notifying you that he would wish to make a statement on this subject at the close of business today, or indeed later this week during Parliament's proceedings? May I suggest to you, Sir, that many of us in all parts of the House would welcome the opportunity to listen to the Prime Minister make such a statement and to question him on it afterwards?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I endorse entirely everything that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has said, but also make the point that had such a statement been made by the Prime Minister in the House, that would have enabled other hon. Members with constituents and people they know who have also suffered from injustices to question the Prime Minister as to why he has been so selective in his recollection of matters?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I follow up the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? I agree with that, in the sense that there are thousands of victims of IRA terrorism and other terrorism in Northern Ireland whose cases are going by default and whose voices are not heard. A statement as suggested would have allowed the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the continuing delay in the appointment of a victims commissioner.

What I can say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on this point of order is that the Chair is now being drawn into the argument as to whether the Prime Minister should make a statement or not. It is for the Prime Minister or any Minister of the Crown to seek to make a statement before the House, and as right hon. and hon. Members know, when a Minister seeks to make a statement, the request is rarely refused. I therefore do not want to say any more on this matter. The Prime Minister will be able to read Hansard in the same way as everyone else and will have heard what has been stated.

I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for his support in this matter. Perhaps it is an opportunity to say to hon. Members that no one is entitled to demand to speak at Prime Minister's Question Time except when I call them, so no one is entitled to make a statement, prior to PM's Question Time, that they are going to raise this, that or the next thing. I think that we can safely end the matter at this point.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am totally and absolutely convinced, if I may say so, that your attitude is right in terms of the House of Commons, but I may have incurred your wrath because I appeared for five minutes at 7 o'clock on ITV, and on Sky later on, on precisely this subject. I promise you it was on the basis that there was going to be an announcement anyway. Whether it was at Question Time was not quite clear, but there was the certainty—I think in good faith—among the media that there would be an announcement.

All that I can say is that the Father of the House once again has my admiration for the fact that he is willing to wander the streets of London and go into television studios at 7 in the morning.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in your support. I think that you have had the dignity of the House and the laws of the House at your heart, and certainly you are in complete control. We all know that, and we have to bow to that. You are infallible when you are in that Chair.

The reverend Gentleman has gifted me with infallibility. I am very pleased by that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the heart of my point of order are value for money in Government contracts, the suspicion that the Government have unfairly subsidised Swan Hunter, and their frankness in answering questions on the subject.

The matter is well known—I raised it on the Floor of the House on 4 November in debate and four Labour Members criticised me for my comments. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence "utterly rejected" my comments. So the issue of subsidy to Swan Hunter is known to Ministers and the House. I tabled a parliamentary question asking for the amount of support given by the Government to Swan Hunter. The Minister of State's reply was:

"The Ministry of Defence does not provide financial support to the defence industry."—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 381W.]

The response to a separate question to the Department of Trade and Industry said that the DTI had given just one grant of £1.2 million to Swan Hunter. There the matter may have lain had there not been further discussion and questions.

The Government are now saying two different things. To my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the Minister of State repeated his statement:

"The Ministry of Defence does not provide financial support to the defence industry."—[Official Report, 4 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1178W.]

But in reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), he said:

"I regret that a clerical error in the Ministry of Defence led to an answer being laid which had been overtaken by events."

We now know that on 10 December the Government agreed to give a further £84 million to Swan Hunter. One has to ask: when is a pre-election bung not a pre-election bung? I am afraid that the answer seems to be when it is an

"£84 million"

adjustment to

"the contract with Swan Hunter following value for money considerations".—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1017W.]

The fact is that the Minister told me, on the record, that the Ministry of Defence has not supported Swan Hunter, yet it has, in fact, given it a further £84 million. Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to come to the House to respond to this point of order?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have examined the answers given to him and other hon. Members. It is clear to me that the original answers to the two questions asked by the hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) did not give a full or up-to-date picture of the facts relating to the contract in question.

I remind Ministers of their duty to give accurate information to this House and to correct any errors at the earliest opportunity. I also remind them that pursuant answers should be used only to correct errors of fact or printing errors in an earlier answer. They should not be the vehicle for a wholly new answer. I have asked the Table Office to check closely with Departments the nature of the correction to be made before authorising the use of such pursuant answers in future.

BILL PRESENTED

Audible Motor Vehicle Alarms

Mr. Norman Baker, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Randall, Bob Russell, Mr. Nigel Jones and Tony Wright, presented a Bill to establish requirements about the noise levels of, and the duration of noise emitted by, audible alarms within motor vehicles; to make provision about tests on motor vehicles in that connection; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed [Bill 58].

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about protective helmets for children riding on motor cycles as pillion passengers; to make further provision about motor cycle construction and use in relation to pillion passengers; to make it an offence to carry a child as a pillion passenger without parental consent; and for connected purposes.

My constituent Sean Pearce-Weston was only eight years old when he was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident in May last year. It happened on the Pevensey bypass. He was riding as a pillion passenger on a 750cc Honda motorbike owned by a friend of the family. The bike collided with a Ford Fiesta. Sean suffered serious head, neck and back injuries. He was airlifted to the local district general hospital, and later transferred to King's college hospital, where ultimately his life support machine was turned off. His parents were unaware that he had gone for a ride. He was wearing a helmet that was either ill fitting or with the strap undone. In any event, I understand it was not a specially designed child's helmet.

I was contacted by Sean's mother Cassie and her friend and neighbour Clare Lacey. Despite the terrible grief suffered by family and friends, Cassie's main priority since the terrible accident has been to campaign for better regulations to try to ensure that what happened to Sean cannot happen again to anyone else's son or daughter. I pay tribute to Cassie and the whole family for their bravery and determination.

Cassie started a petition in my constituency. It rapidly attracted not hundreds but thousands of signatures. Currently it has more than 7,000 signatures. There were very strong feelings on the matter in my constituency, especially in the Langney area. I was left asking: how did Sean come to be on this pillion seat without proper protection and without his parents' knowledge or consent? Would a change in the law help to avoid a similar tragedy?

I have to admit that my initial reaction was to press for a blanket ban on children being carried as pillion passengers. I am still of the view that very young children have no place on motorcycles. I have delved into the legal and practical issues very carefully, and I met a range of organisations and bodies. I would like to pay particular thanks to the British Motorcyclists Federation, in particular Mr. Richard Olliffe. It is a responsible organisation that has been working hard through the Advisory Group on Motorcycling to develop a national motorcycle strategy.

I do not wish to demonise motorcyclists. During this campaign, I have received e-mails and letters from bikers across the country—indeed, across the globe. As the BMF says in its mission statement, motorcycling is a legitimate means of personal transport and form of recreation. About 1 million motorcycles are registered for use on our roads.

I recognise that the vast majority of bikers are responsible people who take particular care when carrying their own children on their pillion seat, but the case of young Sean suggests to me that there is a minority who are less responsible and that some changes to the existing law are required. From the outset, I was determined that any change in the law should be fair, proportionate and enforceable. I am not interested in empty gestures and neither are Sean's family. Some accidents are unavoidable.

Among the other organisations I consulted were the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Brake—the road safety charity—the Motor Cycle Industry Association and Sussex Police. I am grateful for all the expert advice that they have given.

The existing laws of direct relevance to this case can be summarised as follows: a motor bike must be equipped with suitable supports or rests for the feet of the pillion passenger; pillion passengers must be capable of sitting astride a proper seat securely fixed to the motorcycle; a pillion passenger must wear a safety helmet; and the decision to carry a passenger remains with the rider, who is legally responsible for ensuring that the passenger is safely supported.

On 21 July last year, I went to the Department for Transport with Cassie and her daughter to present the petition. A few days earlier, I had sent a letter setting out my concerns following the accident and asking Ministers to review the legal position. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is on the Front Bench, was otherwise engaged, but was good enough to write the following day expressing his condolences to the family. In his letter he stressed that the Government were concerned about motorcycle safety and made the point that

"Motorcyclists are our most vulnerable road users and are some 30 times more likely to be killed on the road than car users and 4 times more likely to be killed than cyclists."

However, he concluded:

"The Government believes that present regulations do not make it necessary to amend the legislation."

The Minister's review of the legislation cannot have been too comprehensive because that was in reply to my letter of 8 July. Very prompt, but suggesting, perhaps, a not too deep and long-standing review.

I have concluded that rather than a blanket ban, three things are required. First, there should be a clear legal obligation that where a child is to be carried as a pillion passenger by anyone other than a parent or legal guardian, the consent of a parent or guardian must be obtained. That should be backed up by stiff penalties. Had that obligation existed and been enforced before this tragic accident, it is more than likely that Sean would not have been on the bike in the first place. Parents have a right to know that their children will not be placed in possible danger without their knowledge and consent.

Secondly, it should be crystal clear that a child must wear a properly fitting and specially designed child's helmet. The best information I have been able to obtain is that Sean was wearing a full-face adult lady's helmet. It was the smallest size available, and although it probably fitted the diameter of Sean's head reasonably well, the differences in the jaw of an adult female and a child meant that the strap did not fit properly, so the helmet came off on impact. So wearing a helmet was of no use at all.

It must make sense for the law to require that specially designed children's helmets are worn. I understand from ROSPA that it plans to seek funding to create an advice leaflet for parents on taking their children on their pillions, which would look at all these issues. The BMF tells me that it would support moves to ensure that helmets approved to current UK and EU standards are readily available in child head sizes.

Thirdly, the regulations governing the design of foot rests, or "pegs", must make it clear that the very youngest child could not legally ride pillion, and that the manufactured position of foot rests cannot be modified. At present, as I have explained, the law requires that the passenger must be able to reach the foot rests. But certain sports bikes have the rests in more accessible places, and there seems to be some evidence that owners may modify their bikes, including the position of the rests. In fairness, I should say that the BMF does not support a ban on modifying the position of foot rests, but in a constructive spirit, it has told me:

"The BMF is however concerned that riders may not be aware of their obligations to pillion passengers and would therefore support a Department of Transport publicity campaign to ensure that riders and pillions are aware of their obligations under the current regulations."

What has been the legal aftermath of this tragedy in my constituency—the very sad death of young Sean Pearce-Weston? The rider of the motorcycle has not been prosecuted. The driver of the car was prosecuted and admitted driving without due care and attention, rather than dangerous driving. He was fined £500 and banned from driving for six months. Sean's mother pointed out in the local paper at the time that £500 was less than the cost of organising Sean's funeral.

I understand that the coroner's court in this case is due to reconvene on 5 April. Only after that final hearing does the Coroners Act allow the release of the formal police report on this tragic incident. It will, I am sure, make interesting reading. It is quite possible that the coroner may decide to make recommendations relating to the carriage of child pillion passengers on motor bikes. I hope that he does, and if he does, that the Government will seriously consider acting on those recommendations and on mine.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Tom Cox, Mrs. Jacqui Lait and Mr. Bill Wiggin.

I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. He has also placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

In view of the time limit that Mr. Speaker has placed on speeches, and in view of informal representations that I have received from both sides of the House, I will, if I may, not take the usual number of interventions. I do my best in all debates to take as many as possible, and I make myself available, as I did yesterday, to the European Scrutiny Committee for interrogation by Members on both sides of the House.

Order. I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that Mr. Speaker's decision was perhaps related in part to the well-known generosity of the Foreign Secretary in that regard.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us feel that as Parliament has not gone through the European constitution line by line on the Floor of the House, the Bill lacks the legitimacy that it would have, had that process been enabled. I hope the Foreign Secretary will not allow us to miss some of the gems of explanation that he would otherwise have put before us.

That is a case of special pleading.

I thought I was helping the Chair a moment ago, but obviously one can be wrong.

The Bill has two linked purposes: to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European Union constitutional treaty, and to decide that ratification can take place only if there is a positive vote in a United Kingdom referendum.

Before coming to the Bill itself, let me first put it in context and explain why the new treaty is needed. The European Union's institutions and rules were designed some 50 years ago, for just six members. Since then, a succession of amendments in overlapping treaties has been agreed by the EU's member nations. But with the EU's biggest enlargement last year taking its membership to 25, and with the prospect of further expansion, it was clear that those successive treaties had to be consolidated and clarified. In addition, there was a need for reform of the European Union to make it more effective, efficient and accountable.

When the first draft of the treaty was produced in the Convention, I published a detailed White Paper setting out the changes that would be required by the Government and the House if we were to sign up to the treaty. Over the following 10 months of intensive negotiations, we achieved every one of our negotiating objectives—a success that was widely recognised across Europe. The French newspaper Le Monde called the treaty "a British victory". Corriere della Sera in Italy declared that

"the British won the day".

Laurent Fabius, leader of the French "No" campaign, said that

"the British concept has won".

Those comments reflect the nature of the new constitutional treaty—a framework for our kind of Europe, which gives us a strong role in a Union of free and sovereign nations.

The new treaty spells out in clearer terms than before that this is an organisation of freely co-operating nations—free to decide where to work together, free to stop doing so if they agree that it no longer makes sense, and free to take at any time a sovereign decision to pull out of the EU entirely. The constitutional treaty puts Europe's members firmly in control. It replaces the current system of six-monthly rotating presidencies of the European Council, the body in which the EU's member countries set the organisation's priorities, with a full-time Chair to ensure that it is we, the nations, who set the EU's agenda and get it implemented. That is a widely supported reform, and its supporters include, I am pleased to say, the new leader of the Conservative party in the European Parliament. The only opposition to the reform appears to have been led by the former European Commission, not the present one, and the British Conservative party.

The new treaty slims down the size of the European Commission. It states that the EU's common foreign and security policy will remain fully under the control of Europe's nations, who can agree a common approach only when every one of those nations wishes to do so. One person, accountable to the EU's members and taking orders only from them, will implement this policy, replacing the disjointed system that we have today involving a high representative and a member of the Commission whose loyalties are ambiguous and are to the Commission, not to the European Foreign Ministers of nations.

The new treaty ensures that national Parliaments must ratify any future changes to the EU's arrangements. The Bill gives that statutory effect in clause 2. For the first time, the treaty gives national Parliaments the power to send draft EU legislation back for review if one third of national Parliaments believe that the draft law infringes the principle that the EU should act only where it adds value—the so-called subsidiarity principle. That is an important and welcome reform, to which the Bill gives further statutory effect. It is not directly reflected in the treaty, but in the Bill I have added to the provisions of the treaty so as better to assist Parliament in that task. Under clause 3, the relevant Minister will have a statutory duty to lodge a written statement with Parliament certifying whether or not a given draft EU law, in the Government's view, complies with the subsidiarity principle.

We have that power at present, as we can object on subsidiarity grounds. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. The Commission can ignore our objections, and that will also happen under the constitution. The Commission already has to justify its proposals on subsidiarity grounds. It can overrule our objections, and it will be able to do so under the draft constitution. What, therefore, is the advance?

There is a big advance, because there was a power on paper in the Maastricht treaty, but it did not have any procedure behind it. As every lawyer in the House knows, if we do not have procedure, we cannot access rights. By making provision for one third of national Parliaments to raise a yellow card to a proposal, the treaty ensures that in future there will be a proper procedure. Moreover, with help from Members from all parts of the House, I have sought to strengthen the role of the House and Parliament in scrutinising EU legislation. In my judgment, legislation is always improved if there is effective scrutiny, and that is as true of EU legislation as it is of domestic legislation. I wanted to introduce a duty on Ministers, and therefore officials and Departments, to check EU draft legislation to see whether or not it accorded with the subsidiarity principle. That is what we will have under the Bill, but we do not have it at the moment.

rose—

I shall give way later to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

The treaty provides Europe with a fairer and clearer voting system for making decisions, giving the larger member states relatively more power. One of the many improvements that we achieved during the intergovernmental conference was the raising of the thresholds for qualified majority voting from 50 per cent. of EU member states and 60 per cent. of the EU population to 55 per cent. of member states and 65 per cent. of population, which helps this country. The treaty sets out arrangements known as "enhanced co-operation" to allow groups of member states within Europe to work together more closely in certain areas without everyone having to take part, but it ensures that there is a level playing field. Such co-operation is allowed only if it does not harm the interests of those nations not choosing to participate. Last year, that policy was advocated by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Foreign Secretary said that the House would have far more power to refer matters under subsidiarity, but when I asked the Leader of the House a question just a couple of weeks ago, I was told that no such proposals are yet in place and that the Government do not have any idea about the way in which that would operate. The Foreign Secretary is trying to suggest that we have new procedures and would have more power, but the Leader of the House made it clear that that is not the case.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. First, the Bill makes provision for a new procedure and, secondly, I have already made proposals to the House, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the European Scrutiny Committee about ways in which the House can better improve scrutiny arrangements. It is not for the Government to tell the House how it should exercise its scrutiny responsibilities. That is a matter for the House, and I look forward to receiving its recommendations. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he is pushing at an open door.

On immigration, asylum and frontier controls, the new treaty sets out effective provisions for working together across borders, but it gives Britain the choice to opt in to those measures in which we want to participate and to stay out of those in which we do not. The new treaty extends the application of qualified majority voting in the EU in that area and others to ensure effective decision making where it is in our interests. I am unapologetic about that extension, and I hope that that is the case, too, for the whole House, including Members who served as Ministers in previous Governments such as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It was Baroness Thatcher who, as Prime Minister, spelled out the case for qualified majority voting when it is in our interest. Majority voting stops individual countries blocking vital reform. If the status quo is against us, we must be at the head of reform. That is exactly what we have done with reform to the common agricultural policy, which we could never have achieved if countries with a vested interest in the status quo were able to veto any changes.

There are about 50 so-called improvement changes resulting from the change from veto to majority voting. Most are frankly trivial. They extend from procedures for repealing measures relating to the past division of Germany to the appointment of the executive board of the European Central Bank, neither of which affects the United Kingdom. At the end of the documents that have been laid before the House there is a complete table of such changes. Changes have also been made on asylum and immigration, although most of those were made under the Amsterdam treaty, and on criminal procedural law, but we have an emergency brake in certain areas and an opt-out in others.

Crucially, the new treaty sets limits on the European Union's powers and, for the first time, they are listed clearly. The powers of the EU are limited to those given freely by its members. Again, for the first time, there is a procedure to modify or reduce the exercise of those powers. The treaty guarantees that the national veto is maintained on crucial issues on which we need it, such as tax, social security, fundamental aspects of criminal law, the financing of the EU, treaty changes, foreign policy and defence. By incorporating the charter of fundamental rights, the treaty includes a consolidation of existing rights, freedoms and principles, thus limiting the scope of the EU institutions. The charter makes it clear that the EU must respect the fundamental liberties of our citizens whenever it acts. The treaty itself spells out the fact that the charter is not, and cannot, be used as a source of new human rights in this country. My right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General put it well when he described the charter in a speech last year as

"a brake not an accelerator".

The Foreign Secretary is suggesting that increased national powers are involved. Surely, however, the whole point of the new constitution is that it will remove Parliament as the root of our legal system.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that, and I invite him to look at the treaty, the White Papers that I have produced, the evidence that I have given and the detailed commentary. There is absolutely no provenance for his statement. Remarks by hon. Members sitting next to him and by his Front-Bench team show that part of the Conservative party is trying to pretend that the proposed treaty changes the position of the primacy of European law in relation to the United Kingdom. It does not. The primacy of obligations laid out in international treaties arises in principle not from the treaty or previous EU treaties but from article 27 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider this: if a country entered into solemn treaty obligations but could then ignore them, there would never be any point in agreeing international treaties. Some countries have to incorporate every single part of international treaties directly into their domestic law—that is the case in the United States—but other countries, including the United Kingdom, take a dualist approach. The issue of primacy is present in international obligations. It was present when we joined the European Union, and it was at the heart of the argument during the 1975 referendum campaign. The position has not changed, and as one of the first articles in the treaty makes clear, European law, in respect of European competences but nothing else, has primacy. It is made clear that that is simply a restatement of the existing jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.

Does not this exchange reveal that in practice the proposed referendum will not be about the terms of the constitution but will be a vote about whether or not we want to be a member of the European Union? In that sense, it will be a defining moment for this country and our relationship with Europe.

One can never tell exactly the basis on which individuals vote in the privacy of the ballot box. I hope very much that the vote will be about the merits of the treaty. I am confident about its merits, and the fact that it works for Britain and makes a European Union that is much more in the image that we seek. My hon. Friend is right to imply that some in the Conservative party—by no means all of them—wish to use a no vote in the referendum on the treaty as a Trojan horse to drive the United Kingdom towards withdrawing from the European Union altogether.

The new treaty fulfils every one of the commitments that I set out in the Government's White Paper in advance of the negotiations. All the institutional changes are beneficial to Britain and to the British people: a limit on the European Union's powers, a better-managed European Union, greater say for national Governments and Parliaments, and flexible arrangements to allow some members to go at a different speed from others. All those changes are proposals for which the Conservatives have called separately, but to which they now, incredibly, object, as illustrated in the rambling, rather oxymoronic reasoned amendment that they have tabled. That is why we have heard a litany of distortion and inaccuracy from them about what is in the text.

Let me be clear about what the new treaty will not do. It does not change the United Kingdom's position with respect to joining the euro. It does not hand control of our borders, foreign policy or armed forces to the European Union. It does not take away our seat at the United Nations, and nor—perhaps the most absurd claim of all—does it replace Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State. I can understand that the British public are concerned when they hear such claims about the treaty, but as discussion has gone on, so the myths and distortions have been exposed. People can increasingly see the reality, which is that the treaty will set a stable, predictable and limiting framework for the European Union.

Let me now turn to the second purpose of the Bill: a referendum in the UK and in Gibraltar to decide whether to ratify the constitutional treaty. I should point out to the House one of the many manifest absurdities of the so-called reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. It asks that we decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. If there is no Second Reading, there is no Bill, and if there is no Bill, there will be no referendum. Having called for a referendum for months and months, the Conservatives have manoeuvred themselves into the extraordinary position of deciding to vote against it the moment they are actually offered one.

The provisions in part 2 fall under the general framework of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which many hon. Members will recall. I recall it in every particular because I was a sponsor of that excellent Bill as Home Secretary. The European Union Bill sets out who will be entitled to vote in the referendum, the terms for any legal challenges to its result, and provisions on the conduct of the referendum. It also includes the question to be posed, which is a simple and straightforward one:

"Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"

I am glad to say that the Leader of the Opposition has said

"we do accept the question",

and the Electoral Commission has now approved it.

In addition to the legislative provisions in the 2000 Act, we shall publish and make available to the House guidance on Government conduct, which will apply throughout the referendum period. It will take account of the requirements of the ministerial code, the civil service code, the special advisers code of conduct and guidance on the work of the Government information system.

Yesterday the Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee that he did not see any need for the Bill to be repealed should there be a no vote in a referendum. That being the case, would the Bill remain on the statute book to be used for a second referendum on the treaty?

The Bill cannot be used for a second referendum. There would be no point in repealing it in such circumstances, because its purpose would have come to an end. I understand the question, but because he asked it—

I asked it.

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked me that question. I have double-checked the matter, and I refer the House to clause 10 (4) and (5). Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill can come into force, and an order be made, only if there is a yes vote. There cannot be a second yes vote; that is absolutely clear.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that some Labour Members who will vote for the Bill welcome the referendum, although they will argue against the Government's case during it, but do not accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) has argued, that it will be a defining moment for the country if it is lost, although it will clearly be a defining moment for the Government?

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is being consistent in his position, and I hope that his advice will be accepted as wiser counsel on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to a continuing discussion with him and one or two other hon. and right hon. Friends about the merits of the Bill. What we know of the public mood is that the more they see the good parts of the treaty, the more likely they are to support it.

There are those of us who support the treaty but think that the decision to hold a referendum was one of the weakest U-turns that the Government have performed on any issue in their history. Were I to vote for the Bill tonight, would the Foreign Secretary take it that I had been inconsistent in voting for the referendum? Would he advise me to vote against it, so that at least the dignity of Parliament and its right to determine the issue might be restored?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a consistent position on the matter—he is against a referendum—and I respect him for that. Those on the Conservative Front Bench, however, are in a completely absurd position; he knows it, and so do they.

The Bill presents a choice on whether to approve the new constitutional treaty. It is important to be clear about the nature of that choice. If Parliament and the British people approve the treaty, we will fix the framework for our sort of Europe, with the reforms that I have described, but if we reject it, we are in unknown territory, and I suggest that we will be weak and isolated in Europe. We would have no option but to go cap in hand to Brussels to ask our partners to start all over again, reopening negotiations in which we had secured such a good result. If we got any deal at all, it would be a worse and not a better one, negotiated from a position of weakness, not of strength. The long-term effect would be Britain falling into a semi-detached position in Europe while others went ahead without us. We would be left without influence, out on the margins and with no say in Europe's future direction.

The choice is genuinely this: strength for Britain or isolation and weakness. We shall either endorse the reforms that we have secured, guaranteeing a strong Britain in our kind of Europe, or reject the treaty and step into the unknown, with all Britain's power and prosperity and all we have achieved in recent years at risk. Yet the official Opposition explicitly want to provoke just such a crisis in our relations with Europe. Indeed, just as many other nations are queuing up to join the EU, many in the Conservative party are doing their level best to reject it.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am coming to the end of my remarks.

Let us be clear. The Conservatives say that they want not only a rejection of this new treaty, but a renegotiation of the texts of the existing treaties as well. At best, that is pure fantasy, and most will see it as deceit. Such an approach—to use the process as a Trojan horse to deliver renegotiation of existing treaties—is literally undeliverable. It would require the agreement of every other of the EU's 24 member states. Yet the Leader of the Opposition cannot point to one other member state that supports the Conservative party's position.

The Conservatives' kind of Europe is what Lord Willoughby de Broke, a former Conservative peer, described thus in a speech last June:

"like going to McDonalds and ordering a lobster thermidor".

That is, it is very nice to have, but it is simply "not on the menu". That is the truth of the matter. If the Conservative party's policy on Europe reflects nothing else, it reflects a deeply felt pessimism about its own future and the future of this country. The Conservatives say that their policy is about sovereignty, and that that is the purpose of their reasoned amendment, but it is not so. Their policy could represent only an inexorable weakening of Britain's power and influence. The Conservative party mistake isolation for sovereignty. By definition, a castaway on a desert island is sovereign, but he has no power. By playing a strong role in the EU, Britain strengthens the power of this nation. The alternative, offered by the Conservative party, is exactly the isolation and weakness that would be so damaging to our power and prosperity.

If, as I believe we do, we in Britain want to enhance our power and influence in the world, to shape global markets in our interests and to protect the British people from global threats—if we want to do all or any of those things—we must build strong alliances, not cut ourselves off. We have to be inside our largest market, shaping our rules, not outside it. With great respect to them, we are not Norway or Switzerland; we are one of the largest economies in Europe and in the world. The idea that we could simply take instructions from Brussels by fax, which is the alternative offered by associate status, is simple nonsense, but very dangerous nonsense.

Whether it is in getting proper elections in Ukraine, or in taking part in negotiations with Iran to suspend the processes that could produce fuel for a nuclear bomb, Britain is stronger when we work with others in Europe. We have to maintain that power and influence, not put it at risk.

There is a clear patriotic case for this constitutional treaty—for a strong Britain in a reforming Europe, for increasing our prosperity and our security, and for promoting our values and enhancing our power. As the debate continues in the House and in the country, I am confident that the patriotic argument for Britain in Europe will win against the narrow, pessimistic isolationism of the anti-Europeans. I say that because this is an argument about this country's future, about choosing to take our opportunities, to lead by engagement and to work with others to increase Britain's prosperity and Britain's power. I commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

That this House declines to give a second reading to the European Union Bill because, whilst it enables the broadly-supported and necessary Referendum to be held on the Constitution for Europe, it also provides for the implementation into UK law of that Constitution for Europe; it enshrines the primacy of European Union law and puts in place many of the elements of a state; it transfers further powers to the European Union institutions and further promotes the concept of a common foreign and security policy and a common economic policy; it further encourages the over implementation of European regulations; it extends the powers to legislate by order; it extends the competences of the European Union in many areas including asylum and immigration, criminal and civil law; and it therefore further diminishes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Despite the welcome provisions in the Bill for the holding of a referendum, our amendment shows clearly why we will decline to support this Second Reading today. The Bill seeks to do two very different things and deliberately ends up confusing them, and the Foreign Secretary's speech has in many ways tried to increase that confusion. First, it seeks to import into our own law the provisions of the constitution for Europe, and, secondly, it enables the referendum to be held. There should have been two separate Bills. As with devolution, it would have made sense for Parliament to know the public's mind before legislating to implement.

We were told in last week's White Paper that

"the process of Parliamentary scrutiny will inform the public debate"

on the constitution. What did the Foreign Secretary mean by informing public debate—surely not the propagandist speech to which he has just treated us?

It is clear from the Bill and its timetable, and—I have to say with a certain amount of respect as this is probably the shortest speech that the Foreign Secretary has made on Europe—the length of his speech itself, that far from informing the public debate, the Government are desperate to keep it as short and as propagandist as possible. They have started already. Last week—he did it again today, and I am sure that he will do it over and over again—the right hon. Gentleman boasted that he had delivered a constitution that every other country in Europe is calling a great British success. Once again, he quoted one or two French sources, but he is obviously selective in his reading.

On the UMP website, President Chirac, the leader of France, says:

"this Constitution was wanted by France, and is largely inspired by France."

On the same website, Alain Lamassoure, one of France's constitution draftsmen, described the constitution—this is important in this context—as

"the coronation of what we call the French vision of Europe, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon vision".

Even Nicholas Sarkozy, the leader of the UMP, has said that

"if the French said 'no' in the referendum, it would be the British . . . who would triumph".

There appears to be a severe breakdown of communications between the Foreign Secretary and his French colleagues.

The truth is, as Mr. Sarkozy suggests, that this constitution is bad for Britain and for all those who seek to retain and develop a Europe that is a true partnership of sovereign nations. That is why this reasoned amendment seeks to distinguish between the welcome prospect of a binding referendum, which we have long sought, and the rest of the Bill, which sets out to impose upon the United Kingdom a European constitution, which leads us through that gateway towards a country called Europe where we do not want to go.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

I will give way in a second.

Last week's White Paper made the astonishing claim that this treaty makes Europe "easier to understand". What nonsense. It establishes a constitution of considerable obtuseness, 500 pages of it, so easy to understand that a fortnight ago the Government produced a commentary on the constitution of another 500 pages. That is aside from all the propagandist bumf on the treaty that the Government have been producing during the past six months that we are now told makes it easier for Europe to understand.

I should like to see a detailed parliamentary analysis of the constitution—

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

I will in a moment.

—a line by line examination, as I think the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned, in the course of the legislation. Yet proceedings on the Bill in this House are to be gravely curtailed to a day and half in Committee. Clearly the Government are frightened that the more we debate it, the more the British people will see it for what it is—a significant change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the first formal step towards a politically united Europe, and, to coin a phrase, the capstone of a federal state.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that it was one of his colleagues, I believe—I am not sure—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who asked the Prime Minister if the Government would produce a commentary setting out the old treaties and the new one side by side? That is what we have done. We do what the Conservative party wants and he should welcome that.

I asked a question on how widely that had been circulated, to which I received an answer, and if the Minister looks that up, he will find that not a lot of people in Britain will see that particular document. In an earlier debate I challenged the Minister to send a copy of this constitution to every elector, and on that occasion he was very encouraging in his reply, but I see that that has now disappeared from the Government's agenda.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting to one of the core problems here, which is that we started with a treaty, which is essentially a deal between various Governments, and have turned it into a constitution. Some of us favour a written constitution. We think that written constitutions are so good that they should not just go to Iraq or Europe, but to the UK as well. But will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a contradiction, because instead of trying to win people to an inspiring written constitution for a very large project, whether he agrees with it or not, we now have a highly technical, treaty-oriented, Euro-babble-ridden document that will make it even harder for those of us who support a written constitution for Europe to sell it to the British people?

I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman in the difficulty that he will have in selling this to the British people. But the point about the treaty is that it is a treaty that, in its own terms, establishes a constitution for Europe. That is why we have to deal with it in terms of it being the constitution that the Government seek to implement, and deal with it in its detail. But from now on, rather than parliamentary scrutiny—we will have only a day and a half in Committee—it will be propaganda, mostly at the taxpayers' expense, on what the Government call

"making the case for the Constitution".

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question to which I am genuinely not sure of the answer? What is the position of the Conservative Front Bench on the parliamentary scrutiny and a referendum if, as I trust, a Conservative Government are returned in a few weeks' time? Will there be a full parliamentary process before a referendum is held, and would that parliamentary process be conducted on an altogether more sensible timetable than is suggested for this, or is it the Conservative Front Bench's policy that we have no parliamentary process and go straight to a quick referendum on the whole thing?

Our policy, which we have made clear, is that after the election we will hold a referendum before the end of September of this year. We would take advantage of the example of the devolution referendums, where the legislation took place after the referendums, so that the House was aware of the feelings of the people who had voted in those referendums before the case was made.

The taxpayer should wake up to the extent to which they will be fleeced to pay for this shameless one-sided propaganda exercise. The Minister for Europe said that the Government plan to spend "serious money" promoting the EU constitution, and we now discover that for once he was not joking. A written answer on 17 January revealed that the Government have tripled their budget for spending to promote the EU constitution from £200,000 last year to more than £600,000 this year. What on earth has happened to this recommendation by the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life:

"The Government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case"?

This Government are not taking account of that serious recommendation.

But that is not all. Last month, the PR company, Geronimo, was hired to run an extensive communications campaign costing the taxpayer another £40,000 by April. Apparently, its brief is to promote the idea that the EU constitution is a "success for Britain". Even the Electoral Commission has inferred that the current practice is "undesirable" and that

"in fairness the Government should operate under the same restrictions as everyone else."

We look to the Government to stop using taxpayers' money improperly in the run-up to a referendum that will, even on their own terms, be delayed for a very long time.