It is evident from the numbers present this morning that tax credits are a matter of great interest to hon. Members—and not only because of the constituency casework that we do. As national politicians, also, we have seen the development of a welcome change in the way in which we try to assist people, and particularly try to help them back into work. It is a tribute to the efforts that the Government have made in recent years that colleagues from all parts of the country, and the House, are here this morning. If it will help hon. Members to get their points made, I am keen to take as many interventions as possible, as an alternative to many speeches.

I have a few thoughts, as I am sure we all have, on how the tax credit system should be improved, but I think that I should give the right perspective by saying straight away that since 2003 my constituents in Nottingham, North have massively benefited from the new tax credit system. I shall not regale hon. Members with the statistical basis of my findings of deprivation in my area; I think that they are aware of that. However, rather like your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is an area in need of assistance from the Government, particularly in the matter of helping people to stay in work or get back into work. The new tax credit system has been a great boon in that respect.

My constituency has traditionally had high unemployment, and tax credits are helping to encourage parents and low earners back into work. They contribute significantly to the lowering of child poverty. They show that the Government have taken action to help families who need support with the responsibilities that come with parenthood. It is a great credit to the Chancellor, and the Minister present today, who is a long-serving Minister dealing with this area, that they have fought through to bring about many of those changes from the beginning of the Labour term in 1997. They worked to move the machine; whether one approves of the way in which it was moved will, I am sure, be debated today in the Chamber, but it took tremendous political will and leverage.

I want to chide the Minister in the gentlest way. The word credit reminds me of the idea of taking credit, and I do not think that my hon. Friend or the Government have taken the credit for the proposals. The change that has taken place has been almost quiet and private, instead of an occasion for claiming credit for great things that have happened. Many people in my constituency think, somehow, when they get an additional payment, that the tax man has made a mistake.

He has!

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Shortly; I shall set up my hon. Friend with a nice line before I do.

Many people who benefit from the tax credit proposals feel that they have got something for nothing, and that it came out of thin air, rather than being a result of the Government moving to make sure that they would be better off. Perhaps we need to take credit, as well as give tax credit.

If my hon. Friend's joke has passed, I shall continue, but if he insists on telling it, I shall give way.

My hon. Friend, and regional colleague, is right to say that we have a great deal to be proud of in the way that child poverty in particular has been relieved by the introduction of working tax credits. He said that many people feel that the tax man has made a mistake; are not there far too many cases in which the so-called tax man has done that? There are almost 2 million families paying an average of about £1,000 back because of errors made by the newly merged department. That cannot be allowed to continue, can it?

As always, my hon. Friend's thought processes are at least 10 minutes ahead of mine; I shall reach that set of difficulties in my speech. None the less it is important to offer the perspective that despite problems—which will, of course, arise—a major step forward has been taken for most families and most children living in poverty. This month in my constituency 7,900 in-work families are receiving tax credits. In those families, 12,700 children benefit from the extra money. The statistics are staggering, and they are a tribute to the work that has been done.

There has been a massive improvement in the take-up of tax credits, compared with the old working families tax credits and disabled persons tax credits in 2002; there are now 1,300 more families receiving support via income tax and through tax credits, and 2,000 more children in those families benefiting from the extra support. All in all there has been a 33 per cent. increase in tax credit recipients in less than three years in my constituency. A question that we all raised early on was about the level of take-up. It is far from perfect, but the figures from the past three years suggest that serious steps are being taken in the right direction.

It is the role of the House to jump on to the case when Ministers do not do all that should be done; we are all, no doubt, happy to do that. Equally, it is important to pay appropriate tribute to Ministers who listen and take action when Members of Parliament make representations. I have made representations over the years and want to record my thanks to the Minister for listening and, in particular, for taking action on the way in which the new tax credits are paid. That is creating a positive impact in my constituency. Now that awards can be changed in-year, constituents who have had a sudden fall in income can receive more, instead of having to wait until the end of the tax year, as they did previously.

Many of us also raised with the Minister in the past the matter of tax credit being paid to the main carer rather than the wage earner. Many mothers can now budget for their family more efficiently. The working tax credit offers, for the first time, in-work support for people who are in work and who are without children. It therefore helps ever larger numbers of low earners in Nottingham, North.

The tax credit system is giving much-needed assistance to families in my patch who previously felt stigmatised by claiming benefit, but who now have the opportunity to go to work, with 70 per cent. of their child care paid for. Families and individuals feel supported when they return to work, rather than having all their support snatched back when they begin to earn. Unemployment in my constituency is down by 44 per cent. and the results of the policy, combined with the minimum wage, vocational training and a strong economy, are plain.

As you would expect, Mr. Benton, with such a large new system, many hon. Members still receive distressing letters from people who have had problems. The final part of my speech is about that.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an important subject. In many of the problem cases that he alludes to, people depend on advice from the citizens advice bureau. People who go to the CAB must overcome bureaucratic hurdles that they do not encounter if they go to see Members of Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that situation could easily be resolved, allowing the CAB to perform its vital role in this area of work, without the need for such bureaucratic hurdles?

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I want to mention a minor detail. Officially no Deputy Speakers have yet been appointed for this Parliament, and although it might sound like a trite, technical point, I should prefer to be addressed as Mr. Benton for the remainder of the sitting.

I am glad to oblige, Mr. Benton, but frankly, we all know that it is just a matter of time. I hope to catch your eye when that long-overdue promotion is made.

To return to the valid point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I noted that the Minister was shaking her head while he was speaking, and I would be keen to give way if she wanted briefly to respond.

I shall explain the point to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) during my allotted time rather than taking up time now. I shall explain the process for advice agencies, but also explore some of the ways in which it could be improved.

I look forward to hearing the answer to the hon. Gentleman's important point.

Before I get on to my set of questions, I want to place on the record my thanks to all those in my constituency who ensure that families on low incomes have the support that they require to earn a decent wage and bring up their children properly. They include people such as Alison Boyd of the Bulwell Sure Start, and my local citizens advice bureau, which does sterling work. I could not let this debate go by, however, without paying a special tribute to Kate Jarman, who works in my office. She works ceaselessly to secure for my constituents the help that they deserve, and her success generates yet more work by word of mouth. Many of us rely on such people in our offices; they understand the complexities of tax credits far more than I could ever hope to. The harder they work, the more work they make for themselves, because word gets around by word of mouth. As the hon. Member for Moray suggested, it would be preferable to have a system that worked without the intervention of Members of Parliament. However, we have a vital role to play while the edges are being knocked off some of the teething problems, and we often depend on those who support us in our constituencies. Perhaps, therefore, I can pay tribute on behalf of all hon. Members to those who serve us.

I also thank the civil servants connected with the MPs' hotline, who are often first in our firing line, but who invariably deliver a courteous and superb service in trying to resolve individual cases.

Finally, I welcome the Minister's statement last week, which set out precisely what she expects from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the way of improved customer service.

My hon. Friend makes a very balanced argument, but if I have a criticism of the support given through the helpline and, in particular, of how it locks into the help given at local Inland Revenue offices, it is that staff have been somewhat overwhelmed. We need more people dealing individually with what we all accept are some very desperate people, who have found themselves in debt that they did not anticipate. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

I hope that the Minister will also comment on that. People appreciate dealing with a human being, and nothing is designed to irritate them more than being put on hold, made to listen to Vivaldi, being given 10 different choices and finding that someone does not have the right information on their screen. Those are procedural and organisational issues, which I know the Minister is concerned about and wants to address, and she would certainly have the support of colleagues in all parts of the House if she did so.

I am a complete novice at this and I appreciate the opportunity to intervene. As a new Member of Parliament, I was shocked by the stack of cases that was handed on to me involving people who had been overpaid tax credits and who had consequently found themselves in debt. When I go back through the history, I find that they seem to have informed the authorities right from the beginning that an overpayment has taken place. I am looking at one case—the person has asked me not to name them—that goes back to May 2003. From the beginning, there is a clear track record of information about the overpayment being made available and of reassurances from the tax office that there was no overpayment, and the whole matter continues to rumble on two years later. It is clear from some of the phrases used that that is causing stress and hardship. Would it be possible to have some genuine focus on sharpening up the administrative procedure, ensuring that papers are not lost and using clauses that require people to be compensated when their cases have not been treated appropriately?

The hon. Lady's comments belie her novelty. She has anticipated several of my points, and I am sure that she will be supported throughout the House by constituency MPs who have had similar problems. I know that the Minister will seek to address them.

On the back of my experience as a constituency MP who deals day to day with such casework, I propose—which MP could not?—a seven-point plan to improve the operation of tax credits, although I have a feeling that it may be a 10 or 12-point plan by the time I sit down. However, I introduce it in the spirit of, I hope, constructive criticism and in the certain knowledge that the Minister is more aware than any of us of the difficulties that certain constituents have. Again, I shall be keen to take interventions as I go through my points, if colleagues would find that helpful.

First, we need to reduce the problems brought about by the claims system itself. The annual system of payment can cause problems, particularly for low-income families who budget from week to week or month to month. Claims are initially based on the previous year's income, and the claim form asks only for income figures for the previous tax year—there is no space on the claim form to give expected current-year income. As eventual entitlement is calculated on actual current-year income, the system ends up overpaying many people, and repayments are then requested from families who are often ill-prepared to budget for them. We need to do two things. First, there needs to be much more awareness-raising to encourage claimants to notify in-year changes of income and so avoid overpayments building up. Secondly, we should consider amending the claim form to allow an estimate of current-year income to be given.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the most recent period for which figures are available, 7,800 families in the highlands of Scotland were overpaid an average of £1,000 each and that that has now been clawed back? In the case of one constituent in Aviemore, a payment of £225 a month was reduced to one of £60 a month to claw back the overpayment. As a consequence, the person, who worked in a low-paid job, had to move out of their private rented accommodation and back in with their parents. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation for that person. The system is having the perverse consequence of causing real instability in income and real hardship for the people it is designed to help.

We could all raise similar cases, although the perspective to bring to bear is that most cases are dealt with effectively and efficiently. All of us—above all the Minister, I am sure—want to ensure that there are fewer and fewer such cases. That is why I hope that we shall all operate in a constructive way this morning to bring points to her attention.

Anything that puts people off or increases fear—be it the bureaucracy or dealing with authority—must be tackled through our system. Citizens Advice recently suggested that the quality of the administration of tax credits is actually undermining some families' confidence about returning to work. Work incentives are affected by far more than whether claimant households will be financially better off in work or whether claimants will work more hours. My constituents need to understand their entitlement and to feel in control of their income, and that can be particularly true for claimants returning to work after long periods off sick or after having children. All the psychological disincentives that come with a change to a big system need to be worked at almost daily to ensure that people are not afraid to use that system, which has been put in place to help.

My second point is about award notifications. Comprehensive award notices and quick, clear administrative processes are vital if claimants are to get the payments to which they are entitled at the right time. The award notices sent to claimants are complex and confusing, especially where there has been an overpayment and adjustments have been made to the award. Constituents have reported that they have spent more than half an hour on the phone to the tax credits helpline trying to get an explanation of the figures on a notification sent to them after they have been overpaid—a point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The helpline staff were unable to explain all the figures and my constituents eventually had to write in for a detailed breakdown. It is ridiculous to expect the average claimant—who, in a constituency such as mine, might not have high literacy or numeracy skills—to comprehend the process, let alone the figures. More user-friendly and accessible notification is needed.

Claimants must fully understand their award notice. They need to be able to see how much they are being paid and why. Adequate information should be included in the award notice or in an additional sheet. Recipients of the award notice should be able to see clearly which figures they need to check. As there is no calculation on the award notice, claimants should not be expected to notify the Inland Revenue if their award changes without warning, as they would have no reason to believe that the Inland Revenue had made a mistake, unless any of the obvious details on the award notice were incorrect, such as the number of children or income.

Claimants need to be shown how they came to be overpaid; otherwise, they do not know whether the Inland Revenue has a valid claim. Without that, it takes more time for claimants, case workers, or Members of Parliament or our assistants to discover the reason for the overpayment before they can even judge whether they should ask for a reconsideration of repayment.

When claimants receive a number of award notices, it is unrealistic for them to make an assessment of which is correct if each one is different. It is especially hard that claimants can then be blamed for overpayments as a result of an Inland Revenue error that they should have spotted and reported. If a number of in-year adjustments have been made, the claimant can reasonably expect the award notices to change each month and might miss an Inland Revenue error. Additionally, when award notices are sent out erratically, as they sometimes seem to be in Nottingham, North, claimants find it difficult to identify which notice corresponds to what they actually receive and the most up-to-date information. I welcome the Paymaster General's commitment to reduce unnecessary duplication of award notices, although the issue needs continual review.

A redesign of the award notice is necessary to make it more user-friendly and comprehensive. That would be positive for both sides, as the claimants would find the notices less intimidating and easy to understand, leading to fewer overpayments where claimants fail to spot Inland Revenue errors. Perhaps a panel of claimants could be assembled to assess the readability of the award notice—perhaps even some hon. Members present could give up a couple of hours to go through such award notices in a non-partisan way. With our experience in dealing with constituents' problems, we could spot things in a way that our good friends in the civil service may not always be able to.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for highly desirable reforms. Has he had the opportunity to assess the value of a reform that a number of people have suggested, which is to abandon the in-year reassessments and return to a fixed-term award? Would that not simplify matters, despite the associated costs?

My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion, as always. However, although the proposal would resolve some of the problems that he has pointed out, it might lead to greater inflexibilities. I am sure that that is something on which the Minister would want to comment when she replies.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I would not like him or other hon. Members to go away with the thought that the award notices or the application forms were dreamed up by civil servants and not consulted on. The award notices were drafted in consultation with the community, the voluntary sector and the anti-poverty lobby, and were tested before use. At that time there was a clear consensus on those forms. On the points raised, I am more than happy to say that, with experience, we see that we might like other things. However, let us not run away with the idea that civil servants and Ministers dreamed the forms up. They were fully consulted on and accepted at the time. People can change their views, but they cannot blame civil servants for not consulting.

Let me put the record straight immediately. I certainly did not intend to cast any blame on civil servants, who have been remarkably adept at helping my office in a number of such cases. Their good will is beyond doubt. However, as the Minister points out, we can always continue to learn. It could be of assistance to bring together a panel of claimants or even interested MPs. I do not think that it would hurt and may help, as colleagues may be able to suggest one or two improvements to the form on the basis of their constituency experience.

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's seven-point plan, but before he winds up will he press the Minister on the scale of the problem? In Edinburgh, a relatively wealthy city, more than 10,000 people are affected and in Scotland as a whole more than 160,000 people are affected. Whereas individual cases are often tragedies in themselves, the overall problem in the UK should not have reached its current scale.

I shall let the hon. Gentleman's eloquent remarks press the Minister; otherwise, I am afraid that since I have not even reached the third point in my seven-point plan she may have no time to reply. I am allowing hon. Members to make interventions so that the Minister may then take up their points. I hope that that is a helpful way to proceed.

My third point concerns Inland Revenue decisions to recover overpayments. In Nottingham, North there have been numerous problems with constituents who have been told that they been overpaid child or working tax credit. To some extent that is inevitable because of the intended flexibility of the scheme, which relies on a check of families' income at the end of the year—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). However, it is still confusing for claimants to be told that, despite giving all the correct information and keeping the Inland Revenue informed, they have accrued an overpayment that they will have to repay.

There is an additional problem when overpayments are recovered, where families are put into real hardship as a result of their lower income arising from that. There is a discretion under section 28(5) of the Tax Credits Act 2002 as to whether to recover an overpayment. In practice, however, in Nottingham, North the Revenue seems to recover all overpayments automatically, regardless of how that affects the family involved.

In one case, a constituent whom I shall call Miss B, a single mother of two, was judged by her local Sure Start unit in February to have essential outgoings of £128.41. However, she was receiving only £120, owing to the fact that she had received a reduced child tax credit award, which was the result of an overpayment—which she disputed—from the beginning of the 2003 tax year. Even when that was put in writing to the tax credit office, it refused to consider the recovery of the overpayment. We continue to pursue the case from my office.

There is guidance outlining circumstances in which an overpayment may not be recovered, such as where there has been an official error and it was not the responsibility of the claimant to know that they were being overpaid. However, the Revenue appears to be applying that test only when a claimant requests a reconsideration rather than adhering to the guidance as a matter of course. Even where the Inland Revenue acknowledges its error, claimants must dispute the recovery and demonstrate that it was reasonable for them to have thought that their award was correct before the Inland Revenue will consider writing it off.

Two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Dickinson, were in the position of having to repay £3,796 as a result of an Inland Revenue error marking them as disabled on the computer. They carefully explained that they had never told the Inland Revenue that they were disabled and that they had also not received an award notice, despite contacting the tax credit office six times by phone and letter. Although that may seem a reasonably open-and-shut case, it took numerous letters from Mr. Dickinson and two requests from my office for information to be re-examined before the Inland Revenue conceded that the couple did not have to repay the money that they could never have known was not theirs.

Even that was not the end of the matter. Although the Inland Revenue took responsibility for the mistake and sent Mr. and Mrs. Dickinson a cheque for the money that was recovered from them last year, Mr. Dickinson phoned me last Thursday to say that they are still receiving letters saying that they have been overpaid, and they have yet to receive an award for this tax year. Apparently, that is due to a computer that is not up to date, and the whole process has so far taken more than a year. Judging by the murmurs of agreement from all parts of the Chamber, I suspect that the problem is encountered widely. I am allowing plenty of time for interventions so that all colleagues can speak.

Is that not the sort of administrative error in relation to which the independent right of appeal suggested by the CAB would really speed up the system?

I hope that the Minister will deal with that.

Many constituents have contacted me on the issue that I have just alluded to, and my office can usually help them. However, for every one of them, several people, perhaps dozens—perhaps they do not know better or lack confidence—do not contact their MP and pay back the overpayment regardless of whether it resulted from their error or that of the Inland Revenue. The process rightly places a high degree of responsibility for action on the claimant. However, one result of that is that those claimants least able to understand their awards and least able to express themselves are the ones most likely to have their overpayments recovered in full, whatever the original cause.

The fourth matter is the recovery of overpayments while reconsideration is pending. Deductions for overpayments continue to be made while requests for reconsideration are pending. In the case of other benefits, it is possible to suspend recovery while the decision is under appeal. Given the length of time that it is taking the Revenue to respond to requests for reconsideration, many overpayments will have been recovered before discretion has been applied. Some families in my constituency are falling into debt while they await a decision from the Inland Revenue.

There should be a minimum level below which a family's weekly income should not be allowed to fall even if it is repaying an overpayment. It is essential to cap all reductions in payments so that families are not left with payments below 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. of their entitlement at any time during the tax credit year, regardless of whether the overpayment is discovered within or at the end of the tax year. In a system designed to help low-income families, whatever the reasons for an overpayment, it is essential that recovery should not cause hardship. However, at the moment automatic award adjustments can mean that families lose all their payments without warning due to relatively small overpayments resulting from delays in reporting changes of circumstances. Such adjustments cause huge problems for the families in my patch who are on the lowest incomes. They can find themselves pushed well below basic benefit levels and into acute hardship, because they received too much early in the year.

Fifthly, the length of time taken to respond to complaints can be excessive. One lone parent in my constituency first queried her overpayment in October 2003, and did not receive a substantive reply until October 2004. The matter is not yet resolved, as she still disputes the decision. Another working lone parent living in my constituency queried her overpayment in October 2004, and has still not received a response. There is no time limit within which the Revenue is required to deal with complaints. In the time it takes for complaints to be dealt with, my constituents have to get by on reduced means. One constituent, Miss Elizabeth Lloyd, was still waiting in May of this year for an arrears repayment of £471.39 from February 2004. Having gone past two tax year boundaries with no joy, she was told that if she were sent a manual payment the computer would register it as an overpayment and her awards would be reduced—despite the fact that that money is owed to her. A week ago, she contacted my office to say that even if her awards were reduced, she needed the money to pay her monthly bills. She should not be put in that position.

Although it is comforting for Miss Lloyd and others in the same position to know that they should get the money eventually, in most cases they need money immediately to fulfil their financial commitments. This is not some long-term middle-class financial speculation, with a return due in several years; it is often a matter of being able to feed the kids. Claimants have recourse to their MPs or the ombudsman, but that is not what our constituents need. They need a swifter system so that we need never be involved.

The same excuse seems to be given to my constituents and my office when they contact the Inland Revenue—that the computer is behind in its processing. It is unacceptable that my constituents have to wait for over a year for the computer to catch up. I welcome the Minister's statement that HMRC will improve the speed with which it identifies IT system problems and processing errors so that they can be resolved more quickly, and I would appreciate her assurances today that those who have already experienced problems will have their cases dealt with quickly and sympathetically.

Sixthly, some families experience delays in receiving other passported benefits, including milk tokens and reduced-price baby milk. Those benefits are, by definition, available only to families on very low incomes. Delays are often due to a time lag between the establishment of a claim and a name being passed on to the health services. The names seem to be passed on on a four-week cycle. A speedier system is necessary if we are to deliver full entitlement to the people in greatest need, particularly those with babies and young children. A swift and responsive system is needed for relating tax credit awards to entitlement to passported benefits and immediate notification of claimants. Failing that, there should be cash payments in lieu until passporting can be activated.

My seventh and final point concerns the accuracy of the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue annual report for the year ended 31 March 2004 gives an accuracy rate for decisions of 78.5 per cent. Many of my constituents believe that the Revenue is always right and does not make mistakes. That leads them to believe any letter that arrives, regardless of its content or how much hardship it will cause them; they just get on with it. The very families who are under the most stress, and least able to deal with form filling, filing, letter writing and badgering people on the telephone are those we need to encourage to query and challenge decisions that affect them and their families.

Some aspects of the administration of the current tax credit system undermine the Government's attempts to tackle child poverty and make work pay. I have seen far too many cases in which claimants are in the dark as to how their awards are calculated. The result is that when overpayments do occur, they are not picked up. Unfortunately, those are not isolated incidents; they continue to this day, and indicate the need for a more serious review to tackle system errors.

The annual system of tax credits, under which entitlement is often not finalised until several months after the end of the financial year, is different from that for other benefits, entitlement to which is established according to actual circumstances at the date of claim. Tax credits may also be reduced during the year or in the following year if there has been a change in income or an overpayment. That can lead to uncertainty about the level of income that can be expected from tax credits. It can be very difficult for families on low incomes to budget and plan if their tax credits are unpredictable. I applaud the goal of flexibility and responsiveness, but that has to be balanced against stability and predictability.

I hope that the Minister will accept that there needs to be serious review and reform in order to put some of these matters right. I would ask her to implement changes to solve some of the problems that I mentioned in the latter half of my contribution. They might well be teething problems, but they affect people severely, and deter hard-working families in my constituency from applying for tax credits.

The tax credit system is one of the most significant and positive improvements for my constituents that the Government have introduced. I congratulate the Minister and the Chancellor on all that they have done to establish it, and I hope that they will take from this debate not an attack on the whole tax credit policy, but the fact that many colleagues in all parts of the House have serious concerns about making the policy work in the way that the Government intend—for the benefit of their constituents.

I apologise again for having spoken for a considerable time. I do not normally do that, as you know, Mr. Benton, and I hope that colleagues benefited by being allowed a chance to intervene.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that a number of points will have to be replied to? For the sake of good order, I will call winding-up speeches some time between 10.45 and 11 am. I ask hon. Members to be as brief as possible, because I would like to allow everybody to speak in such an important debate.

I commend the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for his choice of subject for the first Westminster Hall debate of the new Parliament. He may know that the penultimate Westminster Hall debate in the previous Parliament was on tax credits, and there are some survivors from that debate in the Chamber this morning.

The fact that Back-Bench Members of Parliament are applying for, and securing, debates on tax credits at such regular intervals indicates the problems that confront our constituents and that arise from a complex and rather dysfunctional benefits system. When I was last called to speak, I was asked to compress my remarks into five minutes. I shall try to exercise the same self-discipline this morning.

It is as if one is trying to run a large number of appliances from one small three-pin socket. The plugs are overheating and the fuses are blowing all over the place. In the previous debate, I presumed to give advice as to how we might resolve the problems. I said that in the next Parliament—in other words, this one—we would need to stand back and examine the financial interface between citizen and state to see whether there was a better way to achieve the principle to which we all subscribe.

Can the interface be reduced by raising the tax thresholds? Can we do more on the universal benefit front? Would a universal taxable child benefit do the trick? Can the system be simplified in some way? I suggested that we should, in the next Parliament, stand back and examine what I described as a top-heavy, complex system, and asked this basic question: is there a better way to achieve the goals that we all want to achieve?

Had the Conservative party done better in the election, I am sure that the review that I wanted would now be under way and that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) would be about to tell us all about it. We have, however, the human face of the Treasury to reply to the debate, and I hope that she can go a little beyond the brief that was read out in the previous debate. That brief was apologetic about the mistakes but basically unrepentant about the system.

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman in that I could not respond to that debate and the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, had to step in. That was because unfortunately I was admitted to hospital that day and, as friendly as I may be, it is not possible to address the House from a hospital bed after an operation.

We all understand why the right hon. Lady was not there, and we are delighted that she has recovered from the indisposition and can reply to the debate this morning.

To demonstrate the continuing need for reform, I shall briefly mention two cases that have cropped up since the previous debate. What is disturbing is that in each case that has come to my attention a different thing has gone wrong. It is not as if one component in the system is malfunctioning. I believe that the problems are more systemic.

Miss S of Andover has a seven-year-old disabled son and receives £160 a week in working tax credit. She pre-notified the Inland Revenue of a change of circumstances: she was going to move in with her partner. She told the Revenue that her partner had a temporary national insurance number, and she was assured that that did not matter. It did matter; the number was not recognised, the working family tax credit was stopped, and she was told that it would be two weeks before an interview could be held and a new national insurance number issued. She was also told that it would be five weeks before that number was recognised at Preston. Being £160 short for five weeks is a lot of money for a low-income household. Some £1,300 was put into her account on Friday. She told me yesterday that the whole saga had been an absolute nightmare, and that she had been given different advice each time she rang. Once, she was told to contact her MP as that was the only system that really worked. She was also told to go to the Inland Revenue office to ask for cash to tide her over, although the Revenue does not provide that facility. Miss S eventually obtained the money, but what she will say to her friends who are thinking of moving on to working tax credit will not be very helpful.

The second case involves Miss S of Whitchurch, who wrote in an e-mail:

"For the past 5 weeks we have had no Working family tax credit. To get any sort of idea what has been happening we have had to travel to Basingstoke every Monday to get some answers or to try and get some payment out of them . . . even they don't know what is going on . . . we have not been able to pay our rent, pay our phone bill or even sort the tax out on our car . . . When we have phoned the Inland Tax Office they have said to us that the arrears and the next payment are sat waiting to go from their computer but are waiting for a date to be inputted onto the computer so that it gets to our bank."

When I eventually took up the case, I received an answer from the Inland Revenue:

"Unfortunately Mrs S's 2005/6 tax credit award has been affected by a technical fault which is preventing our computer system from issuing payments into her bank account. This problem has been brought to the attention of our technical experts who are currently working hard to resolve this fault."

As the whole purpose of the working tax credit system is precisely to make payments into people's bank accounts, the failure of the computer system to do so seems to me slightly more than a technical fault.

I was told:

"A member of my team has therefore arranged for Mrs S to receive four weekly manual payments from May 27th until the system problems are resolved."

Before 9 May, the system had been broken for five weeks—that was how long it took to sort the matter out. Those are only two families whose lives have been turned upside down by the tax credit system. My experience is no different from that of colleagues.

The debate coincides with renewed media interest. Headlines last week stated that Chancellor Gordon Brown has been urged to reform the tax credits system and that he is under increasing pressure to revamp the Government's flagship tax credits. Figures released yesterday show that nearly half of all awards were overpaid in 2003–04, and, according to HM Revenue and Customs, some 45 per cent. of the awards proved to be wrong in the first year of operation.

The day before yesterday, the money section of The Sunday Times contained an article with the headline, "Victims of tax credit fiasco face hardship".

A Child Poverty Action Group leaflet that arrived on all our desks last week says:

"Non-take up of tax credits and benefits and the often unreasonable recovery of overpaid tax credits have actually created rather than prevented hardship. Government must get the administration of tax credits right to achieve its anti-poverty targets."

I was struck by another paragraph in the leaflet, which stated:

"Child benefit, a near universal benefit, provides a well-functioning mechanism that does not suffer the administrative or technical difficulties of tax credit."

That may well be a key to the solution.

There are two schools of thought: "one more heave", to which I believe the Government subscribe, or "back to square one", the philosophy to which I adhere. The whole structure is unstable, incomprehensible and unworkable, and I ask the Government to initiate a fundamental review of the system. I also ask that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, when it is set up, carries out a parallel inquiry. Our constituents deserve better than what they are getting today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I am a survivor of the debate on 6 April. It was a good debate, and was initiated by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made a very good speech. Sadly, he is not in the Chamber today. In that debate, I talked about four cases in my constituency. They are four of many such cases; time does not permit me to go through the almost 100 cases with which I have dealt.

In that debate, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave a very helpful commitment to consider those cases and to make a general effort to sort them out. Alas, even those cases have not been sorted out. If an individual waiting for money was not so tragic, the way in which these cases have been dealt with would be on a par with an Ealing comedy.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that we should be proud of this policy. I said so in the previous debate, and I say it again. When it works, it alleviates poverty in my constituency, North Durham. It is helping people to move from the benefit culture into work, and we, as a Government, should be proud of that. Likewise, many voluntary organisations, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, have welcomed it. Bungling incompetence, however, is damaging it. As I believe I said in the previous debate, I am coming round to the point of view expressed by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire when he says that the policy needs a fundamental root-and-branch review.

Today's debate and the debate on 6 April have highlighted the fact that there are two problems. The first is that problems are being created. The second lies in trying to get them sorted out, which is difficult for most constituents. I do not accept that Members of Parliament should be treated any differently from members of the public. The problems of members of the public should be dealt with efficiently and properly when they try to contact the tax office. Alas, they are not.

I am glad that the Paymaster General is in the Chamber today, and that she has recovered from her illness. I was also pleased to hear her give her genuine commitment on "Moneybox" on Radio 4 to sorting out some of these problems. It was clear from the tone of her voice that some of the problems are as frustrating to her as they are to us.

The Paymaster General and others have made the point that the problems affect a small percentage of people. That may well be, but those people do not look on this money as pin money. It is not an additional sum to be spent on luxuries; it is money to live on from day to day, and the problems are leading people into debt. Most of those people, rightly, have an abhorrence of debt. They do not want to be in debt—and why should they be in debt through no fault of their own?

I welcome the Paymaster General's commitment to listen, to sort out the problem and to change the system where necessary. I want briefly to refer to two of the cases that I raised last time, which, in all genuineness, the then Economic Secretary gave a commitment to sort out. In fact, in the last debate he gave a commitment to hon. Members to look at all cases. Interestingly, there is a difference between what he said in this place and how the civil servants are interpreting it.

Just after the debate, my office received a phone call from a civil servant called Alison Dyer, who asked my assistant for details of the four cases that I raised. He pointed out, quite rightly, that she could in fact have all the cases that we were going to refer to the Economic Secretary. She disputed that; he then read to her over the phone the passage from Hansard in which the Economic Secretary had said that he would take on all cases. Lo and behold, three months later the four cases that I raised have been dealt with, but I am still awaiting a reply on the other 11 or 12 that I put forward. So the Paymaster General may give commitments in this place, but I suggest that she also makes sure that the civil servants do as they are told if Ministers give commitments in the House.

I want to raise two cases that I raised last time. One was the case of Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong of The Gardens, Chester-le-Street. The couple were honest with the Inland Revenue and completely up front. One month, they received two payments. Mrs. Armstrong contacted the tax office and said, " I'm sorry, I'm not entitled to this money." She was assured that she was and that it was because of an earlier underpayment. Lo and behold—we all have such stories—she was told that she would have to repay the money.

I raised that case in the last debate, and I was pleased to get a letter on 29 April from the then Economic Secretary. It highlighted the case and stated:

"I am sorry that you are unhappy with the decision that Mr and Mrs Armstrong will have to repay their overpayment in full. HMRC have carefully reconsidered all the facts in this case and have decided that your constituents should not have been asked to refund their overpayment because it was reasonable for them to believe that their awards were correct based on the advice and the award notices they received."

Finally, it says:

"I hope both you and Mr and Mrs Armstrong will find this helpful, and that their future dealings with HMRC will run much more smoothly."

That is a great outcome and we might think that Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong could go off into the sunset and that that would be the end of a happy story. Alas, that was not the case.

On 13 May, I received a letter from an individual I would love to meet—I am not sure whether he exists, but his name crops up quite often—Mr. Barrie Rushton, assistant director of customer relations at the Inland Revenue. He said that the money was not now being written off:

"In this instance it has been deemed that the duplicated payments were sufficiently high enough for it not to be deemed reasonable for your constituents to believe that the payments they were receiving were correct."

Alas, he goes on to say that he realises that that will be a disappointment to Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong. Who is in charge: Ministers or civil servants?

Every time I write to the Paymaster General—I put her on notice today—I do not want replies from civil servants but from her. In future, I will not accept any replies from civil servants; they will be returned to her so that she can give a reply. It is important that she knows what is going on, because she clearly does not in some cases.

The second case to which I want to refer is that of Julie Simm, which I raised last time. She too was a constituent who had been open and honest with the Revenue and told its staff that she was being overpaid. Forty-two days later, she was informed that she had had an overpayment because they had clearly not rectified the system. I wrote to the Paymaster General on 19 January and received a reply in late March—another problem is the time that it takes for replies to come through. She stated that Miss Simm should have noticed that she had been overpaid, and that the overpayment would therefore have to be repaid in full. That seems to be a standard response: "Yes, we did make a mistake on behalf of the Revenue, but you should have noticed our mistake so it is your fault." I am sorry, but that is not acceptable. I have written back to the Paymaster General on that.

As I said earlier, I am proud of the system. It was designed in the right way to ensure that it helps some of the poorest in society. However, as a result of such cases the credibility of the system is falling down. I also worry how many people are not complaining and are just paying back the money. I think that there are a lot of such people. One of the issues raised by the CAB and others is that the system was designed to help people leave poverty, but it is actually leading them into poverty. They are sitting quietly paying back the money and, in some cases, facing huge hardship.

Some suggestions have been put forward by the CAB and others, and some have been put forward today by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. They need to be considered. Some of the problems are clearly computer problems. I have one case, that of a Mr. Alan Clarke—I could go on all day with such cases—where the problem was a simple computer error that took his child off the system. Could they reinstate the child? Could they hell. It took a year to resolve and the anguish that that gentleman had to suffer is unacceptable.

Finally, the suggestions that have been put forward today need to be taken on board. A more fundamental review, such as that referred to by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, needs to take place; otherwise, what should be a flagship policy of which we should all be proud will be further discredited. I fear that people will not apply for the benefit because they will feel that they may get into debt. If they have never been in debt in their life, they do not want to be led into it by Government and they should not be so led.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important debate. I will make a brief contribution, focusing on two narrow issues, not because I do not have a lot of feelings about the merits of the system—I endorse my hon. Friend's comments—and not because I do not have a wide variety of experience of cases that have gone wrong, but because I want to drill it down to a couple of simple points.

I will refer to one case in particular—that of Christine Onion who lives in Shelton Lock, a suburb of Derby. She, like many people, changes job from time to time. She had the misfortune to change jobs at a time when the Inland Revenue was introducing the tax credit system at the beginning of 2003. Amazingly, her then employer is still shown as her employer on the Inland Revenue system. Indeed, it has been credited with a substantial amount of tax credits, supposedly paid direct to her through her employer even though she has not actually worked there for two and a half years. I cannot justify that level of incompetence.

I do not want to sound like a saint, but I deal personally with all tax credit concerns raised in my office. I have therefore developed quite a strong personal relationship with some of the people who come to me. In this instance, I will quote Christine, removing the name of the member of Inland Revenue staff who kindly phoned her on the last occasion. It is a large file, so I will not go through the full details. She says that the member of staff

"rang me last night and apparently the computer has reverted to all my old details and has me working at Merrill!!!!???? The technical support team still haven't fixed the technical problem. Call me daft"—

well, I do not—

"but I still think over nine months",

which was when she first heard about and identified the problem,

"to sort that out is excessive. Obviously,"

the man involved

"can't fix that so he's made me personal assurances that he's going to send me the right amount on the right days. They had got it wrong again. He's told me if there are any more problems to contact you."

That is a consistent message, and it is also a flattering one; Inland Revenue staff regularly say, "Please do contact Mark again if this goes wrong," which, regrettably, happens rather frequently.

There was a similar case. An overpayment was conceded—we won that one—and accepted in writing, but it has recently resurfaced on the computer. We thought we had cracked it, and the couple involved were thrilled about that, but they are now being troubled yet again with historical information that they thought they had cleared. The only way to prove that the overpayment was not a legitimate recovery item in that case was for me to go through the telephone log of all the calls made to the helpline and identify two calls that I had made in which I asked, "Are you sure this payment is correct, because the people involved do not believe it to be so?" and I was assured that it was. That was demonstrated after a long period—this matter was not, of course, resolved quickly. Eventually, the people involved received an assurance that that overpayment would not be recovered from them. They were honest people, as are most of my constituents who bring such cases to me; they had queried something that they had found strange straight away and they had expected the matter to be resolved, and I had also raised the matter on their behalf.

The management of the technology that supports the staff involved in this area has been woeful. I noted the statement made in the papers when the larger stories about the management of this system came up, in which it was said, "Oh, we have cracked the computer problems." That is simply untrue. I used to work in the IT sector, and I would be interested to know how many fixes remain to be addressed. I would also love to meet some of the people who have responsibility for managing this system, to discuss some of their processes with them.

I want to make one further narrow point. I have a women's refuge in my constituency—many other Members may have one in theirs, too—and I have found there to be particular problems in dealing with some issues related to it. People move into it rapidly, often in very strained circumstances, and they then move out rapidly as well, because such refuges are short-term residences. Those people's tax credit issues must be resolved within that short period. I noted the reference made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) to the interface with advice services; if the advice services do not have a quick way of contacting the Revenue and resolving matters, many such people can end up in tremendous distress. I have dealt with a number of cases in that refuge, and none of those experiences has been wholly satisfactory. The narrow point that I wish to make is that we must look at how we deal with people who, because of the strain of relationship breakdown and violence, move rapidly around the country to escape their problems. I am unsure whether we have a system that is flexible enough to respond to those particular circumstances.

We have had an excellent debate on an issue that is incredibly important to people throughout the country, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on raising it and on the way in which he did so. He gave fair credit to the Government for the amount of money that has gone into tax credits, but he also raised legitimate concerns about the way in which the system has operated.

I have taken some reassurance from hearing the same criticisms that I have heard from my constituents echoed by Members of all parties. Before I became responsible for this issue as my party's spokesman on it, I raised it a number of times with the Paymaster General. She was always very constructive, but she was also inclined to lead me to the view that something odd must be going on in my constituency—that some aberrant individual was dealing with the south-western region.

That is not fair. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the repeated meetings and conversations I had with him about this matter were intended to find out whether any systemic issues could be drawn from his casework. That is the point that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made, with regard to examining what Members of Parliament were saying to me and what that meant for the system, and I will return to that point. However, I never trivialised or tried to push away the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

We have our own memories of those meetings. I am grateful that the Paymaster General took the time to meet me to address those matters, but I must say that when she did so she rather gave the impression that there were exceptional problems in my area. We have now heard from other Members, including Labour Members, and I hope that she will listen more closely to their experiences than she has to those of Members of other parties.

Astonishing figures were released last week, when Parliament was in recess. They revealed that 1,879,000 awards were overpaid, out of a total of 5.6 million, and that almost £2 billion was overpaid last year. Those astonishing figures underline not only the impact of these problems on individuals, but the extent of their impact. I agree with what the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) suggested; I am sure that the problems to do with tax credit that Members and those responsible for tax credit have picked up are only the tip of a very large iceberg.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North—and, I think, the hon. Member for North Durham—made the point that these problems impact on individuals on very low incomes, for whom the effects of accumulating debt through tax credit payments are very serious. A number of Labour Members have commented that the Government have not received full credit for the huge expenditure that has gone into this project. I am sure that there are a number of reasons for that, but I will mention one of them; many of the people I see who are experiencing these problems with tax credits tell me that they wish they had never claimed them in the first place because although they were better off at the start they have now been forced into debt. That is a serious criticism of the Government's policy, and it comes from the very people whose lives it was designed to improve.

The other problem with the scheme is that it involves not only people who are vulnerable because they have a low income, but people whose circumstances typically frequently change; they might be in part-time work, or be receiving overtime payments, or take up a number of different jobs in a short period, and their family circumstances might also change. The Government's system is therefore inherently unstable and likely to lead to the type of overpayments and underpayments that we have heard about.

I welcome the seven-point plan laid out by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, which is no doubt mentioned in his press release which is going out as we speak. I wish also to mention the one-point or two-point plan of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire to address more fundamental reform of the tax credit system, because I believe that some elements of the existing system can be tinkered with and that that will lead to important improvements; however, I do not know whether that will remove all the problems. I am sure that the Paymaster General will not give us undertakings about that today, but she ought to be willing to look at whether the system is inherently unstable and inherently likely to lead to huge overpayments and underpayments.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will not, as there is little time left and I must leave enough time for the debate to be wound up and for the criticisms that have been made to be answered.

It is vital that the Paymaster General examines the system that we have, and whether there are inherent problems in it. Family credit was a fixed award, and of course there are problems with fixed awards, but, as we have learned, there are also problems with this system. The Paymaster General will be aware that a system that is rather similar to ours was introduced in Australia. Way back in February 2003, the Commonwealth ombudsman reported on the Australian scheme; at that time, 33 per cent. of the awards had been overpaid. That is almost the same figure that was reported last week by the Government. I do not have the time to list the Commonwealth ombudsman's criticisms of the Australian scheme, but they are precisely the same as those that are being made now of the British scheme.

The Paymaster General must look at the potential to go back to fixed awards. They were present not only in family credit under the previous Conservative Government, but also in the working families tax credit when the current Government initially introduced the change. My first point is that there needs to be a more fundamental examination of the system. I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, and the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for North Durham.

My second point is that I entirely agree with the criticisms of this scheme and the award notices made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, and in particular with those about the difficulty of individuals getting a serious appraisal from the Inland Revenue of who has caused any error. If it is not reasonable to recover the amount, because the Inland Revenue has caused the problem or because the constituent could not reasonably have figured out for themselves that there was a problem, we should not recover the money from those individuals. I hope that the Paymaster General will acknowledge that that is a problem and take substantive measures to change it, not simply change the design of the forms.

I shall not go through all the points that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North made, but I welcome them all.

I shall make my final point, as I am conscious of the limited time left, and we must leave the Paymaster General and the Conservative spokesman enough time to make their comments. The figures released last week were for 2003–04, so I would be grateful if the Paymaster General updated us on the current situation—whether the overpayments in the year 2004–05 are likely to be as significant, and what percentage of awards continue to be inaccurate.

We are talking about the expenditure—whether deliberate or not—of almost £14 billion of taxpayers' money on one of the most important schemes that Labour Governments have introduced since 1997. One reason why the Government have not received political credit for the scale of that expenditure is that major parts of the system are not working. The Paymaster General must take that seriously and address the problem.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is a fine and thoughtful parliamentarian. He has made some constructive suggestions, such as his call for major consideration of the reform of the whole system—a point that was taken up most effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). However, there was an almost Mandelsonian quality to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the good works that the Government have undertaken, which I thought were a little over the top.

Whatever the worthy objectives of the tax credit system, there is no doubt that it has its weaknesses—we all recognise that, and this morning several hon. Members gave examples of problems. We know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that household incomes, after tax and benefits, have fallen over the past two tax years. As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) accurately put it, for many families tax credits are not pin money, so this is a serious issue.

I was pleased to note that two key New Labour thinkers, Anthony Giddens and Patrick Diamond, have done some work on the matter. The whole philosophy behind the implementation of tax credits is a benefit system—this is what they say—that relies more and more on means-testing and complicated tax credits. Since October 1999 the Government have introduced, on average, a new tax credit for families every six months. That is part of the difficulty. We have heard about the implications of that through the examples that have been given this morning.

Whatever the cause, there have undoubtedly been problems. There have been newspaper reports about fraudsters targeting tax credits using identity theft. Apparently, taxation experts have said that Inland Revenue staff are struggling to cope and that helpline staff are not trained to handle inquiries. Given the huge sums of money involved, will the Paymaster General tell us what is being done to address the threat of fraud, which is now quite serious?

We are aware of the terrible difficulties that have been faced by constituents who have received overpayments: when the Revenue decided that mistakes had been made, it recalled overpayments, causing people financial hardship and mental anguish. That has happened in my constituency.

It is extraordinary that in April and May 2003 there were overpayments to 455,000 households, which totalled £94 million. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) said, there have been total mispayments of £2 billion. This is a staggering situation for the Government to be in, and it needs to be addressed. We have heard complaints and suggested solutions from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Barnardo's and the Child Poverty Action Group. In Northern Ireland there has been special criticism of the system.

I know that the Paymaster General needs a substantial amount of time in which to sum up. In April, I asked the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether the alarming reports, about which we have heard this morning, were true that Revenue officials were being ordered to get tough with those who had been paid more than they were due, even when—as was reported in The Guardian—that was

"as a result of errors by officials or a computer glitch."

Will the Paymaster General clarify whether the reports are accurate? This is an important matter of public trust. In the last debate, her colleague also told us that he expected to clear the backlog of overpayments by the summer. Is that target still on schedule?

I very much welcome the Paymaster General's written statement of 26 May, which is a clear admission that the system has flaws. I welcome also the fact that she is talking about a code of practice that is certainly fairer. But the sixth measure promised in the written statement states:

"HMRC will review the operation of the code of practice on over-payments."

The statement goes on to say that

"the Department will ensure that in cases of genuine hardship where the recovery of an over-payment is disputed, recovery can be suspended while the dispute is resolved."

Is that now happening?

The first three measures proposed by the Government relate to the provision of better information to claimants. I hope that they can give us some assurance that that is now happening.

Will the Paymaster General also comment on the provision of better information to the public and taxpayers about the success of tax credits? As far as I am aware, the Revenue and Customs and Excise have delayed for several months the publication of official figures detailing how and why errors are made, claiming that the figures need further analysis. I understand that they are due to be published before the end of the year. Is that still the intention?

Obviously, the IT systems are at the heart of the problem. How efficacious does the Paymaster General think they now are? There has been huge difficulty with them, which needs to be resolved.

We return to a fundamental point. Despite what the written statement says, the Paymaster General has heard this morning about a continuing series of painful and tragic glitches. Building on the points constructively made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, and taking up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, I must say that this issue seems to be one in which good intentions have turned to ill and that the Government need to review the matter fundamentally.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his fair and balanced introduction to the debate, and I congratulate hon. Members from all parties who have spoken. In the brief time available, I want to address context, what needs to be done, and the point made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about whether there is a systemic issue.

First, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that the success of tax credits is not confined to Nottingham, North. Over 6 million families benefit from tax credits. That is around 20 million people, including 10 million children. Four in 10 families pay no net tax as a result of tax credits. By October 2005, in real terms, families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be, on average, £3,200 a year better off than they were in 1997. The take-up in the first year of tax credits was 80 per cent., and that number rises every year, despite the misgivings that some hon. Members have expressed today about the implications of errors in individual cases. The tax credit system contributes to a substantial reduction in child poverty.

I stress to hon. Members that the policy is the result of a long consultation with the voluntary and community sector, including citizens advice bureaux, and extensive consultation on the balance between fixed awards and responsive awards and what needed to be done. We are picking up that theme again today.

Hon. Members have talked about individual constituents who have experienced extreme difficulties with their tax credit payments. I have always recognised that there are still issues to be ironed out and problems that need to be addressed. I am frankly appalled to hear that cases that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) raised on 6 April have still not been dealt with. Clearly, I need to pursue that. It gives me no comfort to continue to tell Members that they can come direct to me with cases. I have a huge motivation to ensure that the issues are dealt with rapidly.

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) raised some strategic and systemic points. It is important that we understand what the figures for 2003–04 show as we make decisions. Of course, I fully recognise that problems still exist, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Financial Secretary, said as much in his comments of 6 April. I took the first opportunity to reinforce that message in this new Parliament with my statement of 26 May, and I shall take this chance to elaborate on that and respond to the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Perhaps it would be helpful to start by underpinning the point about the flexibility of the tax credit system, and to say how it is designed to work. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to the need for flexibility, but of course there is a trade-off; flexibility brings more fairness, but it also brings more complexity. Fixed awards are unfair and unresponsive and would not make the contribution that the system currently does. We have to get the balance right and find a position between those two poles. The flexibility enables families to get more money when they require it, and they notify us of that.

The flexibility of the tax credit system mirrors that of the tax system, and it is based on an annual reward. If changes in income or circumstances during the year are not taken into account, that will be reflected in the tax credit award for the year. That places a responsibility on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to make sure that when it is informed of changes, changes are made to the tax credit award. However, it also places a responsibility on claimants to notify HMRC of changes.

What does current information tell us about overpayments? Two thirds of the total overpayment figure is due to rises in family income, and nearly £1 billion of that is due to increases in income of more than £10,000 in a year. In such cases, HMRC was notified of that not during the year but at the end of the year for the reconciliation process. Where that occurs, the income range is £20,000 to £30,000 per annum. Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North points out, there is an issue as to whether claimants appreciate the fact that under the new system HMRC must be notified of changes in-year, and as to whether that message is reinforced enough. However, that is not a mistake of the system, officials, or the computer, and it accounts for the lion's share of problems.

Half of overpayments are less than £570; they are not the £1,000 that people keep quoting. A significant number of overpayments are less than £50. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire pointed out, we need to look again at the interaction between change in circumstances and change in income, and we need to consider whether people are being notified of that properly.

I am the first to admit that the IT system—I do not need to remind the House of this—experienced well-publicised administrative problems in its early days. A proportion of the overpayments that hon. Members have mentioned this morning reflect that fact. And of course there are additional issues; HMRC staff have on occasion made mistakes in processing, leading to overpayment. We need to make sure that we get that right, and a great deal of work has been done on the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North raised seven points. They fall broadly into the categories in my statement. HMRC must encourage people to notify it of in-year income changes and should make that clear on the statement. It must find ways to reinforce that message through the year, and that is precisely what my statement of 26 May said. The award notices need to be clearer, especially on the obligations. Again, my statement of 26 May addressed precisely that point.

We have held a long consultation with the voluntary and community sector; that is coming to a conclusion. HMRC must make sure that the helpline can track changes; that was another point. It must make sure that the complete history of a case can be seen. It should make sure that changes can be made when the claimant rings in, so that we do not have to go in and out of the system all the time.

I should remind everyone in the House that all conversations with the helpline are recorded, so we can go back and hear what was said and whether the system was notified. We do that on a case-by-case basis in order to give a fair judgment when challenged on overpayment. That is in addition to providing the paper response. Citizens advice bureaux have a direct number to a single location and do not have to use the helpline, and that is the case for Members of Parliament and advice-giving agencies, too. That is in my statement.

On notification of overpayments, in my statement I made it clear that I am in absolute agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that there should be notification before recovery, and that there should be negotiation, time to resolve cases and suspended repayment. On clearer recovery processes, we have set repayment rates—minimum, intermediate and maximum—but all those things need to be considered.

My hon. Friend's final point was on the streamlining of the process, and the time that the processes takes. I agree with hon. Members that it is unacceptable that these cases are taking so long to rectify. There is a long tail in the system from the original problems, and that needs to be dealt with. We should look at the figures and the information. By the second year of the scheme, there were 6.1 million families on tax credits; that has risen from 5.7 million in the first year. That does not suggest that families are recoiling from the system or deciding not to apply for tax credit. We have to look at what the figures tell us, and see what that means for the system.

I am perfectly happy to engage in debate about whether we should have a fixed system or a responsive system as an interesting exercise in this House, but every single assessment from the anti-poverty lobby demonstrates that responsiveness is the way to continue to tackle child poverty in our society.

I have tried to pick up on the seven points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, and I have tried to show how I believe they are covered, although he elaborated on them in much more detail than I was able to in my written statement. We need to take them forward under the broad three categories. The first is consultation with the voluntary sector; we need to review the effectiveness of the information given to claimants and support them in understanding the responsive nature of the system. We should work closely with the voluntary and community sector, reducing the risk of overpayment.

Secondly, we need to look at new methods for reminding new tax credits claimants of the importance of providing up-to-date information on in-year changes. The Department has to come up with proposals as to how we can take that forward. Finally, we have to review the operation of the code of practice on overpayments. It has to meet the commitment given by the executive chairman of HMRC to the Public Accounts Committee in January 2005, and ensure that in genuine cases of hardship, where recovery of overpayment is disputed, repayment is suspended while that dispute is resolved.

The Minister is generous in giving way, particularly so late in her contribution. She has been extremely helpful in her reply.

Rather than have another such debate in a few months' time, would the Minister consider meeting me and others who contributed this morning in, say, three or four months to review what progress we have made?

I am more than happy to agree to that, if my hon. Friend wishes to facilitate such a meeting. It is not for me to indicate when Members should decide that they would like an Adjournment debate on a subject; as a Minister, I always stand ready to respond to debates, as long as they are on a subject that comes under my policy area.

In conclusion, I have tried to deal quickly with a number of issues raised by hon. Members. They are important issues, and I look forward to resolving them.

I am pleased to have been granted this debate by Mr. Speaker; I could not have organised the timing better myself. I am grateful to colleagues from all parties and to the Minister for being here. I intend this to be a thoroughly positive occasion, because it is right that the House, at this stage, following yesterday's evaluation committee report, comes together to say what huge benefits there will be for Britain if we win the Olympic bid in Singapore next month.

Although I do not intend in any way to be unkind, I hazard that unlike you, Mr. Benton, I was not alive when London last hosted an Olympic games. There are some colleagues in the House, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), himself an Olympian, who were alive then. I remember from an early age being excited by the Rome Olympics in 1960 and thereafter at every four-yearly interval. Having been enthusiastic about sport in general, and especially the Olympics and the Commonwealth games, I am aware that the Olympic movement can bring a transformation to the city and the country that hosts the games. I was lucky enough to be in Barcelona for a couple of days last week. Barcelona was transformed by the Olympic games, as Munich was, as Rome was before it, and as cities outside Europe have been.

The other thing on which I reflected as I prepared for today's debate, was that there need be no doubt in anybody's mind that Britain can deliver successful sporting events. The old Empire games are now the Commonwealth games, the most recent of which in Manchester was a huge success and a wonderful event that I attended on several occasions. There are other events in most peoples' memories, such as the World cup in 1966, or regular events, such as the annual Wimbledon fortnight, the test matches and FA cup finals. I have been privileged to attend the past two cup finals in Cardiff—last year as a Millwall supporter and this year also as a Millwall supporter, although the team was not there. The London marathon passes through my constituency every year and some 60,000 people line the streets watching it.

When the Olympic bid was discussed, people were worried about whether there would be public support. The British may not enthusiastically say at the beginning that they will support something, but when the moment draws near they appear and are thoroughly enthusiastic. There is no doubt in my mind that if we win the bid, it will be a hugely popular and supported event. The projections for ticket sales, which have been accepted by the evaluation committee, are already well over 80 per cent. and I believe that we could do better than that.

This has been a two-year process as the bid has gathered momentum. There was a debate in Parliament in January 2003, and in May 2003 the Government announced their welcome commitment; then there was a fantastic launch in January 2004, which I, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others were privileged to attend. The selection for the shortlist happened just over a year ago and the welcome appointment of our colleague, Lord Coe, to the position of chairman took place the day after that. Then there was the successful presentation of our bid documents, the good visit in February of the evaluation committee and, yesterday, the confirmation that the report says that we have all our ducks in a row. The report did not just say that; it said some extremely positive things indeed and I will presently select some parts of that document that seem not just to tick a box, but say that this is very good news.

I take this opportunity to thank those who have been involved. This is a huge effort and consistent commitment has been shown by a large group of people. I apologise to those whom I will, inevitably, miss out. I give my thanks and gratitude on behalf of many to the Government—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for Sport and Tourism—who have given unqualified support and enthusiasm, without which we would not have been able to make progress. Colleagues who speak for their parties on this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, have been equally supportive all the way through the process, and that is important.

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has made it clear that this was something that could deliver benefits for London. I am grateful for that: it was not a matter of party difference when we had the mayoral elections last year—nor should it have been.

I should be interested to know in what way the hon. Gentleman thinks that London has benefited so far. What gains have we had via this process? I know that the Mayor speaks highly of his links with the Labour Government, but have there been any deliverable gains and any real sense of a commitment from the Government, or has it simply been a matter of words rather than delivery?

It is not for me to act as a Government spokesman, but I can mention things that have happened that might not have happened, mainly in transport. The East London line extension decision has been made, which will link part of the infrastructure. That would not necessarily have happened, although it is a necessary part of the equation. The commitment to finish the cross-channel rail link on time, which predated the Olympic bid, will be a huge bonus in terms of bringing people in and out of the Olympic site. Most recently, there has been a general commitment to improve the transport infrastructure; that has been a collaborative effort and is the one thing on which the evaluation committee notes that a lot of recent progress has been made.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's direct question, the report said that there had been a lot of extra, pre-legacy work to which the Olympic bid had given momentum—the bid had been a driver and given additional reason for action. He and I know, as London MPs, that often we talk about London plans, such as Crossrail, that are in the far distance. I honestly believe that the bid has been an incentive for things to move much more quickly in planning and infrastructure and has required the Government, London government and other agencies to sing from the same song sheet. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to pursue those matters.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my thanks.

The British Olympic Association—Craig Reedie and his team—and the bid team under Seb Coe are to be thanked, but five principal sponsors have also ensured that it has been possible and it would be unfair not to mention them as partners. They are EDF Energy, British Airways, BT, Virgin Atlantic and Accenture.

Mr. Benton, you will know that to get this operation on the road and funded means that there has to be collaboration with the private sector, groups, public authorities, Government and local government, individuals and this place. I am convinced that that has, in recent months, been moving in the right direction.

I apologise, Mr. Benton, for arriving just a few seconds late.

The acid test in terms of London's commitment to the Olympic bid, should it be successful, will be that London will make a major contribution to the cost of the Olympics. Does the hon. Gentleman support that and support Ken Livingstone's view that the council tax payer in London should make that contribution?

I have always supported that view and have defended it. How to meet the cost of a city bid that is also a national bid will always be a difficult question. I have said unequivocally that additional benefits will come to London in terms of legacy, venues and accessibility of venues to people in this city. Although many places around the country will benefit—I was talking yesterday to my friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) about Loughborough, which will be a training venue if our bid is successful—London will benefit more and should, rightly, make a contribution.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the reasons why the London bid is less popular in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom and does he understand the perception that Scotland seems to be paying for these games and for the infrastructure in London? It is estimated that £70 million could be lost to Scotland in good causes and grass-roots sport. What has he to say about that?

I shall deal with that quickly in three ways. First, I have seen the figures on support in Scotland and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath confirms, they are not lower than in the rest of the country—on the objective evidence, that is not the case.

Secondly, history shows that just because one part of the country is a venue for games, that does not mean that other parts of the country do not enjoy them. I remember that the Edinburgh Commonwealth games were supported by people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We went to Edinburgh and enjoyed them, and they were a great event for the city; my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is here. Thirdly, the legacy of the games will be everywhere, and the events will be everywhere. For example, the football competition will take place in Scotland and Wales as well as in the north, midlands and south of England.

I cannot believe that when somebody who happens to come from the north-west wins a world boxing title, the rest of us do not share in the delight, nor that when a young 17-year-old gets a silver medal as a boxer in the Olympics, we do not all celebrate. I cannot believe that when Kelly Holmes won a gold medal, people in Northern Ireland did not share in the rejoicing because she comes from Kent. That is not how this country works, thank goodness.

We should always be slightly less selfish. Of course, the games will cost something; the costs stack up, but we have to look at the benefits. One of the great benefits will be that the games will inspire lots of people to levels of sporting achievement and development that they would never otherwise have attained. The other day, Daley Thompson launched the schools pack in Tower Bridge primary school, on my patch. Those who are now 11 years old could be performing in the Olympics by the time that the games come to London. If a person knows that they may get a place in their national squad for something, that is a phenomenal incentive.

We have just appointed a new head teacher at St. James's Church of England primary school, Bermondsey, of which I am chair of the board of governors. Her son is in the sailing squad and I hope that he will encourage an interest in sailing among the children there. Those children may think, "Yes, I can sail for Britain and for team GB." That is a huge benefit, and Scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and English citizens of all backgrounds will enjoy it too.

I hope that neither my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) nor others in the Chamber will form the view that there is anything less than support in Scotland for a national bid on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for games that happen to be located in London, the capital city of that same United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point. The opportunity to represent one's country in an Olympic games held in that country has in the past proved an enormous motivation for many people to reach the standard necessary to be able to compete. In addition, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Olympic games give an enormous motivation and stimulus to many people to take up and become engaged in sport.

Nobody speaks in this House with more authority than my right hon. and learned Friend on that subject.

We have great debates about young people, disorder and antisocial behaviour. There is a very simple remedy for a lot of antisocial behaviour. We need to give young people positive things to do as an alternative. The more swimming, sport and physically demanding activity that uses energy there is, and the more motivation such young people have to achieve something, the more likely it is that they will not be distracted by other things as they grow up.

rose—

I shall give way one more time; then I must make progress so that others can speak.

I wholeheartedly echo the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). However, a lesson can be learned from the Greece Olympics. Far-flung regions of that country feared that, as Athens was seen to be the place where the action was and where all transport links would be headed, they would lose out on tourism. Such regions thought that people might be tempted to avoid Greece because of a fear that the transport links would not be able to cope.

Can London learn something from that, so that people who come to the United Kingdom during the Olympics are not put off from going to regions other than the games venues for other reasons?

My hon. Friend has family links with Greece and knows much more about Greek issues than I do. However, all the evidence and predictions—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—show that people will come as visitors and not stay in London all the time, although London has the capacity to accommodate them. Hockey fans would come for the hockey competition and might then go to Scotland for a holiday. Yachting or sailing fans would go to Weymouth, but might want to come to London on their way in or out.

There are all sorts of reasons why the rest of Britain should benefit. All the evidence is that the games would be good for tourism, jobs and business—and not only in the tourism and catering industries—as well as for sport and sport development. I am sure that that is the case. When the Commonwealth games were in Manchester, not only Manchester benefited. I am sure that the same will apply for these games.

The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has already made brief mention of our conversation, but I should like to confirm the point. We often talk about the north-south divide and Scotland, but the one place that always gets missed out is the east midlands. Loughborough is the sporting capital of the United Kingdom, and has been the sporting capital of the world on many occasions.

The Chinese have already looked at the facilities at Loughborough university, and although they have not finalised everything, they have indicated that they will probably base themselves at a university such as Loughborough—

Or Bath.

Indeed, or Bath.

Thank you.

Those universities are coming on strongly these days. Does the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey recognise that the issue is about not only the immediate holding camp but the investment that goes into the infrastructure? The Chinese would spend money in Loughborough and would probably be there for a month or so before and afterwards. The enormous benefit would be economic and social, but also sporting.

I accept that entirely. I have seen some of the sports teaching and coaching at Loughborough and I have been to Bath as well. They are already good centres, and their reputations and skill in what they do will be enhanced by those opportunities. The games must be seen as an opportunity for many parts of Britain other than London and other areas that are to host the events.

Let me highlight the really positive extra things—the super-positive things—that came out of the report. First, the location of the Olympic village is hugely convenient: 49 per cent. of athletes will compete very near to where they will be living, and that has not been the case at many previous Olympic games.

Secondly, we are very clear on the environmental issues. There will be a huge environmental benefit. One of the great, appealing things about the bid is how the environmental legacy has been thought through. In our age, we are concerned about such things; that legacy has to have an environmental priority, and it is right that it should. The evaluation people make it clear, that our air quality will have met the relevant standards in good time for 2012, that the whole planning operation will have minimum impact and maximum sustainability and that there will be very positive environmental legacies.

Thirdly, the evaluation people are clear that the budget works; they say that the budgeting process is detailed and meticulous, and that the assumptions are well supported and documented. Fourthly, they are clear that the ticketing revenue estimates—both for the Olympics and Paralympics—are very good. I indicated the figures; the predictions are of more than 80 per cent. sales for the Olympics and more than 60 per cent. sales for the Paralympics already.

The fifth point is really important for London. Lee valley has desperately needed regeneration for ages and is the one bit of London to have missed out on all the boom and benefit. The games will transform what has been a grim part of London. Yes, of course there will be difficulty for some businesses, which will have to be relocated. However, creating a great new park with all the facilities must be a huge benefit to a part of London that will have many more people and much more activity in the years to come. Sixthly, nearly two thirds of the venues for the games already exist or are already under construction and planning, irrespective of the games. It is not as if we are a long way behind and scrambling to catch up. Wembley stadium, for example, is well on the way to being completed.

Seventhly, the evaluation people make the point that places such as Wimbledon, Eton and the new Wembley arena are iconic venues for sport—let alone places near this House, such as Hyde park and Horseguards parade. There are some very clever, imaginative ideas that are not about going to the traditional venues. Greenwich park would be a fantastic venue for equestrian events. The Dome, at last, has found a use, for which some of us are grateful.

So that is what this is about.

It is an additional bonus.

The Paralympic competitors are now a very important part of the games. They say that 95 per cent. of them will be in accommodation within 15 minutes of where they will perform. That will be a symbol of an accessible London—not only in 2012 but afterwards. There will be enough beds and rooms, and they will be near where people will be performing. The health service passes the test, although we can come back to some of the other debates about the health service later. There is already sufficient hotel accommodation.

What is really important—I say this to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field)—is that we now have one of the best transport access systems in the world. If one considers the centrality of Heathrow airport and then adds in the other airports—Gatwick, Stansted and City of London—and the cross-channel rail link, one realises that the games will be hugely accessible for people coming in from across Europe or by air. Finally, the rail infrastructure is now in place.

Public support is growing. In a speech, which I commend, to the Olympic organising committee in January, the Secretary of State set out in summary the reasons why the games would be so good for Britain—much new employment and business, increasing participation in sport and renewed enthusiasm and pride in our country.

London is the most cosmopolitan city on Earth; there are more Chinese here than in any city outside China and more Africans than anywhere outside Africa. A growing Latin American community participates in the life of London. It is a great Commonwealth city. People with different languages, backgrounds, faiths and cultures are naturally here. By definition, we are part of Europe; we have people here not just from the traditional nearer European nations but from eastern Europe. If people want a place where athletes from 200 countries will feel at home, London is now it. If people want a place that can demonstrate how sport transcends all the cultural divides, London is it. I hope that all those things will be taken into account by the International Olympic Committee members when they meet in Singapore. We can hold the Olympics very well as a human event and as a sporting spectacle.

There is a job to do, and I leave it to the Minister to say how we can all help the bid. There are suggestions about how parliamentarians, businesses and individuals can help in the last four weeks of the bid process. I guess that the most direct way is by bumping into members of the IOC—providing the rules are followed—as it would be most useful to persuade them. I am sure that we can do it. The press today are very positive and I thank them.

One of the brochures that came out had on the front three words to celebrate and promote the bid—"passion", "pride" and "commitment". Its introduction stated:

"Our combination of world-class venues and iconic city centre locations would ensure an exceptional setting for every event."

We have been marked as having passed the test technically. I want this debate to be an indication that we are emotionally, spiritually and politically committed in a way that we have never been before. The momentum is moving in our direction. None of us knows whether we will succeed in July, but we believe, and we want the Olympic committee to believe, that we are ready to take the job on and that we will do the committee proud.

I end with a quote that I remember vaguely from my youth. When Baron de Coubertin started the first modern Olympic games, he described the motif and the reason for the Olympics as this:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

If one gets to the Olympics, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife would probably tell people, one wants to take part but it is also very helpful if one can win. While we are in the bid stage, the de Coubertin quote does not really apply. The most important thing is to do everything we can to win the bid and I am here with colleagues to ensure that it is known that the British Parliament—across parties—takes that view. I wish all those involved every success in the four weeks ahead.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) not only on securing the debate but, as he said, on its timing. May I just allay the fears of those who live in Scotland and might be nervous by giving one or two quotes from Scottish people? Shirley Robertson, a double Olympic gold medallist, said:

"A home Olympic Games is the stuff of dreams. When I go back to Scotland people say, 'What about us?', but it really would benefit the nation".

Jack McConnell said:

"Winning the Games in 2012 will make sure that the Olympic spirit touches every part of the United Kingdom".

So it will.

The United Kingdom has a unique and rich tradition in sport and in the Olympics. In the 19th century, we gave the world tennis, soccer, rugby, cricket and even skiing. De Coubertin came here in 1892–93 to look at sport in this country because he thought that we had a lesson for the world. He came to Harrow and Rugby and saw competitive sport not between public schools but inside them. He thought that the best thing that could happen would be a world team championships. It is slightly ironic that the Olympics was never set out to be a team championships, but it is gradually getting there one way or another.

We must not forget that, although we think we created all the world's sports, France also has a rich history. It gave us the Olympic games, and the Jules Rimet trophy and world soccer tournament. They are two of the most outstanding sporting contributions that France has made. We are not just up against Paris; we are up against a huge French tradition in sport, which we sometimes forget. We had our first games in White City in 1908. France had its first games in 1900. We had our second games in 1948 and France had its in the chariots of fire Olympics in Paris in 1924. We are bidding for our third Olympics, as is Paris. That is an interesting parallel.

In 1908 and 1948, the Olympic committee came to London and said, "Will you run the games?" This is the first time that London has made a bid. In terms of the Olympic movement, we have delivered in the past.

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I shall not say that he has trumped my next paragraph, but I was about to say that before 1908 Vesuvius erupted and the Olympic games had to be moved from Rome to London. Nobody bid in 1948 and we offered and saved the games, because they would have been lost. We have a fantastic opportunity not only to give the games back to the country, but to do something else—develop the games for the 21st century. A lot has been said about attitude, facilities and regeneration, but there should be something about what we expect the spirit of the Olympics to be in the 21st century. I will mention that later.

In the marathon, the reason why there was a need to go around the track after 26 gruelling miles is not that we wanted to celebrate some fantastic finish for Sky Sports or the BBC, but that the Queen wanted to be under the tarpaulin so that the sun's heat did not affect her. It had to be constructed near the finishing line, which is why there is extra yardage. In White City in 1908, we had a swimming pool in the middle, which was frozen, and the skating was done there. That triggered the development of the winter Olympic sports.

We have a huge sporting legacy that we have given the world. A magnificent film was made of the 1948 Olympics. It was shot on nitrate and was wasting away in the British Film Institute library. It was saved by Taylor Downing and one or two others and has now been redone on digital. I hope that the Minister can persuade BBC3 or BBC4 to show it. It has never been shown on TV. It is a remarkable film about the groups of people; after all, it was the first time that the Russians had ever come. They did not participate in 1948, but given the cold war that had developed and the Berlin airlift, it was quite remarkable that they came. It would be a wonderful thing and a celebration to show the film on British television. It is remarkable because it shows a young man who was leading the British team out. The only thing was that he had forgotten the flag, which was in his car in the car park. That young man was Roger Bannister. There are many bits of history in the film that I think people would enjoy.

That was the first time that any Olympics had been televised, and it was done by the BBC. The 1948 games are historic in that sense. They were shown to the world via television, live, for the first time.

A history lesson is developing here.

In the Athens games, the BBC won accolades all over the world for its coverage, and rightly so. It was spectacular and we congratulate the BBC on it.

The other thing in de Coubertin's mind when he created the Olympics was that it was going to be not just a physical games, but a spiritual and artistic games. Gold medals were given for literature and poetry. That has fallen off substantially, and I hope that in our bid we will look back again and consider whether it is appropriate to give a gold medal for poetry, music, digital media or something else creative; after all, a Nobel prize is given for literature. Why should those things not return and why should we not develop the idea in a way that has not happened in the past?

Yesterday's report was excellent for London, given where we were two years ago or a year ago. However, I agree with Mihir Bose, who said in The Daily Telegraph that we must be careful. The decision is not just between Paris and London, but between three cities: Paris, London and Madrid. I think that London and Madrid are the most outstanding in terms of regeneration, and if the International Olympic Committee is serious that that is the principal criterion on which it will judge the bid, there is no question in my mind but that those cities are the leaders and that Paris is not.

I commend the team that put the bid together. I will start with the Prime Minister, because what he did in Athens was simply outstanding. One could not see what he was doing, but he attended a number of lunches, dinners and meetings, as the Minister will confirm. The Prime Minister's terrific interest has continued subsequently, and not just because his wife is an ambassador. He has never said so in public and I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I believe that the opening ceremony blew his mind when he saw the coming together. I was at the opening of the Commonwealth games in Manchester and it brought tears to the eyes. It was amazing to see a fellowship of people from all over the world. I say this whenever there is a sports debate, but we must remember that there are more countries on the IOC than members of the United Nations, and that says something about the spirit of mankind.

Since Lord Coe has taken over as chair of the London bid, it has improved tenfold or fifteenfold. Keith Mills, Mike Lee and Alan Pascoe have also done outstanding work. We do not have a big bid team and that is wise. The excellence of the team is obvious and we should commend it. I single out Seb Coe. It was a surprise when he was appointed—if it was so obvious, why did we not appoint him in the first place? He has done really well. He has managed the bid imaginatively and has put together a good team. I am slightly nervous about what we will do with him if we do not win the bid, and I wonder whether the Minister has thought of making him head of UK Sport, because he would do an outstanding job.

I want to ask two questions: what if we won and what if we did not win? If we won, it would be great if the opening ceremony, attended by 300,000 people, could be in the Mall instead of in a stadium. The ceremony could be a celebration. It could link all the cities that have held previous Olympic games. They could again have an opening ceremony so that a fellowship of Olympic cities could be developed.. That could be a 21st century model.

Main stadiums are built only for the opening and closing ceremonies, and that is a concern. Joseph Paxton designed the great exhibition in Hyde park in 1851 so that the Crystal palace could be taken down bolt by bolt. Every bolt was numbered, and the palace was subsequently rebuilt in Sydenham. It is not true that modern stadiums cannot be designed to be taken down. The cost of the Athens Olympics was phenomenal. Weight-lifting competitions took place in a building that can be used only for weight-lifting and for nothing else. We do not want that and we may be able to use a modern IKEA approach to building stadiums, similar to that used by Joseph Paxton in 1951.

Can the Minister tell us whether an audit has been carried out in each local authority throughout the United Kingdom for Olympic sport and its needs? My constituency in Kent has the largest local authority, and I doubt whether we have three facilities that are even close to Olympic standard for sailing or athletics. We should have many more Olympic facilities and I wonder whether our bid could be a spur to creating and developing more Olympic facilities throughout Great Britain.

I make a plea for my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. We like to think that we have the best windsurfing in the world and would like to attract windsurfing teams from around the world, but that would need a lot of help and thought. When we have won the 2012 bid, I hope that a team will be set up to help us to get the windsurfing and sailing events, because that is what we would like.

Hundreds of specialist schools for sport are being built and developed. Perhaps the Minister will explain how they will fit in with the Olympic system and whether they will have some Olympic responsibility in their communities for developing sports so that the whole United Kingdom is connected to that.

One idea that was suggested to me and which I support is that every primary school should have a sports coach whose job is to introduce professionalism and to ensure that what they have is linked to what is outside. Does that fit in with the hon. Gentleman's view of how sport is developed in schools in his constituency and the rest of the country?

As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, the bid will act as a spur and I am sure that there will be more coaching. I have a difference of opinion about how that will be done. We have such good coaching in rugby, soccer, cricket and tennis, and perhaps the organisations providing that coaching should be used instead of PE teachers. We must resolve the tension and that is the way to do it.

I hope that when we next debate the matter after winning the bid, the current Minister for Sport and Tourism might be the Minister for the Olympics. What Australia did was right. It had a federal Minister for the Olympics in Sydney and a Commonwealth Minister in Canberra. It is important to have a committed Minister for the Olympics, although I leave it to the Prime Minister to decide whether that Minister should be in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There should also be a Secretary of State for sport, health education and young people, but that is another matter.

Turning to the more difficult question, what would happen if we did not win? I initiated Canterbury's bid to be cultural capital of Europe, although Liverpool won. Following that and the Toxteth riots of the 1980s came a new Liverpool. Another depressed area was Canary Wharf, where the old docks were run down and miserable. One man's vision hit both those areas, because Lord Heseltine saw the potential of Liverpool and Canary Wharf. We need some of that vision if we are not to lose the Olympic bid. Imagine how the nation would feel if we came second and how disappointed we would be.

Will the Minister reflect on how great it would be to have a global competition for a sports city in the east end of London? The Thames Gateway has substantial plans to help to regenerate the east end, but it would be wonderful if we could do it anyway. Let us go for a sports city. London needs it and the United Kingdom needs it, and it would be wonderful after the disappointment of Wembley, Picketts Lock and so on. What about a great exhibition of sport for 2012? What about a sporting capital of Europe challenge? We have no sports museum in this country and no central sports archive for film. Here is a chance to put those into the loop of making a sports city work.

I chair the all-party group on the Olympics. In the next day or two, all right hon. and hon. Members will receive a copy of the document "Backing the Bid". On 22 June, we will say good luck and goodbye to the bid team before it goes to Singapore, and on 23 June, we will be looking at the design and innovations of the bid. Those two events will take place in the House.

rose—

Order. Three hon. Members are standing and I propose to start the wind-up at 12 o'clock, so perhaps hon. Members would be as brief as possible.

I appreciate that it may be unfashionable to be anything other than wholeheartedly in support of the bid, but I am a sceptical individual and am always cynical when I hear politicians parroting a single line. Much as I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on introducing the debate and salute the hard work of Lord Coe and his team over the past two years, I want to espouse one or two of the objections that have been made. A significant if silent minority of 32 per cent. of Londoners have concerns about the Olympics being held in our capital city.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that was the figure at the beginning of the year. The latest figures show that support in the country and London is now around 80 per cent. or just under.

I am happy to stand corrected, although the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that on 5 May his party managed to obtain 20 or 22 per cent. of the vote, which is a significant and equivalent minority. I am not suggesting that all Liberal Democrat voters are against the Olympic games here in the capital, but it is important to put some of these matters on the record.

I am a passionate sports fan; I love sport and I love the idea of the Olympics coming here. I am always very supportive of British sporting endeavours, particularly in cricket and soccer, but also in athletics and related fields. However, there are some salient objections that I would like the Minister to address in his winding-up speech.

First and foremost is the issue of cost. Many Londoners are very concerned about the notion of a blank cheque being signed by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for the cost of the games. There is little indication that the Government are going to stump up the tab for what is, as has been pointed out, a national rather than just a London Olympic games. It has been estimated by the Greater London Authority that the virtually uncapped liabilities could run to £30 per annum for every Londoner for a decade or two to come. Indeed, there is no real sense that the event will be kept within budget, and history suggests that all Olympic games—except for those that took place in America in 1984 and 1996—have been massively hit by cost overruns.

Notwithstanding the report, which was positive, and the earlier comments of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, we have an extremely poor track record in the staging of large-scale sporting events. Let us consider the dome: the main criterion for the case against it has been the appalling lack of a legacy, in spite of all the warm words from this House and beyond during the last few years of the previous century. As for Wembley stadium, I am somewhat less sanguine about the financial implications of what is currently happening regarding the owners of the stadium site. The Minister will remember the Picketts Lock fiasco, and it will be very high on any charge sheet against a London bid when all is said and done over the next four weeks.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will later say a little about the treatment of some of the long-standing traders in the Hackney Wick and the lower Lee Valley estate areas. I have had the opportunity to go to the Marsh Gate lane site; it is clear that there will be massive disruption to many long-standing businesses there, and traders argue that wholly inadequate compensation is being offered at this juncture. The sizeable minority of people against the games feel that their voice has not been sufficiently heard. We will see: if Britain does not win the bid, their concerns will be largely academic. They are a forgotten but none the less very important community.

One of my other concerns as a London Member of Parliament and, until the election, as my party's spokesman on London affairs is that other regeneration projects in the capital have been left on hold to a large extent while the furore surrounding the Olympic bid has taken place. In particular, some important regeneration in the King's Cross area has effectively been put on hold for the past 18 months or so. We touched on the East London line, and soon the Crossrail debate will begin in earnest again. I suspect that it is not entirely coincidental that that Bill has its Second Reading on 20 June—some two and a half weeks before the Olympic bid is decided. There is still no indication whatever of where the money will come for such a project. We wait to hear much more from the Government on the matter.

As for the political implications, I say as a passionate sports fan that there has been a certain amount of grandstanding from the Government. I was not in Athens, but I take on board what the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) said about the Prime Minister's enthusiasm. It is a new-found enthusiasm based, I suspect, on the fact that the decision date on the Olympics was going to be in July—in other words, after rather than just before the Olympic games. It gave him the opportunity to rub shoulders with our Olympic stars, although I suspect he thinks Fanny Blankers-Koen is something to do with the Dutch Eurosceptic movement, rather than the 1948 Olympic games.

I feel that there has been a refusal by the Government to turbo-charge the bid by making a firm financial commitment. Had that taken place during the past six months—I certainly suggested it very strongly to some of the Olympic team—it would have made a real difference to our opportunity to get the Olympic games. I wish that the Government had put up the cash and made it absolutely clear that Government funding would provide significant transport infrastructure and other infrastructure projects that east London desperately requires, whether or not we get the Olympic games.

If London were to win the bid, the Government would need to display a hitherto lacking urgency to ensure that the capital city receives its fair share of resources if this bid is not to have all the makings of another national embarrassment.

I shall keep my comments brief as I know that other Members wish to speak before we get to the winding-up speeches. I wanted to give a slightly different perspective on the matter as a non-London voice. I am a member of the all-party group on the Olympics under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), who has done a tremendous job as part of what the House has done by giving its wholehearted support to the bid, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).

It is right that we bring some notes of cynicism to the table, so that we can work through them. However, where I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments is in relation to my involvement in the build-up to convince the Government to take on the bid. I saw that there was a great deal of reluctance, having been involved with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the days of Picketts Lock and Wembley. There was a great deal of resistance, and we knew that in order to succeed the bid had to have the wholehearted support of the Government.

The Government went through a very rigorous process of deciding whether they wanted to support the bid, and since they made that decision they have given it 100 per cent. support. The bid team and people around the world recognise the Prime Minister's commitment and that of the Minister and the Secretary of State. That has been crucial because in the past we have tended to miss out in bid processes because of a lack of political will and support.

I want to make three points. First, I briefly intervened on the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about how the benefit will be not just for London but the regions. I also want to talk about the role of volunteers, which is pretty crucial, and about some of the things mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in relation to how sport adapts.

The current set-up is not sufficient to deliver an Olympic nation in 2012; we need to ensure that the administration is in place and that support for young people in schools comes through. People at school at the moment will be the Olympic champions of 2012. It is heart-warming when we see some of the national squads training, especially in places such as Loughborough and Bath, knowing that we are possibly looking at an Olympic champion, but we do not know which one it is in the pool or on the athletics track. That is the vision, excitement and enthusiasm that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey talked about. We need to impassion the next generation because, if we win, on July 7, I want everyone who thinks that they have the potential to be an Olympic star in 2012 to have that vision for the rest of the decade; I want to ensure that they are enthused and are given the right support and training all the way through.

On the benefit to the regions, we have some fantastic facilities in Loughborough. We have the National Cricket Academy, indoor athletics facilities and a 50 m swimming pool. Loughborough is one of the English Institute of Sport regional centres of excellence, and quite rightly so. In places such as Bath and Sheffield—it is good to see that all three of the relevant Members are here, before I upset too many of my colleagues—the facilities are among the best in the world.

Those of us who have seen the Australian Institute of Sport will recognise that the facilities in our cities are better because over a period of time the Australian institute has got to the point where its facilities are going slightly downhill. The crucial point—this is where I would like to congratulate the Sports Minister in particular—is that it is not just a question of the facilities, but of the people and coaching. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned what we could do through sports co-ordinators and others. That is a crucial point, particularly in relation to coaching: we need the right person in the right place at the right time. We must be fit for purpose right across the board, so that from elite level down to the grass roots we have talent identification and we are pushing the agenda forward.

We have the facilities, and places such as Loughborough and Bath will be major holding camps. The teams that are put into the infrastructure will make a major investment, as was the case in Australia on the Gold coast. They will appear several weeks before the games take place, and if we grasp the opportunity we shall have an enormous cultural event as well as a sporting one. The whole country will be transformed by its enthusiasm for the Olympics, not just London but right across the regions.

That ties in directly with my second point, which concerns the role of volunteers. I am very fortunate in that I chair something called the National Strategic Partnership for Volunteering in Sport—we need to find a shorter title. There are about 30 or 40 organisations that deal with volunteering in sport, such as Sport England, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Youth Sports Trust, UK Sport, and Volunteering England—there are hundreds of us. As hon. Members know, 26 per cent. of volunteers are sports volunteers, yet the voluntary sector does not see sports volunteers as part of that sector and sports volunteers do not see themselves as part of the traditional voluntary sector. This will be a golden opportunity. One of the strongest parts of our bids is what we managed to achieve in Manchester, where one of the greatest things was the role of volunteers. Even if we look at the profile of people who went out and volunteered to help in the games in Athens, we can see that British volunteers were among the groups most represented.

Although it has not been mentioned so far, one of the strengths of our bid could be the fact that people from right across the nation will want to come to London to participate and help by volunteering. We need to ensure that we get the infrastructure right for that. That will also enthuse people who, like me, may not quite make it to the 2012 Olympics in the sprint squad—much as I want to maintain my athletic prowess for another 10 years. We can participate in all sorts of ways and people will get enthused by that.

Finally, I want to talk about how we are going to deliver the Olympic stars of the future. We have made great progress. In this job, we can always list all the reasons not to do things and listen to people who do that. I can find 101 reasons not to get out of bed in the morning. However, sometimes that changes once we grasp the initiative, as we have now. The more I think about the possibility of London 2012, the more enthused I get. That feeling wanes a little when I am not really thinking about the bid. However, I am sure that most Members and people watching the debate will have seen the DVD or the video that the bid team have put together. I do not know what it is and I do not know whether it is just me, but every time I see it—I have probably seen it 20 or 30 times—I get a lump in my throat and the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. That is just from watching the Olympic stars, getting a sense of the enthusiasm and thinking about things that can be done to generate interest.

We must ensure that we have the sporting infrastructure. We have come a long way in the past five or six years, but we must make the step change that makes these things a possibility because, unfortunately, everybody else around the world is doing exactly the same. By 2008, the Chinese will probably be the medal winners in Beijing. Beijing will be phenomenal. We must gear ourselves up to ensure not just that we are competing against nations across the world, but that we are taking into account the fact that everyone else is stepping up.

It is getting increasingly hard to get into the medal table. We know that holding the games would increase our chances of going up that medal table, and it would be a shame if we did not have the infrastructure in place and the investment from school level through to the club link and elite level. We must ensure that that is available for everybody all the way through. I am sure that the Minister is very aware of that. He has been battling hard to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place. However, we would have to sit down very quickly to consider reorganising how we do things. We could use some of the expertise of people who have been involved in the Olympics in the past and drive through change, ripping out as much bureaucracy and administration as possible. I know that everybody who is involved in sport wants to see that so that we can get more coaches on to the field wherever possible.

I am excited by the prospect of the games. I love sport. In fact, I really wish I was in New Zealand watching the British and Irish Lions, rather than here. I am sure that there are many others who feel the same—we shared that last night. I wish the British and Irish Lions good luck. We must emphasise the British passion for sport. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned that. I am talking about knowing that there are 40,000 people out there with their British and Irish Lions red shirts on cheering on the team, and about watching what we did in Athens and watching the English team coming back from the World cup in 2003. We have a fantastic passion for sport and not just at elite level. We will turn out in our thousands to watch the London Olympics. It will be the best supported Olympics ever, and I just hope that on 6 July the International Olympic Committee makes the right decision and gives not just London but all of us in the regions a chance to participate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing a timely and important debate. I went to Barcelona in 1992 for the whole of the Olympic games and got hooked. I subsequently went to Atlanta and Sydney for all of the Olympic games except the last day. They were all very different and if the games come to London, I am sure that that will be different too. I did not manage to get to Athens, but I hope to be in Beijing.

I want to concentrate on investment. So much of what is said about investment refers to regeneration and investment in facilities, which is, of course, quite right. However, there is also a longer-lasting investment and legacy: investment in the next generation, rather than necessarily in regeneration. There are four clear parts. We should concentrate on being able to provide sports facilities and encouraging participation in sport by young people, who will be inspired by their own teams and by being able to go and see live sport, rather than just watching it on television. Young people might go to see sports that they have never really taken much notice of in the past. Encouraging young people to participate in sports is the most obvious point, but there are others that one can pick up during the two or three weeks of an Olympic games event.

There is the idea of supporting one's competitive team in a positive way. It is fantastic to see so many young people from so many different parts of the world coming to support their team and being there, even if some of those teams go out in the first heat of the first event—that is not the point. The point is that young people from all over the world meet one another. The fact that young people are able to be at an event such as that represents a huge investment. Spilling out from that is a new and real sense of pride in the country. I certainly noticed it in Barcelona and Sydney, but perhaps not quite so much in Atlanta. There was a new-found pride in young people's sense of being there to support their country and their people. The way in which they then perceived themselves in relation to their country, and their perception of their value to their country and themselves, spread out into an awful lot of other areas. There will be a great deal of investment in young people, who will get a new sense of direction, pride and a feeling of being part of the country through participating.

On disability, the Paralympics, which have been mentioned, are probably one of the more recent greatest successes. When I was in Sydney, I was fascinated to see so many young people who had travelled there from all over Australia. That was partly because every single school in Australia was able to send two pupils. I do not know quite how that was paid for or arranged. During the Paralympics, every single school was required to do a disability project and again people were sent from schools to view the games. That was an inspired way of connecting young people to the area of disability. They could perceive people with disabilities very differently. It was very positive and inventive. The idea was not taken up particularly in Athens, but we may like to consider it if we win the bid. So, we are talking about investment not just in infrastructure, however important that is, but in our young people in so many different ways. That is a legacy that goes on and on. We see young Spanish athletes and sports people coming to the fore in lots of different sports, not least in the recent tennis tournament in France.

As a Cornwall representative, I should say that we hope that Cornwall will be part of this event. We think that there are great opportunities for providing training camps for the smaller teams. We recognise that we are not going to have the big teams, but there are a significant number of smaller teams that will want to have a training camp in a beautiful part of the country. There are facilities for sailing, but also for other sports. We can provide that sort of facility not a million miles away from London and other areas. Although Cornwall is on the periphery and although it may feel to a certain extent that it is not going to be part of the heart of the games, it will play its part. People down there will be able to see that Cornwall, like every other part of the country, supports the games and wants to be part of them. I hope that on 6 July we will get the win that we deserve.

I shall begin, as everyone else has, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) not only on securing the debate but on its timing, which comes hot on the heels of an excellent IOC evaluation report.

My hon. Friend began by rightly praising a large number of people who have been responsible for getting our bid to its current position. In particular he mentioned the sterling efforts of Lord Coe, who, following on from the work of Barbara Cassani, has done a tremendous job, aided by Keith Mills and all the team. My hon. Friend rightly added his compliments to a wide range of other people, not least the major sponsors of the Olympic bid, whose contributions have been tremendous. He rightly, too, noted the crucial role that cross-party support has played in the bid. That support is referred to in the evaluation report.

Like the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), my hon. Friend paid particular tribute to the leadership of the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend was right to do so, notwithstanding some of the slightly cynical remarks made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) about the Prime Minister's motivations. The Prime Minister has done a vital job, and I think that his visit to Athens will pay huge dividends in four weeks' time.

The Liberal Democrats fully and enthusiastically support our bid for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. We genuinely believe that if the bid is successful, it will leave an indelible legacy not only to London but to all parts of the country, to communities and to the entire sporting nation. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend, we recognise that if the games were to come to London they would be coming to one of the most vibrant, diverse and cosmopolitan cities in the world, with 200 different communities speaking 300 different languages. With our long track record of cultural activity, we would enrich the Olympic movement through the cultural component of the games, as well as through the sporting activities already referred to. Our bid is undoubtedly gaining momentum as we get closer to the final decision in four weeks' time, and it increasingly looks like a two-horse race between ourselves and Paris.

Parliamentary colleagues have made important and valuable contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, who speaks with such distinction on these matters, reminded us of some of the sporting history of this country, and particularly of the important contribution that this country has made to sport, with the introduction of games such as cricket, rugby, tennis and even skiing. He reminded us also that in 1948 this country rescued the Olympic games. The Minister added to that point when he noted that the 1948 games were the first to be televised—another first for the BBC.

Had the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey had more time, I am sure that he would have pointed out that this country can also claim to have given to the Olympic movement the Paralympic games. We made a major contribution to the establishment of that important part of the movement. In his characteristic way, he suggested several ways of moving forward. For instance, his idea of the fellowship of Olympic cities bears consideration. I support his idea of getting all past Olympic host cities to hold an opening night and of elevating the Minister for Sport and Tourism to Olympics Minister, and I hope that projects such as the sports film archive will be taken up.

There was one other historical point that neither the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey nor anyone else mentioned. I hope that I am correct to say, as the Queen will be offended if I am wrong, that it is her diamond jubilee in 2012. That would add a little extra to our bid.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made an almost ritual speech. He felt that someone must point out one or two concerns, and in representing some of his constituents he made reference to those matters. However, I was delighted to hear him begin and end his speech by recognising his passion for sport and his belief that if the games were to come to London, they would be a fantastic opportunity for the capital and for the rest of the country. I have no doubt that the Minister will pick up on some of the points that he made, but I can assure him that the dome and the Olympic bid have nothing whatever in common: one was a disaster, the other will be a huge triumph.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster raised his concern about the financing package, yet the IOC evaluation document makes it clear that the package is robust. The vast majority of people who have analysed it feel very confident. Notwithstanding past problems, we have a robust package.

I was delighted that my sedentary interventions on the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) persuaded him to add Bath whenever he mentioned Loughborough thereafter. I am grateful to him for recognising that both our wonderful constituencies will benefit enormously from the Olympics coming to London, and for highlighting the fact that the games will benefit not only the capital but all sorts of places throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) noted that Cornwall, too, was expected to benefit from the games.

The hon. Member for Loughborough also added to our debate a point about the important role of volunteers in the games. Yesterday I spoke to the chief executive of the Scout movement, and I understand that he has already discussed with the Minister the role that it, among many other organisations, can play in making the games the most successful ever. The hon. Member for Loughborough rightly noted that the games need to be used as a starting gun for improving sport in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall talked about the importance of investment not only in infrastructure but in areas such as the support of teams and disability awareness.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for giving way, particularly as I was not present at the start of the debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) for that. Will the hon. Member for Bath add his weight to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) about the lack of compensation for businesses in the east end? I have a constituency case in which a guy owns the site where the main track would be. The London Development Agency is paying lip service to compensation. It has not come up with a decent package, and it has no alternative land.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I apologise to his hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for not referring to that issue. I noted that during his contribution my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey was nodding sympathetically. I know that he has a degree of sympathy with that issue, and no doubt the Minister will wish to pick up on it.

This country's passion for sport has not been mentioned enough. I chide my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey for saying that 60,000 people watched the London marathon. He is wrong, as the number was more than 500,000. There are 40,000 people watching the British and Irish Lions in New Zealand, and 90 per cent. of the tickets for the Commonwealth games in Manchester were sold. We had the largest number of fans at the Olympics in Athens, with 20,000 Britons over there watching. With the ticket pricing policy in place for our bid, we will ensure that our stadiums are full.

We have a huge commitment to our sportsmen and sportswomen, and I pay tribute to the British Olympic Association, in its centenary year, for the enormous amount of work it has done to develop and support Team GB. Support throughout the country has grown since the figures shown in the bid evaluation were collated. Support is reaching 80 per cent. in all parts of the country, including Scotland, although the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is no longer present.

In addition to all those people who have already been thanked, I thank the media in this country. It is phenomenal that our London newspaper, the Evening Standard, has backed the bid throughout. I am delighted that in all parts of the country, our local papers have supported the bid. For example, my local paper, the Bath Chronicle, regularly supports the opportunities that the Olympic bid would bring to Bath. There are many people to be thanked. We have an impressive bid. I hope that, on 6 July, we will hear that we have been successful.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate and on the style in which he did so. The subject is, clearly, important to all London MPs. As many people have said, it is also important to all those interested in sport in the United Kingdom.

There were excellent speeches from the Floor, including those from my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), who has done much good work with the all-party group on the Olympics, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who put on record a number of concerns—there is no point in trying to duck those concerns; they are real ones and we ought to meet them head on—the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), who made some excellent points about volunteers, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who talked about legacy issues, and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Finally, as it is the first time in which I have seen him in this parliamentary Session, I welcome the Minister back to his post. I congratulate him on raising more than £20,000 during the London marathon for the Ron Pickering memorial fund. I wish him well in his endeavours in the next month in everything he is doing to bring the games to London.

Cross-party political support is a vital prerequisite of success when the IOC votes in Singapore, so I put on record again my strong personal support, and that of my party, for the London 2012 bid. I also publicly pay tribute to Lord Coe and the work that he has done, along with his team, to bring the games to London. As the evaluation report yesterday clearly showed, London has come a long way in a short space of time. It is thanks primarily to the work that Lord Coe's team has done that we are in such a strong position in this the last month.

Why do we all back the bid? Three reasons stand out above all else. The first is regeneration. East London desperately needs regeneration, in particular areas such as the lower Lee valley. That point was alluded to by many of those who spoke. The Arup report suggested that that regeneration would involve more than 3,000 full-time jobs in the east London economy, 4,000 new housing units, all of them on brownfield land, and a massive large-scale reclamation of derelict and underused land. That must be a good reason.

Secondly, there would be economic and, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, environmental benefits. There will be a massive surge in tourism and related services. Businesses will benefit. Many parts of the local economy, throughout the country, will benefit from the games. In Barcelona, the benefit was as much as £11 billion. Clearly, that is a worthwhile prize.

Thirdly, for those of us who care about sport in the United Kingdom, there is the benefit that the bid will bring to sport generically. Hosting the Olympic games is, as many people said, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enthuse an entire generation, and one that we should not miss.

Having said that, it is the role of Oppositions to ask questions. I put four questions to the Minister. In raising the questions, at what I know is a particularly sensitive time, I hope that I am giving him the opportunity to answer them and, therefore, to strengthen the bid and provide reassurances. The first question is about compensation for businesses in the lower Lee valley. The evaluation report touched on that question. It raised the issue of disputes with local businesses about land acquisition. Will the Minister confirm that steps are being taken to ensure that the concerns of local business men are taken on board?

The second question is about cost overruns. I have no direct experience of the issue myself, but I am told that it was raised regularly on the doorstep in London during the general election campaign. Indeed, I would be surprised if that were not the case. The last two games, in Sydney and Athens, overran considerably. I know that the Minister has always said that a particular method of calculation was used for those games, but can he provide some reassurance that the budgetary limits set out in the candidate file will be met?

Thirdly, there is the question of deliverability. I am confident about it, but, in view of the fact that Wembley is one of the venues that would be used for football in the games, has the Minister received any concrete assurances—that is not an unfortunate pun—from Multiplex that the stadium will be delivered on time and to budget.

Finally, there is the question of the tax take on the Olympic lottery game. This has been given particular urgency this week by the news that the Treasury is going to forgo the tax take on the Bob Geldof concerts. Is the Minister making any progress with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in securing the tax take for the Olympic lottery game? Will he confirm that the estimate of the lottery distributors—£320 million—is fair?

I will be brief, because I want to give the Minister the maximum time to finish. So, I will just run through those points again and finish where I started. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey on securing the debate and congratulate hon. Members who made this morning's other contributions. Secondly, I pay tribute to Lord Coe and his team for the remarkable work that they have done to bring the games to London. Thirdly, in welcoming the Minister back to his post, which I do genuinely, I ask him to address the four points that I put to him. I finish by reiterating my strong support, and that of my party, for the London 2012 bid. There is no doubt that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for all of us who care about sport in this country and, indeed, all of us who care about this country's standing in the world. Anybody who cares about those two things can only wish the bid well.

I thank the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) for initiating the debate. It is timely this morning, as it comes on the back of yesterday's IOC report. I also thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for his kind words and I welcome him back to his job. I hope that we and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has been extremely supportive, are successful as we run up to 6 July and the outcome of the bid.

It is an exciting time, particularly after the report from the IOC yesterday, which clearly put us in equal position with the leaders, Paris and, indeed, Madrid. I also thank the press. We politicians do not often thank the press, but I genuinely thank it for what it has done. We can see its support in today's headlines. We must make it clear that the British press is read disproportionately around the world. That is why it is so important that we have been able to convince it and that we have had a good dialogue with it. I thank it for its work.

I also put on record my thanks to the political parties, which is something that I will come to later. Even in the run-up to the general election, the unanimity of purpose on the issue held well. For those who do not know, during the period of purdah, the one thing on which we had continued action and support was the Olympic bid. That shows the support that the bid has got.

We are now in the last four weeks and what is clearly going to be an active part of the bid, as we head to Singapore on 6 July. While we bid for the Olympics, it is important that the Paralympics are not missed out. A number of hon. Members referred to the Paralympics. In 1948, what were effectively the first Paralympics took place at Stoke Mandeville. So if, as we all hope, we get the Olympics and the Paralympics in 2012, it will be the coming home of the Paralympics to the nation that started them in 1948.

What was pleasing in the report yesterday was that it showed that the work that has been done by many parties in the last 12 or 18 months has created a platform and springboard from which we can clearly win the bid. The decision is too close to call; there is no doubt about that. We will be going up to the wire on 6 July. When the decision was made in favour of Sydney, it was won by one vote of the 120-odd members who voted. That was how close it was run. So, it is a close race.

However, a difference came out in the report. Some would say that it was a criticism. I would say that it was a strength. The report said that one or two of our boxes were not ticked to the degree that Paris' boxes were. That is true, but our bid is probably the most exciting bid. It is the one that will take the Olympic movement well into the 21st century. It has married old and new. Yes, the construction is still going on, and we shall construct state-of-the-art facilities and transport. That is why those doubts were there. As I said clearly to the press, anyone who wants to vote for a modern Olympics with state-of-the-art facilities should vote for London; anyone who wants to vote for the status quo should vote for somewhere else. That is the strength of our bid, and where the differences are.

I pay tribute to the leadership of Lord Coe. We should also give credit to Barbara Cassani, because she set up the company, with some good, robust personnel. Seb took over when we got on to the shortlist. He is very good at coming down the last 100m, as he has done so on a number of occasions, on two of which he won gold. I told him the other day that the third time he wins will be when he comes down the straight on 6 July.

Yesterday, the evaluation report of the IOC gave a huge vote of confidence to our bid. I say to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) that the finance was, together with transport, probably examined more than the other chapters in our candidate file. That was, to some extent, due to the dome and to Picketts Lock. However, we have learned from our mistakes there. That is why the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I went round the world talking to people who had run the Olympics, asking them the simple question, "What would you do differently if you got the games again?" A number of issues arose from that, including finance. They said, "If you are going to run a bid, make sure that your budget is realistic, deliverable and has contingencies." That is why it is pleasing that, on finance, the report says:

"The UK government has guaranteed that it would act as the ultimate financial guarantor to cover any shortfall from the Games. The budgeting process is very detailed and meticulous, and assumptions are well supported and documented. The budget appears to be reasonable and achievable."

That is what the report says, and it shows clearly that we have laid the ghosts of the dome and Picketts Lock to rest, in terms of public financing and public support. That is very important.

The report also recognises that London can hold a first-class Games, and the Olympics would live in our memories. That is an important part of the modern Olympics. The rings were a little tarnished at Salt Lake City, but they will shine again. What could be better than to have an Olympic park in one of the most famous capital cities in the world, which will be there for generations to come? If anyone wants to see a reflection of that, they should go to Munich. Munich will, unfortunately, be remembered for what happened there, but the legacy of the Olympic movement stands there in the Olympic park. It has stood there for many years, and millions of people who use the park week in, week out, have been reminded by it of what the Olympic movement is all about. That is what we would have—an Olympic park in this great capital of the world.

We would also marry the modern with the world. Tennis will take place at Wimbledon, football at Wembley, and archery at Lord's. Athletes will perform in venues with a truly iconic background. People ask me about Wembley, which will be complete only a month behind schedule and within budget—although the line of last resort on Wembley is the Football Association, and not the Government. In another city just across the English channel, they were talking about where some of the events would be held but, to be honest, beach volleyball on Horseguards parade takes some beating. Imagine the Prime Minister watching from No. 10 Downing street and the Queen watching from Buckingham palace over St. James's park. We can match the Eiffel tower any day.

A previous speaker paid a kind tribute to my having finished the London marathon a few weeks ago. It is a fantastic marathon. People say that there were slightly over half a million people; in fact, I am told that there were over three-quarters of a million people on the streets. When I was asked what it was like to take part, I said that it was like running a 26-mile carnival. I set off and finished just outside Buckingham palace. I thought about the extra few hundred yards that one has to run, because at some stage in our history, the Queen decided that she wanted to add a few yards to it. I can honestly say that the citizens of London came out in their masses on a fantastic day. People gave us oranges; people gave us jelly babies. Three-quarters of a million people were cheering us on from start to finish. We are truly good at staging that type of event. No other marathon in the world can reproduce the atmosphere of the London marathon. It is absolutely superb. I was running with an American, who remarked on the fact that we were passing the London Eye and St. Paul's cathedral. People were running 30 deep over Tower bridge—that is half way round, the 13-mile mark—and they go past many other places and finish in front of Buckingham palace. It is truly a marathon that passes some of the greatest landmarks in the world. Some other events will be held elsewhere: the triathlon at Greenwich park, with the first part—the swim—in the Serpentine.

We have also addressed the issue of the legacy of the Games. We have learned from our experiences. The Commonwealth Games in Manchester were a great success. The buildings there provide a legacy—unlike other places in the world that have run major sporting events and have been left with one or two white elephants. I know that there was great criticism about the stadium after the closure of the Commonwealth Games. I had to defend it on Radio 5 Live. We ripped up the track and dug a couple of metres down to produce a stadium that now houses Manchester City football team. Its contribution to the regeneration of the east part of Manchester has been significant. The new Olympic stadium will hold 80,000 people, but has been designed to be downsized to a 25,000-seater stadium. Three swimming pools that will be used for the Games will be moved to other parts of the country, and two of the sports arenas will be dismantled and repositioned elsewhere in the country.

Before the Minister concludes, will he say something about compensation for the displaced businesses?

I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point now. He asks important and reasonable questions, which I do not want to be accused of ducking. There have been problems with the Lee valley park, although it is the LDA that is conducting the negotiations. I cannot get involved in those negotiations, other than to say that I believe that the compensation that has been offered is fair. The negotiations are continuing, and I hope that no business will lose out. I hope that they will be concluded satisfactorily. I must also put it on record that 78 per cent. of businesses in London's east end support the bid. Last week, 52 businesses from Marshgate lane announced their full backing of the bid, too. I genuinely hope that that matter can be amicably resolved.

I have explained the issues of cost overruns and deliverability. On tax take, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the financial modelling that we have done has included tax. I know that the Opposition have a different figure to ours, and I am happy for them to continue to talk to the Treasury. If they are successful, we shall have more money going into the Olympics' coffers. However, we have done our modelling on the basis that tax will be levied in the normal way, as it is on all lottery money.

I was in Kiev and Budapest recently, and I shall be in Poland later this week. When the national Olympic committees meet, I am always struck by the fact that we have put the athletes right at the heart of our bid. It is the first time in a long time that the athletes' village will be at the centre of the Olympic park. That has commended itself to athletes. It is important that we do that, because the athletes, who will have trained for four years and will go out to win medals, should be at the centre of the Olympics. With the answers to all the other questions, which have been very satisfactory, including on transport—I cannot go into them today—I think that we are set fair. Let us hope that at about this time, lunchtime or 12.30-ish, on 6 July—the result should be available here at about the same time as we get it—when Jacques Rogge opens the envelope, we will celebrate a fantastic victory. If we do, sport will be back on the agenda, not just for the Government, but for the nation. What could we want better than that?

Before the next debate, I remind hon. Members that anyone who wants to speak in the debate requires the permission of the initiator, the Minister and myself.

I welcome this opportunity to highlight what I believe is growing public concern about the use, ownership and possession of airguns. I am raising the matter because of the concerns of local residents and community organisations in my constituency, and in particular, the Lorne community council, which represents about 8,000 residents in the Leith part of the constituency. That organisation is a very effective and representative voice of a local community.

We have three main concerns about airguns. First, people are concerned about the ability of young people in their area and elsewhere to get hold of not only air weapons but other devices, such as replica guns, including, of course, BB guns, which are a menace in many respects. Secondly, they have been shocked by several highly publicised incidents involving airguns that have taken place in Scotland, including some in Edinburgh. Among those was the tragic death of two-year-old Andrew Morton, in Glasgow, which many hon. Members will know about.

Thirdly, the Lorne community council specifically raised with me the fact that firefighters in the Lothian area had become targets of violence, including from airguns, when attending emergencies. Brian Allaway, the firemaster of Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service, whom I contacted before the debate to confirm the view of his service on the issue, told me:

"If this type of attack continues, which is almost inevitable unless something is done about controlling airguns, it could easily result in firefighters being seriously injured or even killed".

He added:

"I would be strongly supportive of any assistance to control and prevent these worrying occurrences".

I should make it clear that my constituency does not have a particularly severe problem with airguns or gun crime in general compared with other areas of the country. Far from it; we are fortunate enough to have relatively low crime rates in general, including rates of gun crime, in comparison with those in many other urban centres in the UK. It is therefore significant that in a constituency such as mine there is a clear demand for action on control of airguns and replica guns. That underlines a country-wide concern to which the Government need to respond.

We can get a good idea of the problem by skimming almost at random through some of the newspaper headlines about incidents around the country. A couple of weeks ago, The Scotsman reported:

"A 12-year-old boy has died after he was shot in the eye with an air rifle by a 14-year-old friend as they played in a bedroom".

That incident was in England. Another story, about Edinburgh, is headlined: "Police warn parents fake guns may end in child death",

and it begins:

"Police have warned it could only be a matter of time before a youngster brandishing a fake gun in the Capital is shot by armed officers."

A report on a recent case from Clackmannan states:

"A teenager has been charged after a 14-year-old boy was hit in the face with an airgun pellet."

In addition:

"A mother was hit on the back of the head in an apparent airgun attack while out jogging near her Lothians home."

In another Edinburgh case:

"A 14-year-old boy has been charged in connection with an incident in which a six-year-old was shot"

with an airgun. I have, of course, already referred to the tragic case of Andrew Morton, from Glasgow, which aroused so much public concern.

Those concerns are shared by the emergency services. I quoted the firemaster of Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service. The deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, Malcolm Dickson, recently told the Edinburgh Evening News:

"Fortunately, serious injuries with airguns are not that common, but when they do occur they cause great public concern and particular anguish to people involved . . . I still don't know why air weapons exist. I just cannot see what their purpose is. The number of air weapons used for pest control is very small and when they are used for this purpose, it is usually outside the city.

I find it completely inappropriate for people to have these weapons in urban environments. It is also irresponsible for parents to allow children to run around with these weapons."

I share Mr. Dickson's sentiments entirely.

I raise this issue today in the knowledge that the Government are at the stage in the legislative timetable when they are considering what further measures should be taken to deal with the problem of airguns and replica weapons. There was an indication in the Queen's Speech that some form of legislation would be presented in due course. That legislation will, of course, apply on a UK basis, as these are reserved matters for which the UK Parliament has responsibility. There is concern in Scotland, as elsewhere in the UK, that the right type of legislation and controls should be put into effect.

The media seem to be saying—perhaps my reading is incorrect—that the Government are still in the process of considering exactly what direction they will take and how far they will go in responding to public concern. I shall be blunt: my purpose in raising the issue today is to urge them to take tough measures to crack down on the misuse of airguns and replica guns, and to send them a clear message that the members of the public who speak to me want tough controls on airguns. I believe that I speak also for the vast majority of the public.

I accept that there is room for debate about exactly what form such tightening of the laws on airguns should take. Some would argue for a total ban, and others will want a form of licensing system. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who is present, has tabled an early-day motion along those lines. I accept that we need laws that work and can be enforced. The deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, whom I quoted earlier, also accepted that the matter could not be dealt with overnight, as there are clearly many millions of airguns in the country and it will take some time to change the law effectively. However, the issue certainly deserves both debate and action at an early stage in the current legislative timetable.

I endorse my hon. Friend's comments, especially about replica weapons, which are an increasing menace. Does he accept that, as the law stands, no one under the age of 17 can legally purchase an airgun or pellets? There are about 30 separate offences under which the misuse of airguns to lead to a criminal prosecution. In addition to clarifying the law, should we not also ensure that the existing law is properly enforced by the police?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a lot to be done to ensure that the existing law is effectively enforced. The excellent campaign, "If you don't need it, get shot of it", is being run by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Executive. It is designed to encourage members of the public to hand in unwanted airguns. The law needs to be enforced, but the signs are that we need changes in the law as well and that the existing law does not go far enough.

Personally, I would be in favour of moving to a system in which all airguns were removed from use; the only exceptions would be those used for genuine sporting purposes or for acceptable reasons such as pest control—and then only under licence. I suggest that the age limit for possession and use should be raised to 18 and that there should be a ban on replica guns. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) agrees with me about that. I have set out those three points in early-day motion 234. I am pleased to see that, within a couple of days, it has received the support of several hon. Members. I hope that those who have not yet signed it will do so, and that they will also sign other EDMs such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, to show their concern about the issue and their wish for action.

With the support of Lorne community council—the local community organisation in my constituency to which I referred earlier—I have also launched a public petition and a campaign calling for the three changes to the law that I set out in my early-day motion. It is an indication of public concern about the issue that even before I formally launched the petition, constituents came into my office asking for copies so that they could circulate it among friends and family and in their communities to collect signatures. I would be happy to assist any hon. Members who would like copies of the petition for use in their own constituencies.

I hope that there is a good response to my petition and to the others in many parts of the UK that have often been spontaneously launched following incidents in, I am afraid, all too many of our cities, towns and villages. I believe that the strong support shown in such petitions will have a major influence on the Government when they decide on the details of the legislation that they intend to introduce in due course.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on calling this important and timely debate. He mentioned my early-day motion 221, which raises the possibility of introducing a licensing system, given that there are already more than 4 million unlicensed air weapons in this country. However, is he aware that I called an Adjournment debate on this very issue as long ago as 1999? Given that that is more than five years ago, it is time that the Government did something about the issue. The current legal controls are not working, and we need to tighten them up to ensure the safety of children in particular.

My hon. Friend is recognised throughout the House for the work that he has been doing on this issue and for the campaign that he has been running. I agree that it is time for action to be taken. We can have a debate about whether there should be a ban or a licence scheme, but we certainly agree that action is needed, and we expect the Government to introduce appropriate legislation.

I congratulate the Government on the measures that they have taken so far to tighten up the law on airguns, and I certainly recognise that they have made a difference. As I said, there have been campaigns in Scotland and in England and Wales to deal with the problem, to encourage the public to hand in unwanted airguns and to draw attention to the laws that have been tightened up. However, we must do more. We must move further. That is why I hope that today's debate will encourage the Government to respond to the scale of the problem and to growing public concern by taking firm measures to clamp down on the misuse of airguns and the dangers presented by replica guns. It is time to take these weapons off our streets and out of our communities, where there is absolutely no need for them to be.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing this important debate, which raises many challenging and significant issues. I also pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who are here, because they have consistently raised their concerns about this issue over many years.

Of course, I recognise the depth and range of feelings aroused by this matter among community council members in my hon. Friend's constituency and among other groups both there and throughout the country. Such groups are very vocal about their concerns, which are forcefully brought home to us by incidents such as the tragic death of the two-year-old Andrew Morton. I am sure that that incident arouses in us all a feeling of deep sympathy for that young boy's family and a determination to do all that we can to avoid the reoccurrence of such incidents. Indeed, public safety must always be uppermost in our minds. The shootings about which we have heard during the debate, including the cynical targeting of fire fighters, demonstrate just how dangerous air weapons can be in the wrong place and in the wrong hands.

There are four distinct classes of airgun. At the lower end of the scale, there are airsoft weapons, which are frequently described as BB guns. Although there is considerable concern about the use of such weapons, they are not capable of inflicting potentially lethal injury, so they are not classed as firearms and do not fall under the control of the Firearms Act 1968. Airguns that are classed as firearms do not require a police-issued firearms certificate unless they are of a type considered by the Secretary of State to be especially dangerous. These more dangerous weapons include air pistols with muzzle energies in excess of 6 ft pounds and air rifles with muzzle energies in excess of 12 ft pounds. Anybody wishing to possess either type of weapon must demonstrate that they have a good reason to do so.

Finally, there are air weapons that have been designed or adapted to use a self-contained gas cartridge or SCGC system. The cartridges are loaded into the weapon in the same way that conventional cartridges are loaded into conventional firearms and are fired in the same way. One problem with such air weapons is that their design and construction make them amenable for conversion to conventional ammunition. To prevent their conversion and use by criminals, such weapons were, by virtue of section 39 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, brought under the control of section 5 of the 1968 Act. Weapons controlled by section 5 are prohibited weapons that may be possessed only with the specific authority of the Secretary of State, although existing owners were allowed to keep them, provided that they obtained a firearms certificate.

Although, as I said, there is no requirement for low-powered air weapons to be kept on a certificate, the law nevertheless recognises that the misuse of air weapons can result in very serious injuries and, on occasion, even death. The use and possession of airguns is therefore strictly controlled. It is, for example, an offence for anyone to sell or to make a gift of an air weapon to a person under 17. It is an offence for anyone under 14 to be in possession of an air weapon unless they are under the direct supervision of a person aged 21 or over. It is an offence for anyone under 17 to be in unsupervised possession of an air weapon unless they are at an approved club or miniature shooting gallery, or on private land with the owner's permission. It is an offence for anyone between 14 and 16 who is shooting unsupervised on private land to allow any pellet to cross the boundary of that land. It is also an offence for anyone of any age to be in possession of an air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse or to discharge an air weapon within 50 ft of the centre of a public road in such a way as to impede or endanger road users.

Trespassing with an air weapon, be it in a building or on land, is an offence, as is shooting protected wild birds or causing any animal unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, having an air weapon with intent to commit a crime is a very serious offence, as is having an air weapon with intent to endanger life or damage property. There is, of course, also a range of other offences—under legislation covering offences against the person, for example. There is also a range of penalties that the court might apply, extending to life imprisonment for the more serious offences of going armed or endangering another person's life. So there is a range of serious offences and a commensurate range of penalties that the courts can apply when people commit those offences.

Of course, air weapons have legitimate uses. They are often used by clubs or individual shooters because they are very short-ranged and can be used where the length of ranges is restricted. They are also much less powerful than conventional target weapons, so they can be used to teach new shooters the safe handling of guns and shooting techniques. Besides their use as target weapons, air weapons are used in vermin control, as their low power makes them ideal for use in confined situations or inside buildings, where there would be a danger of damage to the fabric if conventional weapons were used. There are legitimate, constructive uses to which air weapons can be put.

Although there are no completely reliable figures, it is estimated that there are between 4 million and 7 million air weapons in private ownership in Great Britain. In 2003–04, which is the latest period for which we have figures, air weapons were used in 13,756 recorded offences in England and Wales, with a further 415 in Scotland. The majority of those offences—some 10,395, plus 255 in Scotland—were acts of minor criminal damage. Of the remainder, 2,377 involved injuries, of which 156 were more serious than a bruise and one was, regrettably, fatal. Scotland recorded a further 112 injuries of all kinds.

Any incident of misuse is, of course, wholly unacceptable, and we are determined to tackle the problem vigorously. My hon. Friend has given us a comprehensive overview of the deep concerns that have been expressed in his constituency. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in his constituency and the petition that he initiated, allowing people there to be vocal about their concerns. The events in his constituency that he outlined will have undoubtedly prompted people to voice those concerns.

I understand those concerns and want to reassure my hon. Friend that we have been working closely at ministerial and official level with colleagues in Scotland to see what more can be done. I hope that he will be reassured to know that yesterday my ministerial colleagues and I met the Scottish Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, to discuss this very issue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has undertaken to meet the First Minister and the Minister for Justice to discuss further proposals shortly. In looking at options, we must consider proportionality, cost and ease of policing, as well as effectiveness. We must also take into account the legitimate expectations of the vast majority of air weapon owners, who use their guns safely and responsibly and condemn those who misuse air weapons.

Various proposals have been made. An outright ban is not practical, bearing in mind the numbers. As I said, between 4 million and 7 million air weapons are in private ownership, with no record of who possesses them or where they are. Many owners would fail to surrender their guns, deliberately or otherwise. The cost of compensation would run into many millions of pounds and the logistical problems of paying it and disposing of the unwanted guns would be considerable. In addition, the guns not handed in could form the basis of a black market in such weapons.

The introduction of a certification regime would, in theory at least, help to locate the owners of all the air weapons in circulation and give the police the opportunity to vet all potential owners before allowing them to purchase an air weapon. Again, however, not all owners may be prepared either to surrender their guns or to apply for a certificate. Certification would be a huge and potentially resource-intensive task that could place a considerable administrative burden on the police service and be met only at the expense of other areas of police work.

I am interested to hear the Minister's considered response. Does he accept that a licensing system is not necessarily the panacea that some make it out to be? I cite the example of Thomas Hamilton, the man responsible for the horrific Dunblane outrage, who was in possession of legitimate firearms licences, as was Michael Ryan, the man responsible for the horrific murders in Hungerford. We must be careful to ensure that a licensing system, if proposed, does not seek to do more than it is capable of doing.

I hope that I have given an assurance that one must be both practical and well intentioned on such issues. I am sure that those who make such proposals do so for positive reasons, but we would need to ensure that such systems worked if we were ever to consider introducing them.

Restricting sales to authorised dealers would perhaps be another way of limiting availability and would at least reduce the number of outlets for such weapons. Registered dealers tend to be careful in their dealings. However, again there is no guarantee that that would stop air weapons from getting into the hands of the wrong sort of people. Indeed, there is some anecdotal evidence that many of the guns being misused are acquired second hand, and controls on such sales would be unenforceable. Also, record keeping would be problematic, because most airguns do not have a unique serial number, although that is something that we are keeping under active review.

There have been many calls to change the age limits at which air weapons can be owned or used unsupervised. Much of the misuse of airguns is down to young people, and in the 2003 Act we raised the age limit for ownership from 14 to 17. Given that we propose to increase the age limit for buying knives to 18, there is a strong argument for introducing a similar age limit for air weapons.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will be aware, we promised in our manifesto to introduce a violent crime reduction Bill and to tighten the law on the indiscriminate and reckless firing of air weapons from private property.

If legislation regarding the age at which airguns can be possessed comes forward, it will be welcome, but I hope that my hon. Friend will introduce other measures to respond to the concerns that hon. Members have raised in this debate.

In the short time that remains, I hope to touch on one or two of those issues, although age limits are an important issue to which people regularly draw Ministers' attention. The prohibition on allowing pellets to cross the boundary of property applies only to young people under 17. We will look to extend that offence to people of any age. We are also looking to toughen up the penalties for those convicted of having an air weapon in a public space without a reasonable excuse. We want to send out a clear and powerful message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

In the wrong hands, air weapons can be extremely dangerous and a source of considerable nuisance. We view such misuse very seriously indeed and have already taken measures that bear down hard on irresponsible and criminal behaviour. However, there is no room for complacency. The misuse of air weapons is a persistent problem, particularly in urban areas, and it is an issue that we cannot ignore. We will shortly bring forward further measures to increase age limits and stop people from firing beyond the boundaries of premises, thereby addressing concerns about private land being used as a shield from prosecution. We are also considering increasing the penalty available to the courts for anyone convicted of having an air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse. Such measures will, I hope, help to reassure my hon. Friends that we are determined to reduce air weapon misuse.

Home Office Ministers are in discussion with our Scottish colleagues, who are considering measures to restrict further the availability of air weapons. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to keep the law under close scrutiny, in partnership with Scottish colleagues, to make sure that we do all that we can to ensure the public's safety.

I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and I also welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), who will answer the debate. While doing so, however, may I express my concern that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), whose brief is dentistry—as it was in the last Parliament—is not here to respond to this debate on an issue of great concern not only to my constituents but to the population at large? Her absence, coupled with the fact that she did not attend the conference of the British Dental Association, shows a lack of interest in this important subject. I hope that the Minister will do his best as her substitute—perhaps in due course he will be promoted to the important post of dentistry Minister if he demonstrates his interest in the subject.

I hope that the Minister shares my belief that healthy teeth and gums are very important for a good quality of life. Dental care should, therefore, be a core responsibility of the national health service, so that our citizens can enjoy healthy teeth for life through preventive treatment. Without healthy teeth and gums, people suffer pain, discomfort, bad breath and low self-esteem. Ultimately, they can be rendered unable to masticate and digest, and that affects other aspects of their health.

If the Minister is with me so far, I hope that he can answer this question, which I put to him on behalf of my constituents and millions of others who contribute through high taxes and national insurance to the NHS and believe in its avowed principles: is the phrase NHS dentistry now an oxymoron? How can NHS dentistry be safe in this Government's hands when all the evidence suggests that it is being relegated to the status of a fringe NHS service, as eye care and chiropody have been?

Let us consider access to NHS dentistry. In 1999, at a dental conference in Bournemouth, the Prime Minister pledged that by September 2001, NHS dentistry would be available to all who wanted it. Not only has that pledge been broken, but things have got far worse. The traditional and surest guarantee of access to an NHS dentist is to be a registered patient of an NHS dentist.

"All treatment necessary to maintain oral health is available on the NHS and dentists cannot refuse any necessary treatment to a registered patient."

That statement is contained in the Government policy document, "NHS Dentistry: Delivering Change", published in July 2004. Superficially, it sounds fine, but the catch lies in the use of the phrase "registered patient". If one is not a registered patient, one cannot be guaranteed access to NHS treatment.

I am sure that the Minister will try to spin the fallacious line that people do not have to be registered with a dentist to access NHS dentistry. However, Ministers fail to say that a patient who is not registered with the NHS and needs emergency or other treatment has no guarantee of being able to obtain it locally on the NHS. Indeed, in my constituency it is normally nigh on impossible to obtain it at all.

Let me give an example. This very morning I was pleased to welcome to the Palace of Westminster pupils and teachers from Somerford school. One of the teachers said that, within the past fortnight, a 10-year-old Chinese pupil at the school who needed to have a tooth extracted had to travel all the way from Christchurch to London in order to obtain access to NHS dentistry. That is a vivid, appalling local example of what is happening in practice.

The key to access to NHS dentistry is registration. That is why sensible people want to enjoy the security of being able to register with an NHS dentist. Surely it is not asking a lot for citizens of the fourth richest nation in the world, who pay large contributions to the NHS through tax and national insurance, to be able to register with an NHS dentist. However, the percentage of the population aged 18 and over who are registered with a general dental surgeon in the high street has declined to 39 per cent., and the percentage of those aged under 18 registered with a dentist has fallen to 54 per cent. That means that some 39 million adults are not registered with an NHS dentist, and some 6 million patients aged under 18 are unregistered. Contrary to Government assertions, the proportion of registered NHS dental patients—both adults and children—is declining. That is supported by a recent report from the Consumers Association, which found that 49 per cent. of NHS dental practices in England could not offer an urgent appointment for unregistered patients, 58 per cent. of NHS practices were not taking on any new NHS patients and only 8 per cent. of dental practices were able to offer an emergency NHS appointment within 24 hours.

Within the last fortnight, Robinson's dental practice in Castle street, Christchurch, has given three months' notice to all its NHS-registered patients that they are to lose their registration. It is offering instead private treatment, funded through regular Denplan payments, which start at £8 per month. Robinson's is the latest in a long line of dental practices in my constituency to have adopted that approach. It is not that those dentists do not support the NHS; they do. The problem is that, under this Government, the NHS is not prepared to support them in their aspiration to provide a high-quality professional service to their patients, even when they are funded by the NHS.

This morning, talking to the group from Somerford school, I spoke to Mrs. Sue Read. She is one of those who have received the letter from Robinson's dental practice, and she is concerned about what she is meant to do now. Will she be able to get access to an alternative NHS dentist, or will she have to pay the £8 per month? She pointed out that that is only the start, because if she and her husband, who is also registered with that dentist, want treatment beyond the regular inspections, they will have to pay for that on top. That is the reality of the problems faced by my constituents. I hope that the Minister can explain what they should do, and give some specific advice to Mrs. Read.

Meanwhile, the Government are offering the prospect of a new NHS dental production line in new premises funded by capital grants from the NHS, to be staffed predominantly by dentists recruited from overseas. Why are they putting minimal effort into retaining existing, well qualified and respected NHS dentists, while providing capital grants for new facilities staffed by foreign-trained dentists willing to engage in lowest common denominator dentistry? The Government's policy does not make sense unless one ascribes to them the motive that they wish to drive patients and their providers into the private sector if at all possible, and to produce a substitute, lower-quality service for those who cannot afford that or do not wish to move.

It would be wrong to suggest that all foreign dentists are not up to scratch, but it would also be wrong for the Minister to close his eyes to the many instances in which foreign dentists have been found seriously wanting in their professional standards. Mrs. Holsworth of Scarborough challenged the Prime Minister about the issue on 30 March, citing the example of three dentists recruited from overseas: the first went home with a criminal record, the second turned out not to be qualified and the third made so many mistakes that he was sacked. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and, in so doing, to congratulate him on his great victory in a constituency in which NHS dentistry is a big issue.

I do not know whether this problem is particularly associated with seaside constituencies. Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation that has arisen in Scarborough since the one that he referred to, and which was exposed last month by the Yorkshire Post? Polish dentists on full pay are not being effectively deployed because there is a shortage of chairs for them to work in. Is that not yet another example of the waste of NHS funds?

That is another example of the chaos caused by the Government's policy. Existing dentists cannot obtain new contracts or even details of new contracts, and foreign dentists are being brought in who, as my hon. Friend says, are not even being properly and effectively deployed.

I have heard stories from as far away as west Cornwall of embarrassing incidents of foreign dentists failing to meet British standards. Why, people ask, are the Government driving British-trained dentists out of the NHS while welcoming foreign dentists with open arms? The prospect of a new dental practice in Fairmile, Christchurch, which I understand from my local primary care trust is to be opened soon by Integrated Dental Holdings, may seem superficially attractive. It is obviously better than nothing for people who have been deprived of their NHS registration, but I do not believe that it is the complete answer to the problem that the Government are creating for themselves.

Under the headline, "Mass NHS uncertainty," the current edition of Dentistry magazine reports:

"Up to two thirds of dentists remain unsure about the future of NHS practice . . . One third are likely to convert to private practice and a further third are still deciding".

What more evidence does the Minister need that the Government have lost the confidence of UK dental practitioners? I do not believe that dentists want to abandon the NHS, but they cannot equate Government demands that they work harder for less money and maintain proper professional standards and patient care. Indeed, Robinson's dental practice makes that point in its letter to the patients who they are now saying can no longer be on their list as NHS patients. It says:

"We have postponed making changes for several years, in the hope that the situation would improve. However, fundamental changes planned by the government indicate that the situation is likely to deteriorate further.

Under the circumstances, we feel that the practice has reached a crossroads. The NHS no longer allows us to keep the practice viable, nor provides our patients with the high quality care that we wish to offer. As a result, I will no longer be offering NHS services to adult patients from this September."

That is a cry for help from a dental practice that has held out in the hope that things would get better, perhaps having been seduced into thinking that the Government's actions would follow their words but now realising that that will not happen.

For years, the Government have denied dentistry a fair share of increased NHS spending. Like other colleagues, I was shocked to hear from John Renshaw, chairman of the executive board of the British Dental Association, that although spending on the NHS as a whole has increased by 75 per cent. in the past 15 years, spending on dentistry has risen by only 9 per cent. How does the Minister justify that?

In the current year, the total net NHS budget for dentistry is £1.6 billion, which works out at about £27 per person per year—a paltry sum when set against the vast tax take of the NHS and the increased national insurance contributions imposed by the Government. The Government are crowing about the fact that that sum is some £4 per person per year higher than last year. Is it any wonder that NHS dentistry is in such crisis?

There is also the stealth tax of increased NHS patient charges, which is yet to be revealed. In 2003, the Government commissioned the Clayton report into dental charges. It has been sitting on the Minister's desk for the best part of a year. When will it see the light of day? Why has it been so delayed?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No; I do not have time.

Does the Minister accept that the report could lead to a massive increase in patients' financial contributions to dentistry from the current levels of about £5 million per annum?

As at July 2004, patients liable for dental charges paid 80 per cent. of their dentist's fees, which ranged from £3.50 for an X-ray to £297.70 for a fixed orthodontic appliance. The maximum patient charge for one course of treatment was £378. We understand that the report is likely to recommend substantially increased charges, inherent in which are increased stealth taxes. When will the report be produced, and why has it not seen the light of day so far?

When will the Government publish an enforceable protocol for the employment of foreign dentists? When will the Government accept that the surest way of being able to realise the Prime Minister's pledge of ensuring universal access to NHS dentistry is to enable everyone to be registered with an NHS dentist and for the Government to provide from their expanded NHS resources funding needed for the purpose?

My final point relates to dental training. The Government have presided over a substantial decline in the intake of pre-clinical students into UK dental schools, which was as high as 937 in 1996–97. The Government are now talking about creating a new dental school. Will the Minister give an assurance that it will be centred at the university of Southampton, which has put together a coherent and persuasive case for funding and development? Or was the Government's commitment to expand dental training merely pre-election salesman's puff?

My constituents are angry. Dentists are angry. The people are angry. The Minister now has the chance to set out a fresh and coherent policy to address these concerns and to reject the ill-judged comment of the previous Secretary of State for Health, now Secretary of State for Defence, in a press conference launching the White Paper, "Choosing Health: making healthy choices easier", that NHS dentistry had been "sorted."

NHS dentistry needs sorting urgently. I hope that this debate will spur the Government into action.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to respond to him this afternoon. He will not remember this, but some years ago, when I was a humble student of political science researching the emergence of competitive tendering under the Thatcher Administration, I spent a great deal of time familiarising myself with his former work, and he did me a very great kindness in his former role as a Minister by spending time with me to help me to complete my dissertation. He will be delighted to learn that it came top of the class. I also learned that there is a great centre of expertise on this subject in Wandsworth, and I am pleased that all that expertise has been brought to bear in this afternoon's debate.

In the time allotted to me, I shall reprise the Government's approach, as the hon. Gentleman requested, before addressing some of the issues that he raised, not least the urgent issues that affect Christchurch, about which I was concerned to hear. He is right that there are crucial challenges and important concerns that must be confronted if we are to improve NHS dentistry. The Government's ambition is to do that not only in Christchurch, but throughout the country.

Our policy for effecting that transformation is extremely ambitious, to say the least. We propose the biggest programme of investment in, and reform of, NHS dentistry since the service began in 1948. Execution of that policy rests on three foundations: unprecedented new levels of investment; a new relationship between the NHS and dentists, expressed in local commissioning arrangements and in the new contract; and extraordinary new efforts to increase the number of dentists working in and for the NHS.

Let me first highlight the investment that is being made, because it will be of some comfort to the residents of Christchurch who are in part at the heart of our debate this afternoon. Last July, the former Secretary of State for Health, now Secretary of State for Defence, announced the unprecedented investment of £368 million. That means that funding for NHS dentistry is set to increase by 19 per cent in the financial year 2005–06, compared with spending in 2003–04. That is an extra spend of £250 million.

We have always made it clear, however, that that investment must be accompanied by reform. Central to that reform has been the devolution of commissioning, not to the man in Whitehall but to local health professionals who are in touch with the day-to-day needs of their local communities. At the heart of our plan to spend this new investment is the devolution of £1.6 billion to local primary care trusts, which will use their devolved budgets to ensure that local expenditure on dentistry is spent in accordance with local needs.

I have a question to ask the Minister. If he cannot answer it today, I should be grateful for a written response. How much of that money has been earmarked for Wales? Presumably, there has been an increase in the Welsh block grant to ensure that we can resolve the varied difficulties and debilitating problems that there are, particularly in rural areas. As in Christchurch, people simply cannot access NHS dentistry because none is available.

Those figures are not at my fingertips, so I will ensure that I write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.

The Minister is talking about the funding going to the local sources, so to speak. It is interesting that dentists are waiting for the base contract but that has been delayed and delayed and delayed, while in the meantime an enormous effort has been put in on PDS contracts. Dentists are beginning to wonder whether that is the way that the Government wish to go—contracting dentists through PDS contracts alone and moving away from the traditional service, which allows a more mixed-economy approach.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point and for the contributions that he has made in the past about fluoridation, which has been extremely important and is now enabled by the 2003 health legislation.

The best test of the position dentists are taking towards the new contract is what they do in practice. Already, 25 per cent. of dentists have signed up to the PDS. The Government statement has already been made to ensure that, together with the proposed changes to regulations on charges that will be subject to affirmative resolution in both houses, the contract will be across the piece by April next year.

The PDS contracts between PCTs and individual dental practices promise a great deal. They have been successfully piloted across the country and dentists are already taking up that new way of working, because it removes them from the treatment and paperwork treadmill. The figures to which I refer have been particularly successful in places such as Cheshire and Merseyside, and South Yorkshire, where more than half of the practices are signed up to the PDS.

The third important element of reform is the commitment to the increase—

I thank the Minister for his answer, but it was not the answer to the question. I was asking whether the Government intend that national health dentistry will be provided by PDS-contracted dentists, hospitals and teaching hospitals only.

Will the hon. Gentleman intervene again? I did not quite understand where he was going with that.

To a cynical dentist the Government's drive appears to be that the draft contract has not come—it has been wait, delay, wait, delay, wait, delay—and in the meantime, a huge effort has been made to promote PDS contracts. The cynical dentist assumes that the Government are moving down the road of providing NHS dentistry by PDS contracts or by hospital services, be that through teaching hospitals or otherwise.

The cynicism is perhaps misplaced. Although there have been delays, some were inspired by the recommendations of the National Audit Office and some by comments made by colleagues. Indeed, earlier this year the BDA and, I think, John Renshaw welcomed the fact that a slight delay had been injected into proceedings in order to ensure that the biggest reform of dental services since 1948 was conducted in a correct and effective manner, but also in a manner that allows primary care trusts the time and space to ensure that value for money—a subject that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Christchurch are familiar with and pioneers of in local government—was embedded in the new arrangements. My understanding is that the delays have been simply in order to ensure that the implementation of the new policy, which is important and far-reaching, is got right.

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his recent appointment. I intended to make a helpful intervention, but I have decided otherwise given that the Minister is clearly on top of the brief. Given the cataclysmic effect of the implementation of a renegotiated dental contract by the previous Government some time in 1992, which saw a significant number of NHS dentists go across to the private sector, why has it taken the Government nearly eight years to come forward with proposals to deal with a problem that has been around for a long time and where there is clearly precedent and a track record?

We make no apologies for the scale of our ambition for change in dental services, although the drift to the private sector highlighted by my hon. Friend began under the previous Administration, compounded by the 7 per cent. cut in fees that was part of the new contract.

The best response that I can give is to point my hon. Friend to some of the basic statistics over the past eight years. If one considers the number of dentists in the system in 1997, which was 16,387, and compares that with the number in 2005, there has been a 22 per cent. increase, to 20,000. There have never been as many dentists practising in this country. Let us also consider the number of adult registrations. In 1997, there were 19.7 million. That figure changed as the period of registration was altered down to 15 months. However, if we look at the increase in registration under the new recording statistics, they show an increase of 180,000. The numbers increase in four out of the six years for which data are available. There has been consistent progress in the number of dentists employed, the number of adult registrations and the number of treatments that have been made. It was the Government who commissioned a report into the viability of the future work force, and that in turn prompted the unprecedented investment announced last year by the then Secretary of State for Health.

To conclude, I want to turn to a number of the important local issues raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is important to stress that investment, reform and new practices are arriving in Christchurch. Dorset and Somerset strategic health authority, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, was allocated £814,000 capital and £349,000 revenue of the £50 million central funds to improve access to NHS dentistry for people in those counties.

The plans for the local primary care trust are set out in the dental action plan.

Will the Minister give way?

In the interests of making two more points, I will plough on, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The dental action plan is wide-ranging and ambitious. It involves a degree of international recruitment, but at the centre is the proposal for six PDS-based contracts to be implemented in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It involves three new practices and the expansion of three more. The three extra dentists would involve something like 6,300 extra registrations. If we take the global proposal for delivering PDS services in and around Christchurch, that is a potential new registration number of about 26,000. If we look at the specific example of Robinson's dental practice at 1 Castle street, today something like 2,500 adults and 994 children are registered at the practice.

Tomorrow, there will be a meeting between local practitioners and the Department of Health to go through some of the problems that emerged in the PDS proposals put to the Department earlier this year. If that meeting is successful and people are satisfied that the proposals constitute value for money, the local PCT's proposal is to migrate the NHS registrations to the Whitecross dental care practice, which is about a mile away, where there are five full-time dentists providing capacity for about 10,000 patients. My specific advice to the hon. Gentleman's constituent would be to look to Whitecross towards the end of this week, when the proposals are finalised.

Why have the Government driven Mr. Robinson out of NHS dental practice?

It is a red herring to pretend that the Government are in the business of driving dentists out of NHS practice. If we consider the overall number of dentists practising in this country, the trend is clear. The fact that the number of dentists has increased by 22.6 per cent. since 1997 speaks for itself, as does the increase in the number of registrations.

indicated dissent.

Although the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, he must remember that that is in sharp contrast to the figures under the last Conservative Administration, when in 1992 adult registrations fell from 21.8 million to 19 million and a bit: a decline of 2.1 million registrations in the space of about four years.

In conclusion, the Government's approach—for investment, reform and international recruitment to plug the gaps that we inherited—warrants and promises good news for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Christchurch.

I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of the Niger delta region of Nigeria, particularly so early in the new Parliament. Nigeria has been held as a beacon of democracy for the rest of Africa, and the Commission for Africa points to it as an example of democracy for the rest of the continent. For that to be true, the delta region must be stable, or the fate of Africa's largest democracy will hang in the balance.

At first glance, Nigeria appears to be a prosperous nation, enjoying its first decade of democracy and looking forward to another democratic presidential election in 2007. Under President Obasanjo's leadership, the country has become stable. His anti-corruption drive is to be applauded, but there is still progress to be made.

Through my work with the Niger delta group and with the help of various stakeholders in the region, I have discovered that although Nigeria has massive oil wealth, its oil is also a main source of myriad problems in the delta. Oil accounts for 80 per cent. of Nigeria's revenue and 98 per cent. of its exports, and many thousands of jobs are linked to the oil industry. Shell in Nigeria produced 1.3 million barrels of oil a day in 2004, which was up from 910,000 barrels a day in 2003. It is therefore easy to see why many people assume that Nigeria is a rich country that does not need any assistance from the international community, but we must not accept that rosy picture of it as a prosperous, democratic, oil-producing nation.

For the ordinary people living in the Niger delta, life could not be more different. The advent of massive oil companies has brought not the promised prosperity but poverty, pollution and state-sponsored militia violence, but the picture is not all bleak. The international community is beginning to recognise that something must be done to help the Niger delta. Even the setting up of the Niger delta group and the plan for MPs to visit the delta has given people in the region hope that their plight is finally being taken seriously by western Governments. It is also vital that the Nigerian Government should address the problems to ensure long-lasting peace.

A recent positive step toward securing peace in the delta was the start of the Ogoni-Shell dialogue. Representatives of the Rivers State government, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People issued separate statements last week announcing their commitment to a structured process of reconciliation aimed at drawing in all sections of the Ogoni people. The statements came after the President appointed the Rev. Father Matthew Hassan Kukah as facilitator in the reconciliation process. He will be assisted by the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry cathedral, which has been particularly helpful to me and others in the setting up of the Niger delta group. The people of Ogoniland have, like many other communities in the region, suffered immensely over the years, and there has been widespread mistrust.

Important as the statements are, they do not mean that peace has been secured, but they are an important first step to demonstrate the feeling that something has to change in the delta for peace and stability to be given a chance. I seek the Secretary of State's assurance that his Department will do all that it can to help the peace process, particularly by supporting the vital work of the ICR at Coventry in encouraging all sides to talk through their difficulties and work together for peace instead of resorting to violent means of protest.

The problems brought about by the influx of oil companies in the delta are interlinked and complex, and tend to fuel each other in cycles of tension and violence. The most obvious are environmental damage, community tensions, bunkering and small arms problems. The overriding theme with all those problems has to be the Nigerian state and its failure to provide for or engage with its people who live in the delta. Without the support of the Nigerian Government and the guarantee that the 2007 elections will be free and fair in the delta, no amount of work by non-governmental organisations or foreign Governments will secure peace in the region.

To explain the problems further, I wish to highlight the environmental impacts associated with oil production, such as gas flaring and oil spills. Gas flaring is the burning off of the gas produced when oil is drilled, and takes place round the clock very close to communities all around the Delta, sometimes only a few metres from people's candlelit homes. Recent global estimates indicate that the flaring of this associated gas in Nigeria accounts for about 20 per cent. of the total gas flared in the world, releasing some 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually into the air.

The practice of flaring has been prohibited under Nigerian law since 1984, but it is far more cost-effective for oil companies to make the flare continuation payments—commonly referred to as fines—levied on them by the Nigerian Government than to find better ways of using the gas. Unless the Nigerian Government tighten up enforcement, that harmful practice will continue and the amount of flared gas will increase as oil production levels increase as projected.

The second significant environmental impact of oil production is that caused by oil spills and pipe leakages, which has led to the destruction of the only means of making a living that many people had—fishing in riverine areas and farming the land. Official figures indicate that there are, on average, 300 spills or leaks a year, but many estimate that the figure is much higher. The pollution is now such that the land is unworkable and the rivers are filled with poisoned fish, leaving whole communities with no means of providing for their families.

Oil companies pay compensation to communities for drilling on their land, but that brings its own problems. It creates a culture of dependency on oil company handouts, as opposed to a peaceful and independent existence based on traditional livelihoods such as fishing and farming. The oil companies pay such compensation to what are known as host communities, which are those immediately next to where the companies operate. Designation as a host community means substantial benefits in the form of compensation payments and other development assistance such as schools and clinics. Competition for recognition as a host community has created significant intra and inter-community tensions that frequently result in violent conflict.

The Nigerian state should be supplying such facilities for its people, but the oil companies have taken on the role of quasi-states, providing for the basic human needs of communities. When they feel that they have provided enough money or facilities to justify operating on the land, they—fairly reasonably, one might think—cease to provide for those communities, leaving them feeling betrayed and abandoned.

The presence of the oil companies and their quasi-state role has served only to worsen the ethnic tensions in the delta. Ethnic and tribal tensions are inherently linked to the abject poverty there, where only 27 per cent. of households have access to safe drinking water, two thirds of Nigerians live on less than a dollar a day, and the destruction of farming and fishing means that there are no legitimate means of social mobility.

The people of the delta are resourceful, and were independent and hard working before oil production polluted their land and created a culture of dependency on oil company handouts. There are few legitimate employment prospects for the average young person in the delta. There are no resources for setting up small businesses, because of a complete absence of micro-credit. As a result, there are large numbers of disaffected and disillusioned youths in the delta with nothing to do, no money and no legitimate means of earning any, and, hence, no status in society. Political leaders have exploited that. They have actively recruited, paid and armed local youths in order to secure their political and economic interests. The consequences of that political manipulation were felt particularly strongly in the Rivers state in 2004, when fighting between armed gangs, which at one point were supported by senior members of the state government, spiralled out of control.

Unless there are alternatives for these young men, they will continue to engage in militia activities linked with the bunkering of oil, and that will lead to an explosion of violence. That is particularly pertinent in the run-up to the 2007 federal and state elections, as the jostling for positions of power has already begun. Armed youths are used by local politicians to intimidate Opposition supporters and the local population in order to secure an election victory.

I urge the Secretary of State to look at the situation that young people in the delta face, and to recognise how easy it is for them to be co-opted into a life of violence. I also urge him to look at what long-term development initiatives could be started in the delta, to work with the non-governmental organisations that are on the ground there and to support development projects. As I have mentioned, the lack of any form of micro-finance makes it impossible for people to set up small businesses; perhaps the Department for International Development could assist with that, so that people can pursue sustainable and profitable livelihoods.

In recent months, it has been reported to me by people returning from the delta that the situation with the militia gangs is heating up considerably. Many commentators believe that the delta is about to explode, and if that is to be prevented something must be done about it very soon. Whereas only a few years ago these gangs were fighting each other with small knives, handguns and home-made weapons, now they have AK47s and many other heavy weapons. Therefore, gang warfare has taken a serious turn for the worse. This new influx of arms has been funded by bunkering, which leads me on to the final problem that I wish to highlight.

Bunkering is the theft of crude oil at source. It involves tapping into pipes and diverting the flow of oil to barrels belonging to the bunkerers, which are then shipped offshore and transported mainly to west African countries, but also much further afield to America and Europe. The sums made from bunkering are immense, as is the scale of operations. Industry figures estimate that 100,000 barrels of oil are stolen every day; 10 per cent. of daily output is therefore lost to oil theft.

Given the current price of a barrel of oil even at black market prices, it is clear that bunkering is big business. Many of the gang rivalries that I have mentioned have been linked to bunkering, as rival leaders fight for control of bunkering routes. Bunkering money is also used to buy arms for the gangs. Therefore, we can see how bunkering is fuelling tribal tensions in a number of ways.

As I have said, the importance of a stable Niger delta cannot be overstated, yet neither the media nor the British Government have paid much attention to the region. That is beginning to change, and it should be welcomed.

We have a window of opportunity to make a real difference and secure a stable Niger delta, but in six to eight months that opportunity could be lost. The run-up to the 2007 federal and state elections could either cement democracy in Nigeria or cause a massive explosion of militia violence in the delta, leading to untold bloodshed and massive instability for the rest of Nigeria—Africa's largest democracy.

Nigeria is to be applauded for its courageous move to democracy, but the reality for the people in the Niger delta is not rosy. In the 2003 elections, there was widespread vote rigging in the delta, enforced by heavily armed militia youths employed by political candidates, including members of Obasanjo's ruling party. Unless things improve, feelings of disfranchisement from and abandonment by the Nigerian state will fester even more. That, along with the massive amount of small arms and the poverty and general civil unrest that exists there, is a recipe for disaster. It would be a disaster not only for the delta but for Nigeria as a whole.

In addition, if we view Nigeria as the vital part of Africa that it clearly is, we must act now to secure peace and stability in the country. As we prepare for the G8 summit in Gleneagles, and as all eyes turn to what we are going to do to help Africa, we must not take for granted the country of Nigeria, and assume that its vast oil wealth and democracy are a reality for all its citizens.

Finally, the issue in the delta is no longer how much oil money the region is getting proportionate to its population. If it were indeed the case that the delta was receiving a disproportionately large percentage of oil revenue compared with the rest of Nigeria and that that money was genuinely getting to the people, we would not be having this debate. The reality is that poverty is widespread and that some form of reaction is inevitable. The people do not feel that they are being listened to, and if that does not change, violence will be almost inevitable. If Nigeria turns to revolution, what are the consequences for Africa?

If we cannot solve the problems of, and help support, a country like Nigeria with all its oil wealth, what chance do we have with Africa as a whole? How can we solve the corruption of a continent if we cannot solve the problems of just one country?

I hope that I have not been too negative or alarmist in my analysis of the situation in the delta. Much progress has been made. However, it is important that we are all aware of the reality of the situation. I am concerned about the meagre progress that seems to have been made following the Adjournment debate secured this time last year by my former colleague Bill Tynan. I press the Secretary of State for a firm policy commitment from his Department with regard to the Niger delta.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) on securing this debate and on making an outstanding speech. I am left with little to add in describing the situation in the Niger delta.

I welcome the opportunity to focus the attention of the House on this very important part of a very important country. The compelling picture painted by my hon. Friend clearly draws greatly on his knowledge as acting chair of the all-party group, and I pay tribute to him and to his colleagues who are working hard to ensure that we focus more on what is happening in the delta for exactly the reason that he outlines: what happens in Nigeria is of huge importance to the future of Africa as a whole.

I wish to begin where my hon. Friend left off. As Nigeria has such great oil wealth, many people have a perception that it is a wealthy country, but the truth is that it is one of the poorest countries in Africa. Its GDP per head is only $350. It is a very poor country. Why? It has a population of 133 million, 60 per cent. of whom live in absolute poverty, on less than a dollar a day. Nigeria is also home to one in 10 of the world's HIV-positive population. That is not the case because Nigeria's HIV infection rate is especially high; 4 million people in Nigeria are HIV-positive, but it has a large population.

As Nigeria has so many poor people, what happens there is crucial to the achievement of the millennium development goals in Africa—getting children into school, reducing the number of mothers who die needlessly in childbirth and the number of children who die needlessly of preventable diseases. Significant outside help will be needed, including action to solve Nigeria's debt problems. It is worth reflecting on the fact that Nigeria—a very poor country with a GDP per head of only $350 and with 60 per cent. of its population living on less than a dollar a day—currently pays far more to the rich Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations in debt repayments every year than it receives in aid. I call that an unsustainable debt burden, especially when children are dying unnecessarily.

My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that that country, which has suffered so much, has a long and complex history, and I share his view that it is beginning to take steps to address the consequences of decay, dictatorship, bad governance and poverty, which have been created as a result of its history. One of the big issues in Nigeria is that there is both the federal state and the states; it is a very large country. At federal level, a very ambitious programme is being led by President Obasanjo and his colleagues, which includes a crackdown on corruption, to which I will return later. It is important that we acknowledge the progress that is beginning to be made in Nigeria, and it is important that that is recognised by the international community.

One of the manifestations of that recognition is the fact that we are responding by increasing the size of our aid programme; we are doubling it and, if progress continues, we shall treble it. Relatively speaking, given its population of 133 million and its poverty, the country is under-aided. One of the main reasons why is that many donors left Nigeria during the military dictatorship because, frankly, it was a hard country in which to work.

The Niger delta is hugely important to the future of the country. It is about the same size as Scotland and has nine states, a population of about 20 million, more than 40 ethnic groups speaking 250 dialects and 3,000 communities. Some 70 per cent. of its population lives in rural areas. It is also one of the world's largest wetlands: 80 per cent. of the delta floods every season. The coastal states include vast areas that can only be reached by boat, yet this swamp is where most of the oil is produced. The area has particularly suffered from successive military Governments, as well as from the sense of isolation and of not being listened to that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Of course, the delta is also a rich source of oil. The vast majority of Nigeria's oil—2.3 million barrels a day—comes from the delta, and it accounts for 70 per cent. of the Government's revenue. As many of the 20 million people in the delta live in poverty, do not go to school and suffer from ill-health, what happens there will be hugely important. However, we have to be absolutely honest with ourselves and each other: unless we tackle the violent conflict and the insecurity that has beset the region and, through that, address its development needs, there will not be the progress that we all want and the delta will not have the better future that its people desperately desire.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a very short time scale in which to act? Once the country is in the run-up to the 2007 election, the last thing we would want is to seem to be trying to influence that election. The next six to eight months are therefore vital in trying to help and support the country.

I accept that point, although the truth is that these are deep-seated problems. As I shall explain, the solution requires fundamental change. If I really thought that there were things that we—the international community and the Government of Nigeria—could do to sort out the problem quickly in the six to eight months to which my hon. Friend refers, I would be more optimistic about what might be achieved, but in all honesty, I think that we are talking about a longer haul than that, for reasons that I shall come to now.

Despite the problems to which my hon. Friend referred, it is a fact that, overall, the Niger delta does better than the rest of Nigeria when it comes to school attendance, particularly for girls, literacy and access to clean water and proper sanitation. For example, 20 per cent. of children in the Niger delta have been fully immunised against killer diseases. That seems pretty low to us, yet it is better than the national average in Nigeria, which is 13 per cent. In the north-west of Nigeria, the figure is 4 per cent. So in the context of the whole country, the Niger delta is in some respects better off, although I accept entirely my hon. Friend's point about corruption and violence. The collapse in immunisation rates in Nigeria over the past 20 years is in part a consequence of the fact that donors who were there have said, "We're off." Why? They have done so because of the corruption, military dictatorship and violence that the country has suffered.

At 63 per 1,000, child mortality in the Niger delta is at half the national rate of 121 per 1,000. That is not to say that there is not a great deal more that can and should be done. However, on funding, we have to acknowledge that the nine states that make up the Niger delta receive a higher proportion of the national cake than other states. The Niger delta has 13 per cent. of Nigeria's population, and it gets 30 per cent. of state revenues. The issues are how the money is used, corruption and the governance of the area. In addition, because the states in the area are oil-producing, they benefit from community development support from the major oil companies.

I recognise completely that without security improvements in the Niger delta, sustainable development will simply not be possible. My hon. Friend referred to the bunkering of oil, and a vicious cycle of violence, criminal behaviour and corruption is associated with that theft. Thousands of people have been displaced and many people have been killed. The Nigerian Government, who in the end have primary responsibility, need to take decisive action to halt the violence, stop the flow of small arms into the region and provide more effective policing at community level.

In response to my hon. Friend's specific point, the UK Government are providing support to the excellent work of the Coventry Cathedral International Centre for Reconciliation, which I commend. The centre is working with the Nigerian authorities to try to broker agreements, including one between the Shell oil company and the Ogoni people.

A second thing that we have to recognise is that without better governance things will not change. For too long, the authorities that have responsibility for providing basic services such as roads, health care and education have failed the communities that they are supposed to serve. Funds from central Government intended for development—let us remember that 13 per cent. of the population gets 30 per cent. of state revenues—have been diverted. Improving transparency and strengthening the anti-corruption drive in the Niger delta are essential.

At federal level, the Government are taking forward the fight against corruption. As we speak, a former Education Minister is facing charges for trying to bribe members of Parliament to vote him a bigger budget. He is now on trial. The former leader of the Senate is currently facing charges, and two judges were recently sacked for corruption. In a society where corruption had been endemic, it requires political courage to take the problem on, to change the way in which things work and to make people realise that that is not the way things have to be. Without such a change, we will not get the fundamental difference in people's lives that we want.

In that respect, we should bear in mind Nigeria's support for the extractive industries transparency initiative, which was launched by our Prime Minister just over two years ago. It is based on a very simple principle: oil and mining companies should publish what they pay to Governments, and Governments should publish what they receive from mining and oil companies. If there is such openness and transparency, people have the chance to start asking their Government, "What have you done with the money that you got from the oil wealth? What have you done with 30 per cent. of state revenues?"

If a democracy is to work, the Government must have the capacity to deliver and people must have the expectation that their Government will act on their behalf. Good, accurate information about the resources available and where they have gone is fundamental to an effective debate about the choices that need to be made. I welcome the steps that the Government of Nigeria are taking. The oil companies operating in the delta need to assist in that process by publishing details of all payments made to the Nigerian Government, and they should obviously take action to deter illegal oil bunkering.

On the environmental concerns, my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the damage caused. Gas flaring is a very important issue. The Nigerian Government have vowed to end gas flaring by 2008. I understand that Shell says it is unlikely to be able to make progress until the following year, but it is important that it does make progress, because the Niger delta is responsible for 19 or 20 per cent. of world gas flaring; that tells us how big the problem is. Action also needs to be taken to rein in the criminal gangs.

Finally, I turn to what we are doing. We are promoting the extractive industries transparency initiative. The Government have set up their Niger Delta Development Commission, but frankly they have to ensure that the money is spent effectively. We are seeking to support a coalition of non-governmental organisations that can work to demand better governance. I hope that that will include work in the delta. The European Commission has been doing some work, and through the World Bank universal basic education help is being provided. We support both those bodies.

In the end, the issue is the responsibility of the Nigerian Government. As things change, we will be prepared to do more work in the delta, but the circumstances have to be right to allow that to happen. The people of the Niger delta really want that change, because that is the only way in which their lives will improve.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.