I apologise for my nearly late arrival, Mr. Olner, but I have rarely seen such appalling traffic as I encountered on my way here.

I am pleased to have secured this debate about the future of NHS Logistics and the market testing process being carried out as part of the review of NHS arm's length bodies following the Gershon report. I have a constituency interest in that one of the six distribution centres that services the NHS supply chain is based at Somercotes Alfreton in my constituency. The centre, which employs about 400 staff, also serves as the headquarters of NHS Logistics. Labour Members who have NHS Logistics sites in their constituencies or whose constituents work at sites in neighbouring constituencies have been visiting the sites over the past year and more, we have held meetings and written to Ministers and recently tabled a number of parliamentary questions. Not all those Members who have a constituency interest are able to be here today—two are Ministers, so they are barred from participating in the debate, and a couple of others have inescapable commitments—but all are concerned about NHS Logistics.

I start with a quote:

"The NHS Logistics Authority has proved itself to be right at the forefront of the transformation taking place in the health service and it fully deserves this award."

That was the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), talking about NHS Logistics when it scooped a top award at the Health Service Journal awards. The award was for improving care through its work on developing an e-technology system and a good computer system. NHS Logistics received a large number of compliments for that work and for saving large sums of money through its systems.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is she aware that last year NHS Logistics beat all comers, including private sector organisations, to win the coveted supply chain of the year award, which is organised by Motor Transport magazine?

Yes, I am. NHS Logistics has won a string of awards. For example, last year it won an IT technology award for which it was praised by Sir Nigel Crisp. I am particularly interested in the IT awards, because we are told that the need for investment in a new computer system is a major reason for bringing the private sector into the NHS supply chain—in the role that is currently fulfilled by NHS Logistics. We hear that such investment can be funded only by the private sector, yet NHS Logistics has won many IT awards as well as awards for its other functions. That is just one of the things that puzzle those of us who have NHS Logistics sites in our constituencies.

We are also puzzled by some of the arguments that have been made for moving the service into the private sector. There is much on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is sensible to review the plethora of arm's length bodies to ensure that they provide value and effective services and work as efficiently as possible. It is also reasonable to keep the NHS supply chain under continuous review to ensure that it runs efficiently and to seek improvements. The evidence from our visits suggests that the supply chain is run efficiently. While safeguarding the security of the supply chain, we should also ensure that maximum resources are available for front-line patient care.

While we would not dispute that we have some common ground with the Minister, I and other hon. Members have sought this debate because there is under way a process of market testing to decide whether the private sector should become involved or whether NHS Logistics should stay as it is, perhaps with adaptations. We want to ensure that that process is carried out properly. We are concerned that it is not taking into account all the necessary factors, and I would like assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that nobody involved in the process—whether a civil servant, a member of the Department of Health commercial directorate or a Minister—starts by automatically assuming that the private sector is the best or the only option. I should also like to be told clearly the aim of the process. In what direction are we going? Because I am accountable to my constituents, I need access to full information about how any decision is taken. I want to make sure that the process is transparent, and I seek ministerial assurances on all the issues. That is why my colleagues and I have sought this debate and tabled a number of parliamentary questions.

We started off thinking that the issue was NHS Logistics' efficiency, but when we visited its sites, we were impressed by its efficiency. As has been mentioned, it has won a number of awards and it clearly is efficient in a number of ways. Following a number of efficiency exercises, many jobs were lost at the Alfreton site last year—I know that because one of my good friends lost her job in that review. One of the six NHS Logistics sites—the one in Bridgwater—is already privately run, and that is the site with the lowest satisfaction rate among customers. In addition, the organisation already works with private sector partners—the transport that I saw was provided by TNT. I note that NHS Logistics' on-time delivery performance is running at about 99 per cent. It runs a benchmarking system to test its performance against that of the private sector through Logmark, the UK logistics benchmarking club, and utilises a number of other means. There is not necessarily any doubt about the organisation's efficiency. I think that it is generally accepted that it is efficient, and I ask the Minister to confirm that.

We were then told that the argument had moved on and the question now was whether the organisation could be more effective if a greater proportion of the market were provided for centrally, thus achieving economies of scale and enabling more money to be put into patient care. I am rather dubious about some of the arguments that have been put in that respect and I should like the Minister to ensure that all the arguments are taken into account. When colleagues and I met the Health Minister Lord Warner before the election, he stated that NHS Logistics formed only a small proportion of the supply chain. However, although it has only 20 per cent. of market share by value, it provides 70 per cent. of the market by volume.

It is important not to disrupt the supply chain to health providers. I am told that there are 9,000 suppliers in the sector, of which NHS Logistics is by far the largest. I have also seen the current business plan, which I believe the commercial directorate has approved. NHS Logistics is already expanding into some of the more specialist areas with which it has not previously dealt. It has plans for a 41 per cent. growth target over the next four years, taking it to a market share of 30 per cent. by value, following growth of 35 per cent. in the past four years. Although there may have been a rocky start after the Cabinet Office report, NHS Logistics has gone zooming ahead over the past few years.

Some queries have been raised about the validity of the Cabinet Office study to which my hon. Friend referred. Would she like to comment on that?

The review was conducted some time ago and it makes interesting reading on the potential for market expansion. The report recognises that we should not expect all NHS supplies to be provided centrally. Sometimes, therefore, it is not necessarily sensible to say that a certain proportion should be provided by NHS Logistics.

In response to some of the questions that I have raised, I would like a clear analysis of the types of item that NHS Logistics does not provide. They are clearly high-value items, because otherwise there would not be such a disparity between value and volume market share. If so, it would probably be difficult to achieve common ground across the health service such that sufficient supplies could be ordered to secure economies of scale. It is easy to consider the gap in the figures and assume that the private sector will have a magic way of securing agreement among those being supplied to ensure that those economies of scale can be gained.

Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) asked about the 1998 Cabinet Office report, does my hon. Friend recognise that parts of it are not really relevant now, given the expansion of NHS resources since 2001? The authors of the report could not have known of the record investment that we were about to make, so their projections are not relevant to today's operations.

I agree, but it is important to have information about those items that are not provided, so that we can consider sensibly whether an assumption that the private sector can come and sweep up the market is dogmatic or realistic. I hope that the Minister will insist on having that detailed information when she considers the matter. I shall be interested to see whether it will be possible to provide me with that information in answer to questions that I have raised.

As I said, NHS Logistics operates effectively and has done a number of benchmarking exercises, using Confederation of British Industry benchmarking, Score Research, which is part of Manchester business school, and Logmark for its operational activities. NHS Logistics has come out well in all those exercises. Have those in the commercial directorate who are considering the issue and who are advising Ministers taken those results seriously or have they assumed that the private sector is bound to be able to operate more efficiently?

One of the reasons why I am particularly concerned to ensure that all the issues are considered seriously is that the dangers of not doing so and of getting things wrong are very great. We must ensure that the supply service is risk free and that it can provide what is needed to all those who are so dependent on it. There is no point in giving the task to an organisation that will not carry it out effectively. We must be absolutely confident that any change in the supply system will not lead to any disruption of supply.

Some of the examples that have been drawn to my attention are particularly worrying. One involves the supply of cleaning equipment. I understand that the Health Protection Agency tells NHS hospitals that they should get supplies from NHS Logistics to ensure proper materials to deal with the MRSA problem. In that context, I would like to knock on the head the News of the World article that was picked up from the website and included in the Library briefing for this debate. No other paper ran the story, in which it was said that there was MRSA at the Normanton site, as confirmed by Chemsol Consultancy. The Health Protection Agency went in and found no evidence to support the story and we are told that Chemsol Consultancy has not been prepared to provide the Department of Health with its samples in other instances so that it can be determined whether it is identifying MRSA or some other, non-problematic, bacteria. The Health Protection Agency found nothing wrong at all.

It is important that cleaning equipment is provided safely and properly. I will just plug a company in my constituency, JohnsonDiversey, which has produced the wonderful Jonmaster system and which won a manufacturing excellence award last week.

The hon. Lady is speaking up powerfully for her constituents. Does she think that anything of an inherent public service ethos is to be found in this process? After all, Tesco has to have extraordinarily reliable, up-to-the-minute delivery systems and so on as well. Could the hon. Lady clarify why she feels that NHS supply is intrinsically a public sector activity?

I would argue that, as the NHS Logistics Authority is running efficiently—when I first started investigating, I was prepared to be told that it was not efficient, but everything that we have seen makes us think that it is—I would want clear reasons for making a change spelled out so that I could explain it to the people who work there. Often, we turn things upside down for no good reason. If the authority is working efficiently, I, as the MP who represents one of its sites, want to be given the full information that justifies any change. That is particularly important because the authority is managing the vaccination programme and the cleaning supplies and is part of the anti-terrorist contingency plans. It would be worrying if that went wrong.

One of my main concerns is that the debate and process should be transparent. At the moment, it can be difficult to get information because we are told that it is all commercial and has to be kept secret. If I make inquiries, I am told that that is not something that I should know about. To me, as a local representative, that is not acceptable. I want a totally transparent process. We have asked parliamentary questions about issues such as identifying the gap between what is provided by NHS Logistics and what could be provided, and about its growth levels. I also want to know whether NHS Logistics can submit a bid, which I understand it has not been allowed to do. If it gets to the next stage—we are now down to three bidders, each of which has an IT component—the question has been raised whether it will need a new IT system. I also want to know and be able to see the commercial case, if it is decided to go on to the invitation-to-negotiate stage.

Before my hon. Friend concludes, would she comment on the ability of NHS Logistics to expand its capacity? We have been led to believe that the commercial directorate is considering that as an option for future operations. To meet the demands of the NHS, capacity will need to be expanded. The question is whether NHS Logistics can expand its capacity without further recourse to the public purse.

As I understand it, NHS Logistics has dealt with that in its plans. It would be able to expand and it has built into its plans the need for additional warehousing. The original report suggested that it should reduce the number of its distribution centres to six or seven, one of which should be tested privately, which is how the Bridgwater site came into being. However, it has been pointed out to me that these days supply chains tend not to buy warehousing but to lease it. That has been built into NHS Logistics' plan, so it should not be a problem.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that all the issues are taken into account and that we, as Members, have full information on why any change is taking place. I have yet to be convinced that change is necessary. If there is a good argument, I will not stand in the way of ensuring that NHS supply is done efficiently and well. There may be alternative ways to improve the authority besides straightforwardly handing it over to one private sector consortium. From the evidence that I have, it seems to operate efficiently.

I also want to see the commercial case so that if it is decided to extend invitations to negotiate, we can see the advantages of any firm being involved. I have an example from the same area, in Alfreton, near the NHS Logistics site. When it was decided to transfer some Benefits Agency services to the ONE service, we had a private sector pilot in my area. The company chosen was Reed, but I was not allowed to have any information on why the service was put out to the private sector. Subsequently, it came back in house and into the public sector again. I do not know why.

The review of NHS Logistics affects hundreds of my constituents and I would like an assurance that the process will be transparent, that all the factors will be taken into account, that our questions will be fully answered and that I will be given a clear, compelling and detailed argument about why any change should take place. I am the one who will have to go back and explain things to my constituents, and my hon. Friends will have to explain to theirs. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister ensure that we have full information throughout the process?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing—by the skin of her teeth—this important Adjournment debate, which covers a number of constituencies, on arriving right on time and on delivering such an excellent and eloquent dissertation on the reasons why we are here this morning.

NHS Logistics has an operational distribution centre in my constituency, on the Astmoor industrial estate. It employs more than 200 people and is part of an excellent distribution network that serves the NHS well. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister will soon be making a visit to NHS Logistics in Runcorn, and I am sure that she will be warmly welcomed whenever that visit may be—her office has not told me yet, but I understand that it will be on Thursday.

NHS Logistics is a very successful business. It is not for profit, it is an NHS operation, it is run by NHS staff, and the interests of NHS staff and patients are at the epicentre of what it does. Figures vary, but I understand that, nationally, NHS Logistics employs more than 1,400 people. It has six distribution centres and 230 vehicles and makes 1,200 deliveries a day to hospitals, clinics and GPs' surgeries. It has a catalogue of 42,000 items, which it delivers to 10,000 points in approximately 600 NHS trusts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, its efficiency in delivery is superb. Some 98 per cent. of items are always available, 99 per cent. of the items that are important to the NHS are available and 98 per cent. of deliveries are made within 30 minutes of the delivery time specified by the purchasing NHS trust. That is a fantastic record. Achieving that on a day-to-day basis shows us that, as she has said, this is a superb operation.

The non-pay, non-drugs spending of the English NHS is about £12 billion. NHS Logistics operates in a market that has been estimated at about £3.7 billion. The turnover of NHS Logistics is about £700 million per annum. It has an operating cost of about £70 million. Again, we can see that this is an efficient operation that does not cost the NHS any money to run. It provides the NHS with 75 per cent. of the volume of consumable durables involved at factory gate prices. It is important to make the point that any surplus that it makes is given back to the NHS in rebates. Over the past three years, at least £9 million has been returned to the NHS. The business is growing very fast at the moment: we are talking about a 10 per cent. compound interest rate per annum. That is a phenomenal growth in an already excellent business.

At the core of the business is the fact that it involves a paperless ordering system, through its e-commerce computers, which connects every NHS trust— everybody in the NHS who buys from NHS Logistics—directly to the operation. Online orders are made and, as I said, 98 per cent. of deliveries are made within 30 minutes of the delivery time specified by the NHS Logistics Authority. It is an extremely efficient operation. There have been at least two efficiency studies. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Olner, that both conclude that it is an extremely well run and efficient business that provides the NHS with an excellent service.

Given the facts and figures that are on the record, anyone from outside who observed what was going on this morning would rightly ask why we were considering moving a service that serves the NHS well into the private sector or outsourcing it from the NHS. Clearly, the service does its job.

The audit trail starts with the Gershon review. In his 2004 Budget report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

"the pursuit of efficiency also includes reducing bureaucracy, that both cuts headquarters' administration costs and frees up time of front line professionals to respond better to the needs of their customers".

Anybody who works for the NHS Logistics Authority would have thought, listening to the Chancellor, that there was nothing in the Budget that should cause them to worry about their job security or about the prospects for NHS Logistics. The service allows a huge amount to go to front-line services, it is efficient and it provides a service that the NHS wants. It is a front-line NHS service.

However, on 20 May 2005, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), announced in a press release that the number of arm's length bodies in the NHS were to be reduced by 50 per cent., which would save £500 million and reduce the number of posts by 25 per cent. It is not clear why he chose the figure of 50 per cent. I understand where the saving of £500 million comes from and that, when we reduce the number of arm's length bodies, the number of people on the central payroll will reduce. I have no problem with that argument as long as it is done for the right reasons. My right hon. Friend went on to say:

"I want to see more staff and resources at the frontline delivering better patient care across the country. I want to see improved efficiency, reducing bureaucracy and better value for money."

We keep making the point that that is exactly what NHS Logistics does. It is efficient, there is little bureaucracy and it provides excellent value for money.

The next bit of the audit trail is a statement made by a Department of Health spokesperson in the Derbyshire Times, which was published on 21 October 2004. The spokesperson said of the Department of Health review of arm's lengths bodies that

"A key objective of the review is to drive efficiency and best value for the NHS, and for the taxpayer."

We have no problem in pursuing best value and in getting good value for the taxpayer. The question in our minds is whether what the Government propose will achieve that.

The spokesperson went on to confirm that

"The market testing process is looking at the feasibility of contracting out the consumable supplies and activities of NHS Logistics."

That is almost a return to something that we had in local government—compulsory competitive tendering. A service that is delivered publicly by the NHS is being subjected to a market test to determine whether it can be done better; whether efficiency can be improved and costs reduced.

The statement continues:

"The decision about contracting out will be taken in due course and will be subject to careful evaluation of the responses that the private sector will provide to the market testing currently initiated."

What does that mean? How are we going to evaluate whether the market test has produced either a more efficient delivery of consumer durables in the NHS or delivered those durables more cheaply? Is that the test in this case? Is that the acid test that NHS Logistics must be put to? I hope that the Minister will address that when she responds to the debate.

We are getting closer to the real reasons why we face the market test. It is not about delivering efficiency or about value for money. It is about capturing more of the business of the NHS that does not relate to wages or the drugs bill.

Our noble Friend, the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, Lord Warner, went further on 13 December 2004. He sent us a publication entitled "Developing the supply chain and procurement services for the NHS to achieve better value".

In that document, he explained the reasons for the market test. He said that

"market testing is designed to prove whether or not the most effective supply chain and procurement service for the NHS can be achieved by partnering with the independent sector."

There was no question of contracting out, or of the private sector making comments as to whether the service could be delivered. The question was whether it could be achieved through partnership with the independent sector. The document then states something quite extraordinary:

"In the current environment of diverting all available resources to frontline services, it is not intended that the Department will make any further investment into the NHS Logistics Authority".

That is quite remarkable because the Government do not do that anyway. It is a self-funding business that puts money back into the NHS. Its running costs stand at £70 million, as has already been said, and if it needed to it could clearly expand its operation through its financial ability to draw on funds wherever possible. The Government do not actually fund what goes on within NHS Logistics.

The NHS Logistics Authority could provide the Government with extra money or enable someone in the private sector to deliver this service in one of only two ways: it could reduce staffing costs or increase the cost of the services that it provides. I am not certain that there is much scope left for reducing staffing costs because that exercise has already been carried out. The only way in which anything can be achieved for the private sector is if it takes over the business and increases the cost to the national health service. That would be disastrous for the Department of Health and the NHS because increased costs for consumer durables would be passed on to NHS trusts. It would be a fruitless, pointless and stupid exercise.

My hon. Friend talks about increased costs to the NHS, but does he agree that if hospital trusts are not satisfied with the charges that NHS Logistics make to their hospitals they will go elsewhere? They have the ability to do that now, and most of them do not choose to do so. The local hospitals that I have spoken to choose NHS Logistics because of its cost and efficiency.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The simple fact is that NHS Logistics does not have a monopoly of supply in the NHS. The NHS purchases from NHS Logistics because it is the best supplier. If the NHS was not satisfied with the service from NHS Logistics, it would go elsewhere. However, 75 per cent. of the business in consumer durables in the NHS goes to NHS Logistics because it is price efficient, it can guarantee delivery and it provides security in the contract. The trusts are also linked to NHS Logistics through the e-commerce computer. That system saves the Government £100 million a year, and it is a very good one. That is why NHS Logistics is so successful.

Does my hon. Friend know whether a proper study has been carried out of whether those who will have to deal with this new private sector body—if it is created—to purchase additional goods wish to do so, or whether they wish to continue getting goods through NHS Logistics? Is he aware of any proper surveys of the views of those consumers on whether there is any point in handing over to a private sector operation, and on whether it would be any better at expanding the market?

That exercise has not been carried out. Had it been done, the satisfaction ratings of NHS Logistics suggest that the 600 NHS trusts in the UK that use its services would send the message loud and clear that they are very satisfied with the service. I defy anyone to improve on the figure of 98 per cent. of deliveries made within 30 minutes of the promised time of delivery. That is a fantastic service to offer the NHS.

It is important that the NHS has that security of supply. If the private sector takes over that part of the business, will a private sector company be able to guarantee that sort of efficiency? What will a private sector company do in relation to the e-commerce system that is now in place? Will it make further investment in information technology at a huge cost? I do not know the answer to that. Has that question been factored into the market test undertaken by the Government? There is a fundamental point about how the delivery system will work. Will it be an e-commerce system, will it be available to all NHS trusts and will the delivery time be guaranteed?

There is another question. If the Government's purpose is to use the NHS Logistics Authority's £700 million business within the NHS as a platform to secure more of the £12 billion non-drugs and non-wages business, what percentage of that business is available? As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, a great deal of that business is capital investment in expensive, high-tech diagnostic machinery, which the manufacturers supply directly to the NHS. I do not think that that aspect of the business would be available to any company in any new set-up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be possible to open up new markets to the NHS Logistics Authority, not just in the NHS but in the private sector? There are currently constraints on the operation of markets. If we were not to take a dogmatic and ideological view, it would follow that the NHS Logistics Authority should be able to compete along with the private sector. Indeed, we might see the authority expand even more.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If there were a completely free market, the NHS Logistics Authority might do more business than it does at the moment.

It is important to note that we already have an efficient business that guarantees security of delivery, and that it is not for profit. Any surpluses that it makes are fed back into the national health service, and its e-commerce computer ordering system enables it to save the NHS £100 million a year. If we are to place that business in the private sector, what guarantees are there that the service that it provides to NHS trusts, clinics, doctors and their surgeries will continue, and that there will be no wholesale price rises for consumer durables, 75 per cent. of which the authority provides to the NHS? What security is there?

I shall quote again from the press release issued by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Health. He said:

"I want to see more staff and resources at the frontline delivering better patient care across the country. I want to see improved efficiency, reduced bureaucracy and better value for money."

The NHS Logistics Authority does that, and if that is the acid test, we do not have anything to worry about. However, if the Government had a hidden agenda, I should be very concerned, because I should have to return to my constituents on the Astmoor industrial estate to tell them that they have done a fantastic job during the past four years delivering to the national health service the goods that it wants at a price and at a time that it wants, and that they have been absolutely superb, but that the Government have decided, for whatever reason, that the service is to be transferred to the private sector. I should find it difficult to explain that to them, and I want to be sure that any decision-making process leading to that transfer is transparent, that Members of Parliament are consulted about it and that our voices are heard.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) not only on securing this debate, but on all the hard work that she has put into the review of the NHS Logistics operation. The NHS Logistics Authority is a vital part of a successful NHS. Its hard-working staff are the backroom people of the NHS, not seen by the public, but the service that they provide is fundamental to our hospitals. NHS Logistics supply some 42,000 items, including blankets, bandages, biros, buckets and bedpans and many others. My hon. Friends and I understand that the Government have a responsibility to cut out waste and slash red tape to maximise the amount of resources going to the front line of our public services. It was a manifesto commitment on which we all stood for election. We all support that proposal.

The arm's-length body review was commissioned by NHS Logistics and its sister organisation the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, which are two of the 38 agencies whose number is to be reduced to 20. The Chancellor has said that the proposals for the arm's-length bodies will produce savings of £500 million, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will rightly point out that £500 million could be used to build four new hospitals or employ 20,000 more nurses, 6,250 consultants or even 7,500 GPs. I have not attempted to calculate how many bedpans it would purchase, but I am sure that it would be a lot.

We want to understand clearly what the Government hope to achieve by the end of the process. If they want the very best supplies operation for the NHS and a better-managed operation that is more efficient, that can expand its capacity and that can return resources to the NHS, they will have our support, but we need to understand how they will arrive at their decisions. Are they confident that they can, in advance, compare the private sector with the existing operation and its achievements, which my hon. Friends have described in detail?

Is my hon. Friend surprised that, unless we are mistaken, NHS Logistics appears not to have been invited to put in a direct bid or offer, even though it has plans for major growth over the next few years following substantial growth in recent years?

That is the question that my hon. Friends and I have placed on the Order Paper. We are asking whether NHS Logistics was invited to tender to run the service. Our aim is to help the Government to compare the operation's costs, efficiencies, savings and, importantly, its quality with those of the private sector. Quality is essential. We have record investment in our NHS, and operation waiting times are being driven down—from 18 months when Labour was elected to six months this year. By 2008, we want people not to have to wait more than 18 weeks from seeing their GP to their operation. For that to happen, all staff in NHS hospitals, including doctors and nurses, need an efficient supply system, so that everything is there when they need it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said, 98 per cent. of products currently arrive in hospitals on time.

People do not complain when things work well. I spoke to the chief executive of the Medway NHS Trust, which runs one of the hospitals that serves my constituency. I asked whether he had ever heard complaints about his suppliers, the logistics operation. He said, "Never, but I'll tell you one thing—I flippin' well would if there was a problem, because it would cause chaos. The operation runs smoothly. It isn't on the radar of things that I'm concerned about, and I never want it to be." That is an important point.

That does not mean to say that we take a dogmatic approach to the issue. We simply want to know what will be tested and how Ministers will arrive at their decision. When my hon. Friends and I look at the comparisons with the private sector, what we see is that NHS Logistics has been the best. In 2004, it beat all comers, including Woolworths, Nestlé UK and John Lewis Partnership—all private sector companies—when it won the coveted supply chain of the year award organised by Motor Transport magazine. I have in my hand a picture of Barry Mellor, the chief executive officer, receiving the award from a chap who looks remarkably like a former Conservative London mayoral candidate.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that NHS Logistics also beat TNT in that competition?

TNT was obviously some way down the list, because it is not mentioned on the front page. It is not even on the shortlist. The judges recognised NHS Logistics as

"the team who has created or developed the most outstanding supply chain in the country. It is the 'best of the best' and is the top prize."

That recognition comes from the industry itself. The judges also gave NHS Logistics a technology award, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley referred, for its e-supply package, which includes an electronic catalogue, ordering and billing. That part of the operation was, they said,

"an exceptional achievement in terms of strategy, implementation and user education—the best bit is it's my money they're saving".

NHS Logistics is saving taxpayers' money through such investment in its technology.

Staff and organisations receive such awards with great pride, and those awards are not achieved by accident. A point that my hon. Friends have not made is that NHS Logistics has taken off in recent years because of good management and the dedication of staff. With that comes good industrial relations with the main union, Unison. NHS Logistics invests in its staff and has a good training programme. The Maidstone site is next to my constituency and has 300 employees, and when I have visited it I have seen that management and staff work very well together. It is what the Labour Government want—a modern partnership in the workplace that invests in staff and improves productivity through investment in training. Many of the staff who work in the sector benefit from an increase in their basic skills and customer care skills. The results are there for all to see. The 98 per cent. achievement of delivery times is no accident and nor is the acknowledgement of NHS Logistics as the "best of the best", nor the fact that more money is being put back into the NHS.

NHS Logistics talks about paying detailed attention to customer care, and says:

"To be successful the customer must be at the centre of everything that we do".

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley referred to the comparison between the private sector site at Bridgewater and the other four sites elsewhere in the country, including the one at Maidstone. A recent customer survey showed that Bridgewater was the poorest performer. The Cabinet Office report recommended that the number of sites should be reduced from six to five and that one should be run privately so that comparisons could be made. Everyone should be able to understand the intention and then determine whether the private sector is delivering a better operation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Exel, which runs the Bridgwater site, and TNT, which he said was beaten by NHS Logistics for an award, are among the last three bidding consortiums? We know about TNT only because—perhaps inadvertently—it told its staff. Does he share my concern that Ministers and those who advise them should not start off with a dogmatic assumption that the private sector can do better, and that they should not fall into the trap that the Conservative party fell into of automatically assuming that NHS Logistics should be privatised? The Conservatives stated that position before the election. We want to avoid dogma, to keep an open mind and to analyse the options correctly.

My hon. Friend is correct. A worrying feature of the process has been the lack of information about how judgments will be made on whether it is appropriate to privatise NHS Logistics. Leaks are not the way to get information, as they might not be accurate and staff work against a backdrop of concern that undermines confidence.

On comparisons and not being dogmatic, if TNT, Exel or any of the other private sector bidders were the best of the best, the documents that they submit to the Department would refer to such coveted awards. I wonder whether they will mention the fact that they did not even get on the shortlist. I think not.

I conclude my remarks by endorsing those of my hon. Friends. We should not take a dogmatic approach. If we are to be able to speak to constituents who are valued members of the NHS work force—the best of the best across the board—we need to understand how the Government will decide whether it is right to stay with the existing operation, with all its achievements, or to take another route. We look forward to the Minister's response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this debate. She and the hon. Members for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) spoke convincingly of the work done by their constituents who are employed by NHS Logistics. We heard about their excellent performance and the awards that they have won. I do not believe that anyone who heard those three hon. Members speak need have any doubt that NHS Logistics is a highly effective and, as far as one can tell, highly efficient organisation.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Amber Valley said about the need for a proper and transparent market-testing process. No one who has spoken would object to the principle of assessing whether what is done at present by NHS Logistics could be done better another way, although I believe that they are all confident about what the answer would be.

In trying to reassure us that the market-testing exercises are properly, not dogmatically, done, could the Minister give us an example of a market-testing exercise undertaken by her Department that did not find that the private sector would be more efficient than the public sector? If she could demonstrate that sometimes the answer is to keep activities in house, that would reassure us that the process is open, and not one that inevitably leads to a private sector solution.

The starting point for this debate and this process is, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale said, the Gershon process and a bidding war between the Chancellor and the Tories over who could get rid of the most civil servants. I presume, although I am open to correction, that if NHS Logistics were market-tested and someone else were to carry on, the civil service head count would go down by a few thousand.

They are NHS staff who would be affected.

My point is that the Chancellor has set a goal to reduce the number of public servants—perhaps civil servants is the wrong description—and replace them with private sector employees to achieve an arbitrary goal of shrinking the public sector. The same amount of money would be paid to get the same job done, but the classification would be different; that is the arbitrariness to which the hon. Member for Weaver Vale referred. He said that the plan was to reduce the number of arm's-length bodies by 50 per cent. Where has that magic number come from? What is so special about 50 per cent.? Surely, the right approach would be to ask what needs to be done in the public sector and whether this is the right structure within which to do it, not to start with the answer and work backwards, but that is what this process seems to be about.

The traditional argument for involving the public sector at all is that there is some market failure—something that the private market cannot provide at all or as well, without which there would be some loss to society. At first glance, it is hard to see what that is. On the NHS Logistics Authority customer bulletin in May there were 15 new products, including Columbian coffee, rich roast Arabica coffee, dried cream and latte cream. There was also something about discounts on stationery.

At first sight, it is hard to see why we need a public sector organisation to sell coffee, paper and headed notepaper. What is the public service ethos there; what is the market failure? I cannot see one, except that there may be an issue about the taxpayer getting better value for money out of bulk purchasing. I understand that the Purchasing and Supply Agency does the contracts, but it might be that we taxpayers get more health care out of our NHS budget if coffee, paper and so on are bought cheaper through the massive bulk-buying power of the NHS, which is a huge organisation—the biggest employer outside the red army, or whatever the figure is.

The market failure could be that if we allow all that to be done privately, we will end up with lots of atomised bits of the NHS buying—this is a slightly facetious example—their individual boxes of coffee or whatever, and a higher total bill, and with the taxpayer getting less value for money. The first question to ask is: would we lose that bulk buying power if the NHS Logistics Authority were not doing the supply-chain work? In the past, the Government have separated those things, with a purchasing process that gets the bulk economies of scale, and a separate logistics process that gets things to where they should be. Can we still get the economies of scale that we want if we do not have a public sector Logistics Authority delivering the goods?

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bulk purchasing in the NHS has served us well? A recent development has been the bulk purchasing of operations in the private sector for NHS patients, which has provided better value for money.

I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman's final comment, but, in the interests of not spreading disharmony on the thing that he does care about, which is his constituents and the logistics agency, I shall stick with that point. Suffice it to say that that money would have been better spent in the NHS with NHS providers, but we will return to that. I appreciate that there is a paradox here, in that I am trying to stand up for his constituents and he is trying to undermine the NHS, but we will come back to NHS Logistics.

There seems to be no dispute about the fact that NHS Logistics provides an excellent service. The hon. Member for Amber Valley asked the pertinent—almost conservative, perhaps Conservative—question, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" What is the motivation for the change? Government reviews have concluded that there is scope for efficiency savings. It is not clear why they say so; they just seem to assert it. I hope that the Minister will clarify, given what we have heard about the performance of NHS Logistics, why the Government are convinced that there is flab or fat to be got rid of. I see no symptoms of that. In fact, the phrase that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford quoted a chief executive using was quite pertinent; the issue just was not on the radar. The point he was making was "If it's not broke, don't fix it."

It is very interesting that we have, as it were, a mini market test, if one of the sites is run by the private sector and if, as we are told, it gives lower levels of satisfaction. If the Minister can tell us how that evidence will feed into the market-testing process, that will be helpful. I freely admit that the issue has not registered strongly on my radar until today, but I am concerned to hear from the hon. Member for Amber Valley that she has tried to get information about what is happening and that once again the response has been, "Oh—commercial confidentiality. Can't really say."

At what point will Members of the House stand up and revolt, and say "Hang on. We have a job of scrutiny to do here"? In individual constituency cases we get quite cross about such instances, but perhaps collectively we need to get crosser about the scrutiny of public services. All too often, we want to know what is going on, and are told that we cannot be told the details of the contract, because it is commercially sensitive, and we cannot be told operational details, because they are commercially sensitive, too. Our role in scrutinising what Government and public services do is undermined if we do not get answers to such questions, as the hon. Lady says.

Perhaps I may be heretical for a moment. If the principle is bulk purchase and getting good value for the taxpayer, why must the NHS be ring-fenced? My example of coffee and stationery is slightly facetious, but why do not we link together public purchasers across the public sector? If the NHS has buying clout, presumably it and the Department for Education and Skills put together have even more. Could we get even better value for money by using the bulk purchasing power of the wider public sector more effectively, or are we dealing with a case of departmentalitis that prevents one Department from working with another for collective purchasing? I wonder whether the Minister has talked to ministerial colleagues in other Departments about whether the taxpayer, and the NHS purchaser, could get better value for money by working with other Government Departments as a bulk purchaser.

We seem to be dealing with a paradox. The Government and, to an extent, all the political parties want the NHS to be more devolved—more local and more responsive to local needs and demand. Yet there is a danger that if we fragment and atomise the NHS we shall lose economies of scale from bulk purchasing power. Arguably, using bodies such as the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency and NHS Logistics to deliver services is a way of maintaining those benefits. It does not matter how devolved the primary care trusts and the rest may be; it will still be possible for them to tap into national purchasing and national logistics, and potentially that is good value for money.

Will the Minister clarify the motivation for what is proposed? I get the sense that it was decided on high—arbitrarily, as far as one can see—to reduce the number of arm's-length bodies. It was asserted that there was scope for efficiency gains, in the face of apparent evidence that we have an impressively efficient organisation that works well. I hope that the Minister can assure us about the transparency of the process, and clarify the motivation. We all want more value for money, but it is not clear that the current process is the first place one would look for it.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing the debate and on all the hard work that she has done for her constituents. I share the concerns that have been expressed by all speakers so far about the apparent lack of information on, and transparency in, the process. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify the issues and answer questions.

There is no doubt that NHS Logistics has been a success story. We have heard of the various awards that have been granted. As we know, demand for the organisation's services has risen year on year and it now accounts for about £730 million, which is a very good figure. Every day its fleet of about 200 vehicles delivers to wards in NHS trusts items from the 42,000 lines kept at its five distribution centres.

Credit for the authority's success lies directly with its management and staff of almost 1,500, many of whom are based at its headquarters and distribution centre at Alfreton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Amber Valley. I think that most hon. Members would agree with the Opposition that those staff face great uncertainty. For a number of reasons, either intentionally or inadvertently, that uncertainty has, to a large extent, been created by the Government.

To a certain extent, the Government have played politics with the authority in the timing of announcements—I shall make that clear in a moment—and in the message itself. That has created uncertainties and a certain lack of transparency. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). As she is newly appointed, I know that she would not have been party to the problem, which goes back a few years.

The Department of Health review of arm's-length bodies, which was completed in July 2004, recommended that the authority's functions be outsourced and that the authority should be abolished by 1 April next year. In truth, however, the authority's fate was already under discussion before the review started. In the autumn of 2003, the recommendation of the Department of Health's commercial directorate was that the authority's procurement and supply chain activity would be best developed in the private sector.

Unfortunately, that was decided at about the same time that the then Secretary of State decided to undertake a review of the Department's arm's-length bodies. The recommendations were unnecessarily delayed, so NHS Logistics was included in the review even though its future had already been decided. The Conservatives contend that it was included deliberately to expand the number of arm's-length bodies being considered so as to make the scale of the apparent cuts seem larger. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

The inclusion of NHS Logistics to beef up the review was not unique. The Commission for Health Improvement, the National Care Standards Commission and the Retained Organs Commission were also included, despite having been abolished before the review got under way; and the National Radiological Protection Board and the Public Health Laboratory Service were included, despite the Government simultaneously progressing legislation to abolish them. Six of the original 42 arm's-length bodies in the review had already been earmarked for abolition.

To a certain extent, at least, the timing of announcements about NHS Logistics was about playing politics. That may not have been the sole factor, but it has contributed to the confusion and lack of transparency that have characterised the entire process.

I am slightly puzzled. As NHS Logistics is based in my constituency, I would have known about it if the Government were planning to privatise it. However, the Conservative party publicised the fact that it would privatise the service.

There should be no puzzlement on the hon. Lady's part. We have made our position clear. There is no reason why NHS Logistics should be excluded from the bidding process. I am trying to point out that the Government have played politics with the timing of announcements, which a number of hon. Members believe has helped to create uncertainty and a lack of transparency. She has admitted that she was not properly consulted, and she has a number of questions to ask of the Minister. I hope that the Minister takes the opportunity to answer them today.

I am listening closely. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government decided to privatise NHS Logistics in 2003, or was it simply the recommendation of the commercial director, which the Secretary of State rejected?

In the autumn of 2003, the Department of Health's commercial directorate recommended that the authority's procurement supply chain would be best developed in the private sector. Since then, the review body made its recommendation, but there is strong feeling in my party, and outside this place, that the NHS Logistics Authority was included in the review despite the fact that there had been a strong recommendation to privatise the supply chain.

If I may, I would like to move on because I want to give the Minister some time to respond to all our questions. In addition to the issue of timing, there has been an element of uncertainty with regard to the overall message. For example, in July 2004, the Secretary of State explained that

"the NHS Logistics Authority will be abolished".—[Official Report, 22 July 2004; Vol.424, c. 76 WS.]

However, in November of last year, a Health Minister said:

"no decision has been taken about contracting out".—[Official Report, 4 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 397W.]

Putting the timing to one side, I put it to the Minister that the Government have also played politics with their message about the privatisation. It appears that the Government are pursuing the privatisation of the authority by stealth in order to avoid confrontation.

In the same way as the reforms in the new general medical services contract "Agenda for Change" were introduced, the national programme for IT and now the new general dental services contract are being introduced without the full engagement and involvement of all the affected parties. The Government are privatising NHS Logistics without adequate involvement and consultation of its staff or the relevant Members of Parliament. That can only serve to worsen the morale of the authority's staff, who deserve far better from the Government, particularly bearing in mind the successes they have achieved.

The hon. Gentleman referred to "Agenda for Change" as not having sufficient consultation. It took four years for 17 different trade unions to arrive at an agreement. It was a brilliant consultation. What does the hon. Gentleman mean?

The hon. Gentleman calls it a brilliant consultation, but many bodies involved felt that they had not been adequately consulted. I shall give him one example: the Society of Radiographers staged a picket of Parliament to make the point that it had not been adequately consulted. There were exceptions to that consultation and the hon. Gentleman should take them on board.

Bearing in mind that time is running short and as I would like to give the Minister plenty of time to answer a number of key questions, will she please address the following issues? There has been concern in my party about the actual privatisation. NHS Logistics has achieved valuable efficiency improvements in the NHS supply chain. Its strong and successful brand has encouraged NHS trusts and primary care trusts to use its services more and more, which is to be welcomed. That has further strengthened the integration of the various NHS supply chains and realised further efficiency gains.

The Government must ensure that the independent provider eventually chosen provides a service that is as good as, if not better than, that provided by NHS Logistics. Because of a poor Government track record regarding the designing of contracts involving the private sector, such as those related to the computer system for the Child Support Agency and independent involvement in London Underground, such contracts must be properly crafted. If the outsourcing of NHS Logistics is similarly poorly handled, we may see trusts seeking alternative distributors, the fragmentation of the supply chain and the loss of the efficiency gains achieved in the past few years.

We must not sacrifice the valuable emergency role played by NHS Logistics in order to entice private sector providers to bid for the contract. NHS Logistics provides a 24-hour, 365-day-a-year delivery service, which has been invaluable in building up the authority's reputation as well as helping to safeguard patient care. The authority will also be called on to supply health service consumables in the event of any terrorist or other major incident. The capacity for emergency response must be retained when the supply and distribution work for the NHS is put out to tender.

I also ask the Minister to address the fact that in recent years NHS Logistics has taken on an active role in bringing health care closer to the patient. The authority launched the home delivery service in April 2003, which now caters for more than 1,000 patients. That valuable resource should not be sacrificed simply because a private sector provider does not deem it commercially viable.

Finally, I ask the Minister to ensure that all relevant parties are fully consulted on the privatisation, including the relevant Members of Parliament. To help achieve greater transparency, I suggest to the Minister that there is no reason why NHS Logistics should not be allowed to bid for the contract, bearing in mind its excellent track record of recent years. The Minister should give due consideration to that.

I welcome the Government's apparent commitment to reducing the size and scope of the arm's-length bodies, although they have yet to demonstrate that commitment anywhere but on paper. NHS Logistics is a successful distributor. It has driven wider efficiency improvements across the NHS and its staff must be congratulated on that achievement. Although I believe that it can operate better in partnership with the private sector, the partnership must be carefully crafted for the reasons already given. It must be drawn up to ensure that there is no loss of service or reduction in standard as the provider shifts from the public to the private sector. It must be drawn up with the full involvement of the staff and, I would suggest, other relevant individuals, such as MPs, who have done so much to build a successful organisation. The staff in particular deserve to be consulted on its and their future.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning. I feared that we would miss the opportunity to debate NHS Logistics, so I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) came into the Chamber. I congratulate her and my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on their speeches. I apologise sincerely to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for the shortness of notice about the visit on Thursday; I shall make sure that that is corrected as soon as the debate is concluded.

I welcome the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) to his position. This is the first chance that we have had to cross arms across the Chamber, but I am sure that there will be many more in future. I look forward to that, particularly if we can conduct business in the constructive style to which we have been treated this morning.

Today's debate is about the market testing of the potential outsourcing of the supply chain and consumables procurement service for the NHS, which involves NHS Logistics. Let me quickly run through the process to date. An outline business case was presented to Ministers in spring 2004 and the usual notice was published and released in August that year to engage the private sector in a procurement process.

I do not quarrel with any of the descriptions that hon. Members have given of the detail of the debate about the ALB review except what the hon. Member for Billericay said. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), who was Secretary of State for Health at the time in question, extremely well: he is an extremely complex individual, but not as Machiavellian as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I reject his suggestion that the process was manipulated to the extent that he claims.

Following the pre-qualification process six bidders were originally asked to respond to the invitation to submit an outline proposal. The next step would be to issue an invitation to negotiate. I was invited to take that step, but knew that there was anxiety on the matter; it was for that reason that I met Members of Parliament recently. I hope that this debate will contribute to dispelling some, if not all, the anxiety and to counteracting some of the misinformation, or lack of information, about the process.

Three options are under consideration. The first is what we have been debating today—the option to outsource NHS Logistics only. However, there are two other options. One is to integrate NHS Logistics and the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency into one organisation; that is the recommendation of the arm's-length bodies review. A third option is to market test the whole supply and procurement chain. We are not considering that option now, but it may be useful to describe it to hon. Members.

Will my right hon. Friend, for the sake of clarity, confirm that she said that the recommendation of the arm's-length body review is a merger between NHS Logistics and the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency?

That, as I understand it, is the recommendation and that is what will happen in April next year if the status quo applies.

The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), in a typically thoughtful and probing contribution, asked whether the Government were taking a dogmatic view of contracting out and whether we had examples of occasions when we had considered the issues and turned back. I cannot give him examples of recent Department-level decisions because I am not aware of any, but there is the option within trusts of considering market testing, and there are organisations, trusts and hospitals that do not contract out some of their services—some have chosen to do so, but others have not. At Guy's and St. Thomas' across the river, for example, cleaning services are not contracted out. Equally, a hospital in my constituency does not contract out its portering service. We are not considering the issue from the dogmatic point of view that private is best. I hope to address that point in the short time available.

I accept that there are concerns about the impact that the proposals could have on staff and on the continuity and standard of service that the NHS currently enjoys. Since it came into being in 2000, the management team at NHS Logistics has grown the business from £500 million to £700 million-plus per year. It is important to place on the record the fact that NHS Logistics offers the NHS an efficient, one-stop shop for consumables and minimises the effort that trusts have to expend on such orders. Trusts benefit from the fact that NHS Logistics takes care of the ordering process, supplier payment, storage and the receipt and delivery of orders. As a result, those that rely on its services do not need to operate on-site stores to hold large quantities of consumables stock and they enjoy a paperless inventory trail.

One of the key points is that nobody has said that NHS Logistics is not a good business. The crucial point, however, is that the NHS is not realising its full potential. The logistics service must expand and develop to meet the needs of a rapidly changing health service and the vision of a public sector that puts people at its heart. I say that not as a piece of political jargon, but because it is crucial that the whole NHS constantly reviews and examines the way in which it does business. My hon. Friends have acknowledged that.

The NHS must become a service that works with patients to support them and their needs—a truly patient-led service. That must be our focus. Operating and managing a consumables procurement supply chain might deflect effort and resources from that critical agenda—the hon. Member for Northavon was prepared to contemplate the possibility that questions can be raised about that point. We should therefore consider partnering with someone for whom such things are their central focus. We have to take every step to ensure that the greatest percentage of the available budget is directed towards creating a patient-led NHS. By not achieving best value for money through our supply chain service, we are undermining our core mandate.

My hon. Friends have said that they will be less anxious if it can be demonstrated that the proposals offer the best value and are in the best interests of the NHS. Why, in the Government's view, are we not achieving best value? We spend about £15 billion a year on non-pay goods and services. Approximately £3.7 billion is spent on consumables, with only £700 million of that going through NHS Logistics, as we discussed earlier. There is considerable opportunity for expansion and to drive efficiency and savings across the NHS. All that will have a significant impact on front-line delivery. We believe that an independent sector organisation could be best placed to achieve such expansion. Far from driving up costs to the NHS, we seek to widen the benefits. We believe, for example, that we could achieve lower product prices through back-office efficiencies, and that we could provide a greater variety of services to meet different trust requirements.

The introduction of new and innovative technologies could also bring enormous benefits to the NHS. I assure hon. Friends and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that none of that would be achieved at the expense of the trusts. Trusts would benefit from significant savings, which could be invested in front-line delivery.

The Minister used the word "could" in relation to creating greater efficiencies by involving the private sector. Will she explain why early indications are that she will not allow NHS Logistics to bid for the contract? That seems to be the prevailing thinking at the moment, but if it is not, will she say so?

We discussed that when we met hon. Members who represent constituencies that are affected. The truth is that the management could have responded to the advertisement placed in the Official Journal of the European Union. If the management had submitted a bid at that stage, I understand that they would have had to withdraw from the business in order to create a bid that could compete and that would not be based on the unfair advantage of actually running the business at it stands. I know that that is a convoluted process, but that was the advice as I understand it. Service delivery might have suffered if the management had withdrawn from the day-to-day operation of the business. The management would not have been able to inform or influence the process of developing the contracts and considering whether to move to the stage of inviting organisations to bid. That is as much as I want to say about that at the moment, but I have considered the matter.

I was asked about consulting customers. Customers have been consulted. The trusts that use NHS Logistics and PASA say that they value the service and do not want there to be any deterioration in it. We share that aspiration, and are determined that that will not happen. However, they do want changes in the range of services offered. There were common themes in the trusts' comments to those who organised the consultation. First, the organisers were told:

"they need to manage the whole supply chain".

That might be addressed eventually any way, but another comment was that

"they are good at what they do but to me they are box shifters".

Finally, one trust said:

"our service is 24/7, NHS Logistics isn't".

It is possible that an independent sector partner would be incentivised to increase the volume and business and to achieve better product prices. That would directly benefit the trusts. I assure hon. Members that one of the driving principles behind the market testing is to protect the continuity and standard of service that the NHS currently enjoys. No decision would be taken that would jeopardise that.

I do not have time to touch on the consultation with Unison, but there are two points to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale asked what we were testing. We are testing the ability of the market to deliver the lower total cost of supplying consumables to the NHS. That would be achieved by a growth in volume, which would deliver lower prices, thereby driving prices down further. That is our objective. We would not be cutting staff numbers if the business were growing; on the contrary, staff numbers would increase.

The commercial directorate in charge of the operation deserves great credit for its work. The supply chain excellence programme, under which the process is being run, is proving to be of real benefit to the health service. It is important for the House to note that the directorate has worked with the NHS procurement and supply agency to achieve an annualised saving that is forecast to be more than £140 million. The process may yet achieve even more savings for the NHS.

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Olner. I am delighted that the subject of fatherhood and the care of children has been chosen for debate this morning. I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to hearing her response.

For me, today has been all about fatherhood. I have just had a meeting with the Nappy Alliance, whose chairperson lives in my constituency, and an esteemed company called Bambino Mio, the UK market leader in reusable nappies, which is based in Brixworth in Kettering. I should like to dedicate the debate to my baby son Thomas, who is just over one year old. I am sure that he would be delighted if he knew that he was appearing in parliamentary records so early. Unfortunately, he cannot be here because he is with his mum, Donna, at the village coffee morning. Both of them send their apologies.

The main themes on which I want to touch are the importance of the contact between fathers and early-years children and of increasing parents' active responsibility for their children's behaviour, and the need for us to do four things: to do more to promote the institution of marriage; to get back to the idea that it is important to be able to afford and provide for a family before becoming parents; to tackle the issue of teenage pregnancy; and to make it easier for fathers to engage in fatherhood.

I started my research by going to the House of Commons Library to look up the dictionary definition of fatherhood. Unfortunately, despite the Library's huge resources, although I could find a definition of father, I could not find one of fatherhood. In my view, paternity—the Hollobone definition of which is the act of fathering a child—is very different from fatherhood, the participatory process of caring for and nurturing one's child or children. Fatherhood has demonstrable benefits. My wife said at the weekend that Thomas behaves differently with me than he does with her. Of course there is a very close bond between mother and child, and the relationship between father and child is different. However, the two together have been for centuries—and, I would suggest, will continue to be—the best way to bring up children.

The Equal Opportunities Commission has published magnificent research into the benefits of fatherhood. One of its recent studies suggested that children whose fathers have been actively involved in their lives do demonstrably better, with higher educational achievements, more satisfactory relationships in adult life and less likelihood of getting into trouble with the police. The EOC goes on to say:

"Early involvement of father with child is associated with continuing involvement with that child through childhood and adolescence."

A report called "What Good Are Dads?", a review of 20 years of research into fatherhood by Charlie Lewis, professor of psychology at Lancaster university, was published in June 2001 by Fathers Direct. The research showed that involvement of fathers with children aged seven to 11 predicts exam success at 16. If fathers are involved before the age of 11, children are less likely to have a criminal record by the age of 21, and pre-school children who spend more time playing with their dads are often more sociable when they enter nursery school.

My hon. Friend is speaking about the importance of the relationship between fathers and their children. As a new Member, my experience is that the Child Support Agency is the biggest problem in my surgery every week and in my telephone calls every day. It strikes me that in its present form, the organisation is not helping the father, the mother or the child. It seems actually to develop hatred—

Order. That intervention is a little too long.

I apologise, Mr. Olner. Very briefly, will my hon. Friend give his views on the CSA?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Indeed, I planned to come on to the CSA later. Perhaps I could mention at this point that among the top three issues that I as a new Member deal with, letters and correspondence with the CSA on behalf of both mothers and fathers in the Kettering constituency rank number two. I very much share my hon. Friend's concern that the CSA seems to be far more involved with fathers who want to contribute to the welfare of their children but sometimes struggle with resources than it is with fathers who do not want to be responsible for the welfare of their children, who often escape the net.

A huge demographic shift has put pressure on fatherhood. I have some interesting statistics about households in the United Kingdom in 2000 which I hope will prove instructive: 18 per cent. were individuals who lived alone without children, 25 per cent. were couples without children, 58 per cent. were households with children, and 10 per cent. of that 58 per cent. were lone parents. It is now the case that 21 per cent. of all children live in lone-parent families—that is up from 7 per cent. in 1972.

Interestingly, the pressure on fatherhood also shows itself in a trend away from marriage. Compared with just 10 per cent. in the late 1970s, 40 per cent. of births are now registered outside marriage. Of those, 78 per cent. are jointly registered by the mother and father living at the same address. It seems that marriage is under more pressure than fatherhood, but there is a link between the two.

Perhaps of most concern is that the trend away from responsible fatherhood is greatest among teenage parents. Ninety per cent. of births to women under the age of 20 take place outside marriage, and 27 per cent. of those births are sole registrations, compared with just 4 per cent. for mothers who are in their late 30s or early 40s. A concern was raised in the 27 June edition of the Evening Telegraph, which is a highly respected local newspaper in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). It stated that one in every 24 girls aged 15 to 17 gets pregnant. It is worrying that the rate is rising in Kettering, going up from 39 in every 1,000 between 1998 and 2000 to just under 50 in every 1,000 between 2001 and 2003.

The concern is that the younger a father is when his baby is born, the less likely he is to remain in contact. Recent research by Bristol university states that if the mother and father are both 17 or under when their child is born, only 2 per cent. of fathers are involved with the child nine months later. As men's ages rose, so did their involvement. The proportions grow to 43 per cent. for men between 18 and 21, and 100 per cent. for men aged 22 or over. The research goes on to say:

"Teenage pregnancy policy makers take note: doing what we can to support the father-child relationship in teen mother families may be of real value and importance to their children."

The facts about dads today are quite startling. More than a third of all male employees have dependent children and 89 per cent. of fathers are in employment. However, few fathers have part-time jobs. Only 4 per cent. of fathers work part-time, compared with 9 per cent. of men without children, whereas some 60 per cent. of mothers with children work part-time, compared with 32 per cent. of women without children.

The Government have tried to address, in a limited way, the issues of fatherhood, but there is far more to be done. I humbly suggest a number of recommendations that I hope that the Minister might wish to consider. The Government need to recognise the importance of fatherhood far more ostentatiously. The fatherhood quality mark has been produced by organisations such as Fathers Direct, which has an excellent website: www.fathersdirect.com. The quality mark is a new tool for improving outcomes for children by recognising organisations that are father-friendly.

I understand that the Law Commission expects to begin a two-year project to consider the law relating to cohabiting couples, starting this month. I suggest that pressure needs to be applied to the Law Commission to encourage it to consider the role of promoting fatherhood in the context of cohabiting couples.

There is an important issue involved here. The Office for National Statistics did a report on young offenders and it found that in cohabiting households the rate of disorder among juveniles was as high as in single-parent households and three times higher than in married households. The idea that cohabiting produces the same outcome as marriage is not borne out by the facts. The ONS is hardly an offshoot of The Daily Telegraph. It is a totally independent official organisation, and it is important that the lessons from its report are understood.

I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent. He and I would both agree that the institution of marriage has worked extremely well over the centuries and needs to be promoted far more than it is at the moment. Nevertheless, we need to recognise that there will always be some parents who will not get married. Given that there will be parents who are cohabiting, we should not miss the opportunity offered by the Law Commission report to ensure that effective parenting and fatherhood in the context of cohabiting couples is promoted.

Her Majesty's Government should also look again at the non-registration of fathers' details. In this day and age, when we are all concerned about identity, it is unacceptable for a father's details not to be recorded. Fathers need to be made responsible for their children, and if there is some way in which they can evade their responsibilities, that needs to be addressed.

We have mentioned the Child Support Agency. The Government need to take urgent steps to simplify and reform the way in which the CSA goes about getting support to those children who need it, but they also need to recognise fathers who are responsible about their offspring.

The other day I asked the Solicitor-General a written question about parental responsibility for miscreant children. The reply that I received was illuminating:

"Youth courts . . . have the power to impose parental bindovers on the parents of young people who have been convicted of an offence, but these are rarely used.

Breaches of parenting orders and parental bindovers are the only measures available to the CPS to hold parents accountable for the behaviour of their children."—[Official Report, 4 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 14W.]

One of the major concerns in my constituency is that residents want parents to be held accountable for the behaviour of their children. In part, the answer that I received suggests that the mechanisms in place are not being used as effectively as they might be.

I am grateful for the opportunity to start this debate and look forward to the contributions that hon. Members will make. I close with a call for the Government to do more to recognise the importance of fatherhood, but preferably in the context of the stable, long-standing, effective and traditional institution of marriage, which offers the best prospects for bringing up well-adjusted children.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members to be reasonably brief so that they can all get in. Several people have written asking to catch my eye and I shall endeavour to call as many as I can. However, I am afraid that unless hon. Members are brief, there will be more speakers than time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on securing this important debate.

We use the word "crisis" a lot in this place, in our press releases and in our speeches. Last night we were discussing council tax and the crisis affecting certain income groups, and last week we were discussing the crisis affecting NHS dentistry. All are important issues and certainly worthy of parliamentary time, but this morning we have the opportunity to focus on something that I truly believe is a national crisis. However, it is rarely discussed properly, either because of political correctness, which sucks the very heart and value from any debate on social issues, or because it is so easy to fall back on generalisations and caricatures, stigmatising vulnerable groups or harking back to a bygone age.

We in the UK face a social crisis as a result of the absence of fathers from the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. The absence of fathers from family life is surely the most socially consequential family trend of our era. Some 15 per cent. of babies born at the turn of the millennium now live just with their mothers. Of those, nearly half see their fathers at least once a week, but nearly four in 10 have no contact with their fathers at all.

We see that phenomenon all around us in our constituencies, especially in communities centred on social housing developments. We are familiar, I hope, with the complex and interrelated problems of social exclusion that characterise those communities: poverty, low aspirations, educational failure, truancy, crime—the list goes on. Rarely do we hear discussion in this place about the link between family structure and such outcomes for children and young people, however. The evidence is there, but it is staggering how often people involved in family policy refuse to acknowledge it.

The proportion of children being raised by lone parents has increased by a quarter under this Government—there are now more than 3.2 million of them—and we are in danger of becoming the lone-parent capital of Europe. According to EUROSTAT, lone-parent families make up more than 70 per cent. of households with children—more than in any other country in Europe. That is partly because the absolute number of children living in one-parent families is so large, but also because the birth rate among intact couples has fallen. As a result of those twin developments, the percentage of children living in one-parent households is now much higher in Britain than elsewhere.

It is so easy inadvertently to frame the debate in terms that lay the blame at the door of the single mum, but that is absolutely not the purpose of my speech, or of this debate. One of the Conservative party's great errors of the past 20 years was to view social fragmentation through a lens that saw single mums as the principal problem. To a large extent, the problem is also about men, and about men behaving irresponsibly and fathering children. Often, they too have been brought up in lone-parent homes, with no understanding of what real fatherhood is about, and they then replicate the cycle in the lives of their own children.

There has been a lot of research in recent years about the socio-economic changes affecting the male population in post-industrialised countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has written at great length about those changes, describing what has happened to the marriageable pool of men. Often in communities there are men whom women will happily sleep with, and have children with, but with whom they would never in their wildest dreams set up home.

Many children living in single-parent homes will eventually end up in step-families. Social parenting, as opposed to biological parenting, is an important new phenomenon in family life. It is essentially about stepfatherhood. More and more men are raising other men's children, while in many cases their own children grow up elsewhere. No fewer than 17 per cent. of dads born in 1970 are stepfathers, nearly double the number among men born just 12 years earlier.

The most rapidly growing family type is the step-family. Since most children remain with their mother following divorce or separation, most step-families have a stepfather rather than a stepmother at their head. Not nearly enough research has been undertaken into the pressures on step-families, especially as the Child Support Agency is often lurking in the background of those families' lives, and payments are being made to the previous partners.

There has been a great deal of research about what social fragmentation means for children and society in general. Although many lone parents and step-parents do a superb job raising their families, the children are at much greater risk of abuse, of neglect and of worse social, educational and health outcomes than children who live with both their natural parents.

The decline of the traditional family unit is harmful to children and to wider society. As an example, I dug out a Home Office report on young people and crime from about 10 years ago. It undertook extensive research into the factors that drive young people to criminality. One conclusion stated:

"For both males and females, those who lived with both natural parents were the least likely ever to start to offend, followed by those living with a lone parent."

Those living with one natural and one step-parent were the most likely to start offending.

A few years ago I paid a visit to Cardiff prison, where I met a group of young men in their late teens and had a discussion with them about their lives. All had had chaotic home lives; all had grown up without the presence of a father; all had failed at school, played truant and committed criminal acts; and a few of them had found themselves in a revolving door situation, in prison for the third or fourth time. Several of those young men had already started to father children, thus repeating the pattern.

Family fragmentation matters. One of the most important factors to understand in this debate, although by no means the most important, is the fiscal framework surrounding the family structure. During the election campaign two months ago, I spoke to one young family at their home in Haverfordwest. They had two young children, the mother stayed at home and did not work, and the father had a modestly paid job earning less than £16,000 a year. They told me that their calculations showed that they would be better off if they divorced and the mother raised their children as a single parent. What a staggering conclusion in this day and age: a family can make that judgment and those calculations, and find that they would be better off splitting up and having the mother raise their children alone.

I have seen research undertaken by people such as Jill Kirby at the Centre for Policy Studies, which claims that the tax and benefit system subsidises marriage break-up. It shows that the average couple family in which one partner has a job is only £1 a week better off than the average workless one-parent family, because lone parents get so much extra support from the state. I do not believe that the perverse incentives created by the tax and benefit system go anywhere near far enough to explain the social trends that we are debating, but they are important factors that Ministers need to address.

One point that I want to draw attention to, which is linked to the main issue, is the wider absence of male role models in the lives of young people, particularly in schools. The General Teaching Council for Wales noted two months ago that there were so few male teachers in Wales that many pupils had gone through their primary years without ever being taught by a man. In primary schools, only 16 per cent. of teachers are men. In secondary schools the figure is 40 per cent. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on why, despite the campaign by the Teacher Training Agency, the overall percentage of male teachers is falling. It was 28 per cent. last year and it is 27 per cent. this year.

What more can be done to address that problem? In other areas of life we see many examples of positive discrimination to rectify gender or racial imbalances. Should Ministers not be taking a more active approach in this area as well?

We in the House are doing the country a huge disservice when we fail to promote marriage, and fail to tell the truth about how the collapse of family life seems to fuel every social problem, including truancy. This is not about a mission for moral rearmament, and it is certainly not about demonising single mums, the vast majority of whom do a fantastic job. It is simply about recognising that children who grow up with their fathers do far better emotionally, educationally, physically, and in every way that we can measure, than children who do not. That conclusion holds true even when differences of race, class and income are taken into account. The simple truth is that fathers are irreplaceable in shaping the competence and character of their children.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on introducing the debate, which is of great significance. I, too, must declare an interest. I am a father of five children. To follow my hon. Friend's lead, they are Barnaby, Harriet, Dougal, Dorothy and Noah. Perhaps we should all declare a significant interest—we all want children to get off to the best start and there to be a reduction in the antisocial behaviour that we see in our communities. We all have an interest in trying to ensure the presence of a responsible father in our homes.

I have been a solicitor dealing with criminals for the past 11 years. Yesterday, I handed over my files to my replacement, so I spent some time looking back at old files. I thought about the characteristics of criminal clients. Invariably, they are young men, who show irresponsibility. Often they are drug addicts with learning difficulties and are from homes in which there was a single parent. They invariably had little or no contact with a father and no older male role model.

One such client was my first client at Enfield police station. He was a young man who had previously had high expectations—he had hoped to be a weightlifter for England—but had, sadly, been tempted by drugs. His lack of discipline and respect showed itself in what was the first of many criminal offences. Over the years, he became one of the most prolific offenders in Enfield. It was not uncommon for him to commit 100 burglaries in a week. He has now become my last client. He is in Pentonville serving a stretch of three years for robbery.

During the 11 years that I have known him, there have been periods of stability in his life. I will consider the characteristics of that stability. It has been when, as a father of two young children, he has, for brief times it must be said, showed responsibility. He has then been able to reconnect with society. When he took seriously his responsibility as a father, that connection was made. He suddenly woke up to the fact that he had duties and responsibilities in society. That had a profound effect on him not committing offences. Yes, he was no doubt helped by drug treatment and testing orders and by probation supervision, but of most significance, as he would say himself, was when he faced his responsibilities as a father.

It is that challenge that we need to face. The cost to Enfield of those 100 burglaries a week and the cost to his family and to others have been because of that individual and others like him. The big challenge for such people is to reconnect with society and with being fathers, and to take their responsibilities seriously.

It is significant that when I visited that person in the cells at Enfield magistrates court or at Pentonville he was often distraught or in tears. The bravura of being a prolific offender had peeled off and he was just a young child in many ways. The first thing that he would always say was that he wanted his father and that he wanted his father to show some interest in him. That had a profound effect on him, and it is now showing itself across the generations as he is not taking seriously his responsibilities as a father. We must tackle the issue of fatherhood, not only for his benefit but for that of the community.

Statistics have been produced, which I will not seek to repeat. It is shocking that the rate of lone parenthood in this country is more than double that of our European neighbours. Teenage motherhood and teenage pregnancy rates are rocketing. Enfield has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy of any London borough. The challenge, which we need to tackle early, must be to ensure that fatherhood has an important role. Young men should appreciate their responsibilities at an early stage.

Fathers who are on the scene and the time that they spend with children are also important matters. One survey researched a number of fathers, who spent on average three minutes a day with their children. We should compare that with the fact that the same research showed that children spent three hours in front of a television. We have serious problems in our society with the time that fathers take with their children and with fathers being absent from the home.

We should perhaps learn some lessons from America, where there has been a debate about family breakdown. I am sure that we can all agree that family breakdown has dire consequences. The debate on welfare to work has been followed by a number of programmes, aimed at getting lone parents back into the work force. The Government are taking that part of the equation seriously. However, we cannot stop there, and we need to accompany that with the role of fathers. That role is vital, and we need to promote it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said. The equation is important. There is an imbalance if we rely on getting people back to work and do not properly value the importance of fatherhood.

We need to wake up effectively to the profound financial and social costs of family breakdown. Disintegration can no longer be tolerated by a responsible Government. Firm action is needed and it has to happen now. Welfare policies have sought to create a habit of getting people back into work. At the same time we need policies that will restore the important role of men in family life. That is important and it needs to accompany any welfare-to-work policies.

We need to examine some radical measures, such as joint registration of births, joint interviews for benefits and encouraging the family and father link in housing. In Enfield, we have been particularly keen to consider the family and generational link for housing preferences. Where the state is involved in funding, we need to be creative and maybe even radical to ensure a role for men in family life and in the important decisions. Whenever welfare is handed out, a contract is involved and that needs to be a proper contract that includes fathers.

The vital challenge that we need to take up is to reconnect fathers to families. The debate is not simply about fathers paying their child support and having supervised contact. That is not good enough. We need to go further. We need to promote and value the role of fatherhood, and to harness and encourage voluntary groups and faith-based organisations that promote fatherhood.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said, we need to be bold and to recognise that generally, although not exclusively, marriage sustains fatherhood. We should promote and reward those groups that promote not only fatherhood, but, explicitly, marriage. We must support trusts that work hard practically to support and encourage stable and long-lasting marriage, because that is in the interests of fatherhood and children. We therefore need to ensure that all our welfare and family policies promote family, fatherhood and marriage. That is in the best interests of us and our children.

I, too, am delighted to speak in the debate. I shall address my remarks primarily to the Minister because I hope that when she replies she will not approach the debate as though this were an issue of party-political infighting. It is far too serious and important for that. I hope also that we will find some common ground, because this issue is vital to the future of our country. Father absence is the biggest domestic issue that we face in the UK today.

A few days ago, one of our leading building societies released some research saying that many people—more women than men—go on to have new, happy lives after divorcing or splitting up, but that research did not show anything about the effect and impact on children. The data on that are overwhelming: it is all too clear that losing a loving, committed parent from their home is hugely detrimental to children's emotional development and many forms of achievement.

I hope that we can move on from some of the constraints that have made this area a difficult subject for us on both sides of the House. We could all say that many, if not most, single parents deserve medals for what they do. I am a father to three children; my wife and I struggle to get through the week and do all the things that we want to do with our children. How parents—mothers or fathers—cope with that huge work load on their own defies belief. They need support and encouragement, and I would not want anything said in this debate to be seen as an attack on them. I hope that we can take that as common ground, and move on to say that it is hugely in our national interests to encourage and value committed, loving and responsible fatherhood. There are ways in which we can do that.

The Government have made the defeat of child poverty one of their key objectives. That is a noble and worthy aim, and I salute the Government for trying to achieve it, but the Minister will know from her time in the Department for Work and Pensions that 45 per cent. of children who live in poverty live in single-parent homes. The latest figures that I have seen show that a quarter of children in the UK live in single-parent homes. That cohort of children contributes disproportionately to the number of children who live in poverty. I hope that the Minister will ask her colleagues in her Department and her former Department to consider how the encouragement of responsible, committed fatherhood could be a real weapon in the Government's armoury with which to defeat child poverty—an issue that is rightly close to their heart.

What can we do? We can reel off statistics, of which we have heard many this morning. I shall not go through them again, as it would be rather depressing to recite them. In far too many debates we agree that there is a problem. We analyse that problem and spend only the last few minutes coming up with things that we could do about it.

I have a number of suggestions for ways in which we can tackle the problem together. First, I shall take us to America and something that was started there in 1994. I am well aware that American society is very different from that in the UK, and that we cannot simply introduce here things that have worked there. Having said that, an organisation called the National Fatherhood Initiative was set up in America in 1994 by Wade Horn, who is currently an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services in the American Administration. The organisation changed the culture in several ways.

About 10 years ago, it was possible to go into the pubs and bars of America and find young men leaning against a bar stool bragging about how many illegitimate children they had. That was all right; it was an acceptable form of being macho. In the past 10 years, however, the initiative's campaign has managed to make that less socially acceptable. Of course there are still far too many illegitimate children and father-absent families in America, but the cultural tide has turned. The Minister will know that all Governments need that backing—that groundswell of opinion among the electorate as a whole—in order to make progress in this area.

How did the National Fatherhood Initiative do that in America? It used public service advertising, among other things. I urge the Minister to go back to her Department and consider speaking to our embassy in Washington to ascertain whether it would give serious consideration to the American experience and to see whether there is common ground between us and lessons that we can learn about using public service advertising in the United Kingdom to launch a similar initiative. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that suggestion when she replies.

The second major area that I want the Government to consider is that of community family trusts. Again, those organisations sprung from work in America, but were brought to this country, localised and made to work in the UK. There are many of them in the south-west—Bristol has one—but they have also spread out across the country and can be found in places such as York and elsewhere.

The trusts are charitable organisations that receive some Government funding, some local disorder partnership money and other local authority money. Their focus runs all the way through from primary schools, secondary schools and colleges to workplaces, GPs' surgeries, and registry offices, which hold 62 per cent. of all the marriages that take place in the UK. They provide advice to couples both before they get together and, crucially, afterwards; they do, if one likes, provide aftercare services for couples. We know that the key pressure points in relationships are often when children come along and several years later, and the trusts provide practical and easy-to-understand relationship support. The data from America, which academics at the University of Texas have independently analysed, suggest that the trusts have saved about 33,000 marriages and relationships in the areas that they cover. We could make use of them.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) attended the earlier part of the debate. He will know that the Conservative party was committed to providing funding for these organisations. It would not take a massive amount of funding, but I seriously believe that the data and evidence from America, which are available for the Minister to examine, show that these voluntary community-based organisations could be a huge help and could change the culture in this country to ensure that we had much greater couple stability, which is how we will get committed fathers to live in their children's homes and to take an active and continuing interest in their children's lives.

We have heard about the importance of fathers realising their financial responsibility from the moment they father a child all the way through that child's life. I am well aware that mothers are allowed not to register the father's name for understandable reasons, such as fear of domestic violence, which, sadly, is all too often a serious problem in this country, but if young men in particular were aware that they would incur a financial penalty throughout their lives that they would not be able to evade, that would make them think seriously before they fathered children and then cleared off, leaving the mother to cope on her own, and the state and the community to pick up the pieces.

A few weeks ago, when there was a certain amount of press attention on the family that had pregnant 12-year-old, 14-year-old and 16-year-old daughters, I was pleased to see that some of that attention was directed not at the significance of the three pregnant young women, but at that of the three people missing from the picture. The thing that struck me about the photograph of the family was: where were the fathers? It was not the three mothers and the three children who were significant; it was the three absent fathers. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) focused on that in a piece that he wrote in The Times, and he was right to do so.

Having been a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Minister will know of the concerns about our benefits structure, and the fact that, at times, it appears to give couples financial disincentives to stay together. Single parents incur greater costs for the simple reason that there is only one of them to provide child care. However, I would ask the Minister to go back to colleagues in her old Department and to seek a rigorous audit, perhaps with independent outside help—many independent commentators who are former tax inspectors, and others with no political axe to grind, have concerns in that area. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister or her Department that many couples, now referred to as LATs—living apart together—live in separate households in order to receive increased benefits and tax credits. That is not healthy for children and it puts extra pressure on housing space, which is in short supply in many parts of the United Kingdom.

Finally, all the evidence is that fathers actively want to be physically involved with their children—to spend time with them and to perform routine tasks with them week by week—and that is something that mothers would welcome. We have to look more imaginatively at flexible working. That is a difficult thing for MPs to talk about; we are, by definition, extremely bad role models as parents because of the nature of our job and the hours that we work. No doubt that is true of many other people who work long hours. Anything that we can do in that area will be extremely worth while.

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for having raised the important subject of fatherhood and the father's role in child care. I very much agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that there is a need for nationwide consensus on the matter.

My approach is a little different from that of the Conservatives. I shall discuss some other mechanisms through which we can support the principles of fatherhood. I shall not list my children's names, but I, too, must declare an interest, albeit a rather limited one in recent weeks. Most hon. Members would agree that our society is witnessing a trend towards a better work-life balance and, in parallel, a desire on the part of fathers to be more involved in the lives of their children. I welcome that trend—the time that young children spend with their parents has increased from perhaps 15 minutes a day in the 1970s to some two hours a day in the 1990s. With my background in primary education, I believe that fathers and male role models generally have much to contribute to a child's development and sense of security.

Although I endorse what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire said, his statistics are wrong: the Welsh teaching profession is down one male since my election to this place. There is a need to attract more men into primary education and into child care in general. Given the Government's acknowledgement of the need to recruit 160,000 people to work in child care by 2008, can the Minister tell us what plans there are to attract men to work in that sector? The positive role that men can play is another reason why we should attract more men into education, an area traditionally dominated by women. I was often told that, as a man, I would have no problem getting a job in a school, and that proved to be the case, although I must confess that the shortlist was not particularly big.

Today, however, we are exploring the move towards active fatherhood and the mechanisms to bring it about. Some are already in place, but others are non-existent or need to be developed more fully. Notwithstanding what has been said about statistics, the Equal Opportunities Commission has produced optimistic figures suggesting that 80 per cent. of fathers and 85 per cent. of mothers agree that employees should be able to balance their work and family lives. A high number of employers— 62 per cent.—also recognise that, signalling their commitment in principle. Most importantly, however, 79 per cent. of men want to spend more time with their children. That is progress, and I welcome it. There is a drift towards parenting as a principle as well as a practice, and towards giving parenting the respect that it deserves.

The influence of parenting is visible in many ways. Given my background in schools, I have no doubt that proper parenting gives rise to the behaviour that we expect in our schools, in adolescence and beyond, and the links between bad parenting and crime are well established. Notwithstanding the fact that the definition of the family in Britain is far wider than it used to be and there is no longer a universal structure, I have no doubt that the male role model is important.

It would be churlish not to applaud parts of the Employment Act 2002, which I am sure the Minister will mention, but there are still issues that make it difficult for men to assume a greater role in their children's lives and therefore in their care. Men are generally the higher earners, and when the father earns more than the mother the family decision that the father will continue to work full-time is inevitable. Generally, it is still the mother who has to alter her working pattern or face the pressure of work and a family career. Continuing to address the gender pay gap will do much to counter the traditional gender roles of father as breadwinner and mother as carer and to promote equality of opportunity in the caring role.

One concern is that employees—both men and women—are unaware of the proactive mechanisms in place to promote family-friendly policies, because these have not been communicated effectively. Such mechanisms include the opportunities for flexitime, a shorter working week and the capacity to work from home. Although the number of flexible working requests that have been declined has fallen, I should like to ask the Minister why only 58 per cent. of parents with children under six are aware of the new flexible arrangements.

I mentioned that the role of either parent may not necessarily be positive, and there are often tugs of war with the child in the middle. In such cases, there should not be a presumption in favour of equal parenting. We are not parents as of right. I prefer a child-centred approach. Where there are challenges in terms of the care role, the child's interests are paramount. I would strive for a blend of parental involvement that recognises the role of fathers and mothers, but best benefits the child.

On access rights, I start from the principle of equality of access, but not necessarily equality of time, because I have seen the ramifications of that all too often in my classroom. It is important that children have opportunities for good-quality contact time with both parents, but we need to pay attention to the potential for mental or physical abuse. We should not underestimate parents' capacity for mental abuse. Decent child care centres are needed, and that is an issue of some concern in the Cardigan women's refuge in my constituency.

Laudably, the Equal Opportunities Commission has called for shared parental leave rights in the second six months of a child's life, whether or not the mother was working before the birth, to give both parents an equal opportunity to bring up the child, rather than simply transferring parental leave to their partner after six months, as the Government suggest. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on the issue and I hope that it will be considered seriously in the Government review of leave policy in 2006.

Notwithstanding what many hon. Members have said about the changing dynamics of family, which are having an important effect on society, there is recognition that fathers want to play a greater role in their children's lives. That is a step forward.

I can call Mr. Binley and Mr. Hurd to speak if they are very brief.

Thank you, Mr. Olner. I apologise for not letting you know earlier that I wanted to speak and am grateful to you for calling me.

In my maiden speech in the House, I talked about a dear friend of mine who was the Labour agent in Kidderminster when I was the Conservative agent. I said that when we cast aside our political differences, we were surprised by how much we agreed on and how much work we could do together. It is in that spirit that I make my contribution today, because there is much that we can do together. If the Minister sees this as a political attack requiring a political defence, we shall fail, but I am sure that she does not, and that encourages me.

I shall concentrate on the impact of the absence of a permanent male role model, commonly called a father, in family life, particularly the way it affects the education of boys aged 12 to 14. Some 50 per cent. of boys brought up in two-parent families have the chance to achieve meaningful educational qualifications, but, sadly, only 30 per cent. of boys from homes in which one parent—overwhelmingly the mother—has played almost the sole parental role have a chance to achieve the same. That is a massive difference of 40 per cent. If anything shows the import of male role models in parenting, it must be that.

I have discussed the matter with teachers in upper schools in Northampton, and it is clear that boys brought up in homes without a permanent male parent are more likely to reject the benefits of education when aged 12 to 14, seeing it as a waste of time in many respects. Teachers think that, sadly, the interest of such boys is consistently more turned off than that of the majority of young men from homes with a permanent male role model. Equally importantly, such boys are also much more likely to reject authority because, in a way, they see having authority as a male activity. It is not difficult to see how important that is in other aspects of life as they proceed through their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) said that fatherhood is the participating process of nurturing and progressing the life of a child. There is support for that in the 2000 Ofsted report, which said that

"there is a disturbing absence of men involved in family learning."

That is the point from which I start: the life chances of a child are created through the learning process, particularly our education process in this country. It is clear from all the evidence that when fathers are involved in their children's learning, those children's exam results and school behaviour improve, they exhibit less criminal behaviour later on, and they have better relationships in their adult lives. I did not say that—

Order. On that positive note, I invite the hon. Gentleman to wind up his speech so that his colleague can speak.

I apologise, Mr. Olner. I shall do as you suggest.

To conclude, I return to my opening remarks. I said that I hope we can work together. We have heard many creative ideas today. I believe that we should create a culture of change. We should start a crusade by working together. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Olner, for squeezing me in. This important debate goes to the heart of a growing concern in my constituency about the perceived breakdown in the values that once bound the community together—respect for the law, respect for property and respect for each other.

A growing voice has linked that breakdown with the way in which children are being brought up today. It is not just the voice of nostalgia for a golden age of parenthood that probably never existed. I have spoken with senior London policemen who have to deal with the fact that 40 per cent. of street crime in London is committed by 10 to 16-year-olds playing truant. I have spoken with the headmasters of secondary schools who often find parents who obstruct rather than support their efforts to instil more discipline in their schools. A growing body of research summarises the evidence of family breakdown in Britain and its harmful impact on children.

It is striking how out on a limb we are. Britain is the divorce capital of Europe, with 25 per cent. of children living in lone-parent households. That is twice the European average as measured by EUROSTAT, and the trend shows no sign of slowing. The Government's approach has been to respect personal freedom and to help those facing the challenge of bringing up children on their own in conditions of poverty by providing them with support. Those good intentions are to be supported—they are thoroughly respectable—but I would argue that they have unintended but damaging consequences.

I would like to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), which is that the tax and benefits system now discourages low-earning parents from forming two-parent families. That message comes through strongly in research from a wide range of organisations, including Civitas, Care, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Policy Studies. It is the inevitable outcome of a system in which income tax is based on individual assessment, with no allowances for marriage, and benefits are based on a joint assessment; arguably, penalties for marriage are built in to the system.

If that is true, Government policy may be helping to increase the number of children being raised without a father in the home, despite increasingly clear evidence that there is a link between marriage or stable cohabitation and a better outcome for children in terms of health, performance at school and crime. That being so, is it not time to confront the awkward truth that children growing up outside the family unit do not have equality of opportunity? Is it not time to re-examine where the interests of children lie and ask whether it can be in their interests to penalise couples and subsidise lone parents? Faced with the growing tension between the need to respect personal freedom and the desire to give children the best possible chance, I argue that the Government should at least be neutral in the signals that they send via the tax and benefits system.

I was canvassing on an estate in Ruislip during the general election when I was pursued down the street by a young man in a dressing gown. He wanted to tell me that his decision to marry his girlfriend would cost him £400 in lost benefit. He was going to do it anyway, because he thought that it was the right thing to do, but he wanted to know whether it was wrong for the Government to be sending that signal to young people. I said yes, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone); our debate has raised many interesting issues. I stand here with some trepidation, in view of the line-up of hon. Members behind me. I am a mother, and to protect myself from further comments, I can tell the House that I have been married for more than 35 years. I also declare an interest in that I am a trustee of Poole community family trust. I share many of the enthusiasms of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and his interest in the topic. Of course, the trust receives Government money.

I was slightly disheartened when I first saw the title of this debate, because I always think that we should put children first, and I thought that the title should be "Children and the Role of Parents". However, many hon. Members have addressed that point. It is clear that childhood, and therefore parenting, are increasingly complex in today's society. We have to understand the needs and rights of parents of both sexes, and of children, in the context of the economic and social environment in which we live.

We are getting it wrong in so many ways. I would like to add just one more statistic: ChildLine reports that 1,500 suicidal children phone its helpline every year, often citing problems of abuse, neglect and low self esteem that build up during childhood. We have a lot to answer for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) made some particularly interesting contributions about work-life balance. Most people would agree that ideally, caring roles should be shared by women and men, with support from employers. Interestingly, that probably does not mean a 50:50 split, although we hear a lot about 50:50 splits in the debate on child contact. That is a sad reflection on the number of hours that our fathers work—the longest hours in Europe. One in eight fathers work excessively long hours—60 or more a week. That does not give much chance, or time in the day, for the development of fatherhood. Even so, overall, fathers' time spent with their children accounts for one third of total parental care time. On that basis, we have to value the contribution of fatherhood to caring for children.

We have mentioned the need for flexible working time, and we need to be concerned about the lack of opportunity for flexible working practices and the lack of take-up by fathers. When fathers have been actively involved in their children's lives, the children have better outcomes. We have heard about a number of such outcomes today.

Fathers often face the conflict of being both a parent and, frequently, the main breadwinner. What can we do in terms of maternity and paternity leave—paid and unpaid—and flexible working time? We need to applaud the Government for making a move. From April 2003 there has been a fortnight's sort-of paid leave, although there is not very much pay, which is not a great incentive. Indeed, where not enough money is paid, it might even be a disincentive for fathers.

It is clearly an advantage to have the father around during those all-important early years. What more can we do? I look forward to the new measures that the Government will announce shortly. I also agree with some comments about encouraging active fatherhood; I am not sure that I agree with all the ways of encouraging it, but the principle is sound.

I would like to touch briefly on the importance of family support mechanisms. With changing structures in society, support mechanisms have become much more important. Being a parent is probably the most important job that we can ever take on in life, yet most of us have no training whatever. Parental training should not be seen as something to be scorned, but should be available for everybody; it should be seen as the thing to do, rather than as the result of some failure.

To return to relationships, which I care so much about, I am sure that we can do much more pre marriage, pre relationship and post relationship, particularly in schools. We could start at the age of five, and have a curriculum that embraced the importance of relationships. In the other place the other day, Lord Northbourne suggested that

"children should be learning from appropriately trained teachers interpersonal skills appropriate to their age—communication skills, emotional literacy, how to form and sustain good relationships with peers and adults and how to discuss and negotiate without anger."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2005; Vol. 673, c. 276.]

There is so much scope there. Without being preachy about the situation, we can actually improve the family's chances and the children's life chances within that.

As far as fathers are concerned, I am particularly keen on early bonding. That is happening in some places, and the early and prenatal involvement of fathers is all-important. Once that bond was formed, it would be likely to continue on in life, and perhaps we would not have so many disputes over child contact.

Important scientific evidence is also emerging that without a strong bond with at least one adult, a baby is likely to suffer brain damage, which can lead to all sorts of antisocial behaviour. We need to study the first six months closely; we need to think about the child and both parents. That is critical to later life. I also endorse the point about the male role model in school. My perception is that things are changing. However, for a long time there was a noticeable absence in primary schools, which was significant.

Before I finish, I want to mention the Child Support Agency, with all the mistakes that are made, and the other issues involved, as a clear example of not putting children first. We must also be mindful of domestic violence. We must ensure that women—or men, if that is appropriate—and most of all children, are protected.

Many of us are exhausted from the long hours that we work, and perhaps we do not take enough time out to think about what we do. We need to love and care for our children and value their great achievements. We must appreciate that we bring precious beings into the world, and that they should come first.

We have had an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on securing it. This is the first time that this subject has been tackled in the Chamber in all my years in the House. It is an enormous subject.

When we talk about fathers in the media and politics, it tends to be in negative terms—what Fathers4Justice and "Superman" may have been getting up to, and problems with the Child Support Agency and errant fathers. However, there are an awful lot of positives, too, and some have been mentioned by my hon. Friends today. Certainly, lack of involvement by fathers has been and is still the cause of enormous social fragmentation, as my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) have said.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I find it extraordinary, particularly given the strong interest that the hon. Members here have shown, that not a single Labour Back Bencher has contributed to a debate on a subject that covers a multitude of matters of direct and key relevance to many of our constituents. That is a cause of great sadness.

Many organisations, particularly in the voluntary sector, are contributing to the debate about how we can be better fathers. Fathers Direct has been mentioned several times, and it produces excellent publications, among which "Working with Fathers: A Guide" is worthy of a mention.

It is worth contemplating some of the changing social patterns that mean that fathers spend more time with their children than they ever used to. Despite some of the assumptions rightly made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about the pressure of work, parents in general now spend four times as long on child care as they did 40 years ago. Interestingly, men now spend eight times as long with their children as they did then. There has been a drastic change between the amount of time that my father would have been expected to spend with me in the early 1960s and the amount of time that I might be expected to spend with my children now. As hon. Members have said, however, Members of Parliament are perhaps not the best role models in the matter of finding quality time for bonding with children.

Things are getting better. Almost eight out of 10 working fathers in a survey revealed that they would be happy to stay at home and look after their baby, while almost nine out of 10 felt as confident as their partner—hopefully their wife, in many cases—about caring for children. In families where women work, fathers now carry out one third of the parental care. "Househusband" is no longer a demeaning term, but a real qualification for many people. In 24 per cent. of families with two parents, the father carried out most of the child care on one of the two days monitored for the time use and child care survey.

There have been changes in employment practices, too. Two in 10 new fathers made work pattern adjustments at the time of the birth, including one in 10 who reduced their working hours and 4 per cent. who took advantage of flexitime. That is a message that needs to go out to employers. Flexibility in work patterns for both parents can lead to better employees. It is in the interests of everybody to help to achieve that. British Telecom is piloting a flexible working scheme from which it is seeing benefits for its work, not just benefits in social conditions for families. So there is a mutual interest.

According to Lisa Harker of Children Now, British fathers have yet to match the level of family involvement of the Aka pygmies, a hunter-gatherer tribe from northern Congo in central Africa. Those fathers are branded the best dads in the world by Fathers Direct. Aka pygmy fathers spend 47 per cent. of their time in close contact with their infants, even letting them suck their nipples. So in this country, we still have a long way to go.

However, cultural changes and developments in Britain in the last half century have produced a generation of fathers who are more eager than ever to play a central role in the daily lives of their children. The Government should be conscious not to put any unnecessary obstacles in the way of fathers who want to engage with their children. Too often, the stereotyping in many Government publications—good publications on Sure Start and the child care work force, for example—still concentrates on women and their role. Not enough is being done to promote the role of fathers.

We also know that there is a distinct lack of men in the child care work force. I do not see enough being done about that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) both mentioned it, particularly in the context of teaching. When I go round primary schools, it is rare to see a male teacher—and if I do, it is usually the head. I was at a primary school in my constituency last week and I was absolutely gobsmacked to see a male classroom assistant. He was the first one I have ever seen, and he was doing a fantastic job.

Despite everything that the Government do, I still have concerns. They do many good things, such as promoting the child care work force, extended schools and the greater roles that professionals play—but we must not forget parents. The people who know best about bringing up children are, in 99.9 per cent. of cases, the parents of those children. Please let us not create a professional work force that looks to usurp the role of parents, but create one that complements and works with both parents, wherever possible, so that love, affection and attachment to the child are present in the home 24 hours a day.

We know of the problems when fathers are not properly involved. Children without fathers are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said that 45 per cent. of children in poverty were in single parent households. Such children have more trouble in school. Forty nine per cent. of prisoners have been excluded from school. Non-father families have a higher risk of health problems, and children in them are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional and sexual abuse. They are more likely to run away from home, more likely to experience sexual health problems and more likely to become teenage parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) rightly pointed out, they are also more likely to offend. Of those convicted of an offence by the age of 32, some 59 per cent. are the sons of a convicted parent.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a consequence of this issue? Apart from the personal anguish that it causes, there is a cost to the nation—

Order. Can we make interventions short, please?

I was planning to make my intervention short, Mr. Hood.

I want them to be shorter than that.

I think that my hon. Friend was going to talk about the cost of the break-up of those families. It is not just a personal cost, but a financial cost, because the state must step in.

I just wanted to remind my hon. Friend that I produced a report five years ago that pointed out that the cost of family breakdown in this country is £30,000 million—one third of what we spend on education.

Order. I ask the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to wind up now, to allow the Minister time to respond to the debate.

I certainly will, Mr. Hood. My hon. Friend's report was very fine.

The Government face big challenges, such as the imbalances in maternity and paternity leave and in the work force. Women and girls are invariably the targets for family and children's services. Men need to be included much more. The housing and benefits system so neglects the needs of non-resident parents that many children spend at least part of their week in abject poverty and poor accommodation with fathers whose parental responsibilities are invisible to the welfare system. There is over-reliance on training women, as opposed to men, in child care and we need to promote the merits of good fatherhood, rather than putting barriers up to it. We have heard many good solutions, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on securing the debate. It has clearly evoked a lot of interest—particularly, I must admit, in his party. None the less it is a subject that matters to people from all parties, whether they are here today or not. I know from my postbag that it matters a great deal in any constituency. In dealing with their constituency case loads, all Member will recognise the issues and concerns that have been raised today by Opposition Members.

I concur with the point, which was the point of the entire debate, that the contribution of fathers to bringing up their children matters a great deal. There will be no disagreement in any part of the House, or in this Chamber, about that. I had not realised that there were quite so many nappies in Kettering, but one learns something every day. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter comes not only from his own recent fatherhood, which is bound to make one think about such issues very deeply, but from the fact that he has organisations that deal with nappies in his constituency. It is important to tie in the bringing up of children with good environmentally friendly policies—a double whammy—and I am sure that he will learn a lot from the local organisations to which he referred.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points, which I shall take some time to deal with. Despite the protection that you offered me, Mr. Hood, I do not have enough time left to deal with all the points. If I miss out points that Opposition Members specifically wanted answers to, I will contact them by correspondence after the debate.

A number of themes came through. We can agree about the importance of fatherhood in bringing up children, and we all agree that fathers should be as involved in bringing up their children as mothers are. That is not a controversial thing to say; we know that many fathers do just that. Many hon. Members know that from personal experience and have referred to it in a wide context.

We are not saying that there is a problem with men, or with men who happen to be fathers. We know that many fathers do an excellent job and have well-adjusted children and happy families as a result. As Members of Parliament we tend to come across issues and problems, so perhaps it is natural that we should concentrate on situations where things do not turn out quite so well, but that does not take away the fact that in many instances there are no problems with fathers or families.

The hon. Member for Kettering said that fatherhood was different from paternity, and I understood what he meant. He is right: we need to ensure that young men who become fathers do not see involvement in their children's life as something that they should not aspire to or something that is nothing to do with them. They should see it as part of their responsibility and part of what life is about when one has children. We must ensure that we encourage that, particularly where there are problems.

Opposition Members mentioned particular areas and factors that they felt made matters worse, and the Government can intervene to ensure that we do the best possible job in deprived areas to give children a proper chance in life. We are committed through the local Sure Start programmes to focus on deprived areas to ensure that children there have the best possible start in life. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of that because he has a Sure Start local centre in his constituency, based on the Grange school main site, which I am sure he knows very well. That local programme, which is doing very well, already has a fathers group. It is important that Sure Start does not forget fathers where it is up and running and spending significant resources to tackle issues. It should not assume that it should be dealing only with mothers. The best such programmes already realise that and are active in that regard. When I visit Sure Start local centres, I do not find that they are designed just for mothers.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and many Opposition Members, some of whom have had experience as teachers and may perhaps been active in teaching until recently, expressed some concern about the lack of male role models. That theme came through in several speeches, and questions were asked about precisely what we are doing to tackle the problem. The hon. Lady said that as far as she was aware, things were getting better. That is right, and we are working with the Teacher Training Agency to try to recruit more male teachers, in primary schools in particular, to provide the role models that hon. Members have been calling for.

The agency provides support services and holds events to encourage men into teaching. I suppose that for many men an overwhelmingly female work force is quite a barrier to venturing into teaching. The issue is not just about the fact that men might not want to be teachers, it is about how welcome they feel when entering an environment overwhelmingly composed of the opposite gender. That is not easy on either side.

We are having some success. Support and advice are available for individuals when applying for training, there are events in schools to attract men to the profession, and there are wider opportunities. We can only keep trying and hoping that we will succeed. We do not consider the increasing emphasis on the professionalisation of the child care work force to be a substitute for good parenting, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) feared. It is an important part of our plans to improve the skills and the esteem of the child care work force, so that it will prove more attractive to men, and I hope that that will have a real impact.

Several Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Kettering and for East Worthing and Shoreham, referred to Fathers Direct. In the Department for Education and Skills we work directly with that organisation. It has a great deal of contact with us, and we involve it in our work. In particular, there was ministerial attendance at its conference in April—although that was before my time in this job. I was interested to hear about the fatherhood quality mark, and I shall have to look into it, because I do not know much about it. I quite like the idea that it can offer something positive. Further, the organisation's chief executive, Duncan Fisher, is on one of our ad hoc groups, advising us on parental support and the development of our strategy for supporting parents.

We see the importance of involving the organisations set up to represent fathers and fatherhood, and we do not try to put them to one side simply because some groups of fathers, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, have undertaken high-profile stunts. It is regrettable that the more positive examples of activism are ignored.

Before the Minister finishes, will she respond to some of the calls from the Opposition for the Government to do much more to promote marriage?

The Government have acknowledged, and continue to acknowledge, that in terms of stability and good outcomes, marriage is one of the structures in which children can best be brought up. However, we do not purport to tell people how they should live their lives, and we have to deal with family structures as they are. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another. We must deal with people and families as we find them, and we must try to ensure that whatever structure children are brought up in, they have the best possible chance in life. In 97 per cent. of cohabiting couples, the father registers the birth of the child with the mother. We should not be prescriptive about precisely what the best structure is.

That is not what you said in your document.

We acknowledge, and always have acknowledged, that for bringing up and supporting happy and well-balanced children, the institution of marriage clearly works—

Order. It is time for the next debate.

I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on the Paris club arrangements for Iraq's debt. It is a good time for the debate, with the G8 leaders meeting this week, although they will focus on Africa. I support the Government's aid, trade and debt relief programme to make poverty history on that continent, but the United Kingdom and, of course, the United States of America have an even more direct responsibility in Iraq. The sanctions and the war and its aftermath have deeply impoverished that country, and it is still on the way down.

Several of the G8 countries were keen to ply Saddam Hussein with loans to fund his military machine to fight Islamicists in Iran. Until the invasion of Kuwait, they did not mind the weapons being turned on his own people. The UK gave loans for arms sales and, despite all the subsequent events—despite Saddam Hussein being vanquished—has not given up on retrieving that money. Many other states and private creditors who funded him have hung around as vultures in the same way.

I express concern that the G8 leaders will not get to grips with Iraq's economic and debt crisis and will take the opportunity to shirk their responsibilities under the cloak of the Africa agenda. They may also pretend that the Paris club decision of last November has set the framework to meet those responsibilities and put Iraq on a sound footing. It has done no such thing. The headline figure was 80 per cent. debt relief, but that disguised much. First, the debt is hugely overblown by interest and arrears. Secondly, it takes no account of the massive ongoing reparation payments required by the United Nations Compensation Commission. Thirdly, there is debt owed to non-Paris club nations, which show no willingness to write it off. The same is the case with private creditors, to whom a large amount is owed. Put simply, the 80 per cent. does not cover the full $130 billion of Saddam-era debt. Furthermore, the Paris club relief, which will take place only in phases—over which time more interest will accrue—is highly conditional. After all that, Iraq would still be left with a debt and liabilities burden that would take half a century to pay off.

Set against the priority of paying off Saddam's debts is Iraq's enormous social crisis. We are talking about the doubling of child malnutrition and the deterioration of health and education provision and, indeed, of the country's vital infrastructure. The debt hampers—that is too kind a word—any Iraqi Administration's ability to tackle those problems. That adds fuel to the poor security situation and leaves a burning resentment among Iraqis who are ill-treated and robbed of their resources.

My hon. Friend the Minister will gather that I do not consider the Paris club deal agreed by his predecessor to be anything to proclaim. The morning after the debt package was announced, Saad Salih Jabr, the chairman of the Iraqi National Assembly's economic committee said in the Assembly:

"You heard yesterday's news. The world's media is marketing this as the deal of a lifetime. It is not. This is yet another crime committed against the Iraqi people."

He was taking into account the factors that I have mentioned. The Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said the reduction should have been higher

"because the Iraqi people are not responsible for the aggressive policies and misuse of funds of the former regime."

Jubilee Iraq, which has campaigned on the issue and to which I pay tribute, stated that the Paris club's offer

"is inadequate on economic grounds alone. Assuming all other creditors agree to the 80 percent, which is far from certain, Iraq would still be shackled with over $25 billion of debt, on top of more than $31 billion in war reparations and new loans from the IMF, World Bank, and others. This compares with Iraq's meagre health budget this year of only $947 million and education budget of $544 million."

The IMF is imposing conditions that are draconian and bullying, and it is neglecting the social consequences. The conditions include privatisation and foreign ownership, the end of food rations and fuel subsidies, and restrictions on salaries and pensions. What a time to do that, when unemployment is so high, malnutrition rising, fuel shortages considerable and many Iraqi families increasingly vulnerable.

But the policy is even worse than that. It takes control over the economic situation away from any democratically elected Iraqi leadership. The Financial Times stated:

"Now from the very first day that the new Iraqi parliament sits it will find virtually every important economic decision predetermined by the coterie of rich countries that runs the IMF."

Naomi Klein, the author of "No Logo", stated in The Big Issue in December last year:

"We don't know what Iraq should look like—that's up to the Iraqi people—but we do know what the preconditions for genuine democracy are: being free of the debt of your dictator and your occupier, being free of laws written by your occupier, being in control over your oil money and resources, and not being run by foreign corporations."

The Paris club has spurned that consideration.

The IMF is due to announce its stand-by agreement for Iraq soon. The agreement is required by the Paris club as a condition for debt relief. It should give details of the economic structural adjustment policies that are required. Can the Minister tell us what it contains and indicate the UK Government's position? For example, did they support the wholesale privatisation package?

The reparations bill, which was not taken into account by the Paris club, is gross. About two thirds of the claims have been settled at $46 billion, of which $19 billion has been paid from the oil for food fund. Five per cent. of Iraq's oil revenue is still used for reparations, even after the end of the oil for food programme. There was the irony of the UN calling for $259 million to meet a shortfall in humanitarian relief while its compensation commission simultaneously announced that it would take a further $600 million from Iraq this year.

Since the fall of Saddam, Iraq has paid more than $2 billion of reparations, much more than it has been able to spend on health care. Not reported in this country was the two-week fast outside the meeting of the United Nations Competitions Commission in Geneva recently to demand an end to unjust payments. One of the fasters, an Irishwoman named Caomihe Butterly, stated:

"We travelled to Geneva to fast, to go without food for 16 days, in the hopes that our small sacrifice would in some manner awaken the conscience of the international community to the economic warfare being waged against the Iraqi people . . . The Iraqi people had no choice when Saddam Hussein's regime invaded Kuwait. He was wrong to do so. It is equally wrong to continue to punish the Iraqi people for the crimes of Saddam Hussein."

I pay tribute to those protestors.

Then there is the odiousness of the debt, which consists of the personal debts of a particular regime, in this case Saddam's. There is legal precedent for debts to be classified in that way. They were contracted without the consent of the people, and the money was not spent in their interests. There was enough criticism of the regime over the years to ensure that all the creditors were well aware of what was being done with the loans that they provided. They bankrolled the regime's bullets, but now refuse to accept the consequences regarding the nature of the debt. Applying the odious debt law would send a clear message to those who would loan to dictators. George Soros has said that

"it would send a signal to the financial markets that it's dangerous to deal with oppressive regimes".

The law should apply.

The Minister should not pray in aid the 2003 Madrid conference, at which aid promises for Iraq were made, as an excuse for there not being a full debt write-off. Few of the countries that attended that conference fully honoured their promises. In fact, the US led the backsliding by diverting funds promised for reconstruction to war fighting. All sorts of conditions have been added that have effectively halted allocations.

Another quirk of the Paris club debt relief is the fact that it has been classified in Treasury accounts as overseas development aid. So, there we have it: loans for the sale of guns to the dictator Saddam Hussein end up in UK accounts as development aid. That is quirky indeed.

Let me treat the Minister to four quotes from Americans whom I would not normally quote. The first is John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary, who said that

"the people of Iraq shouldn't be saddled with those debts incurred through the regime of the dictator".

Right-wing Republican Richard Perle said:

"If you loan to a dictatorship, don't expect to be repaid if a democracy emerges."

Paul Bremer, the former US supremo in Iraq, said that the debt is a result of

"Saddam's incompetence and aggressive wars",

and that mountains of unpayable debt contributed heavily to the instability that paved Hitler's path to power.

Finally, a US commanding General observed that last autumn there were up to 160 attacks a week in Sadr City, which is on the outskirts of Baghdad, but that in early 2005, the number levelled at less than five to zero a week. His point was that the key factor in that change was not winning battles, but cleaning the place up and restoring electricity, sewerage and water. They fought, but when they started delivering services that Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16-year-olds came up empty. The debt impedes the real way to achieve security.

I have one final quote from a source whom I cannot disclose. In his e-mail to me from Iraq, he said:

"Last week . . . in Baghdad . . . I met a drunken American gentleman at a party who told me his sole job at the moment was to persuade the Iraqis to cut $1 billion of subsidies. He told me, 'If they don't do what I want, The Paris Club will delay debt relief.'"

That is an example of the IMF drunk with the power facilitated by the Paris club nations.

The debt and reparations still to be paid after the Paris club decision are not acceptable because they plunge the Iraqi people into poverty and hardship, because of their effect on Iraqi democracy and freedom, and because they do not give the post-Saddam Administration a clean slate and a clean start. The Minister, the G8 leaders, Paris club members and all creditor nations need to reconsider the Paris club formula. It simply is not good enough by a long way. There needs to be a 100 per cent. write-off of all of Saddam's debt. There should be no more reparations—indeed, there should be a UN resolution, pronto, to ensure that that is the case. There should be no more damaging conditionality of the sort that the IMF wants to impose, and there should be proper funding for reconstruction that involves, benefits and employs Iraqis. I say to the Minister, the Government and the G8 leaders, think again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing the debate and on taking us through his objections to the arrangements that have recently been put in place or that are in prospect to help Iraq to rebuild its economy and improve its economic position. He did so in the way that we have come to recognise and expect from him: he was very direct, forceful and clear in his criticisms of the approach taken by the international community and—by direct and indirect implication—of the role played by the United Kingdom Government. I shall try to respond to some of his specific points, not least because some of his assertions are not entirely correct. Then, I shall respond in more general terms and fill him in on the details of the present position and the prospects as I see them.

The Government accept that we have a special responsibility to Iraq, as my hon. Friend argued from the start. In part, that is a product of our historical relationship with that country; in part, it is in recognition of the special circumstances of Iraq's economy at present. My hon. Friend completely dismisses the value of the Paris club agreement, with the 80 per cent. debt write-off at its heart, but that view is not shared by elected representatives in Iraq. That is particularly true of the new Minister of Finance, who has been to the Treasury in the past month to meet my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In that discussion, Mr. Ali Alawi made it clear that he and the Iraqi Government appreciate the UK's help in putting the Iraqi economy on a sensible footing and the work that we have done on the Paris club agreement. They also recognise that the aid that the UK is putting directly into Iraq is being put to good use. On our part, we welcome our close, continuing dialogue with the Iraqi Government. As my right hon. Friend made clear, we are ready to consider further requests from the Iraqi Government as part of our contribution to their country's reconstruction and economic rehabilitation.

I promised to pick up several of my hon. Friend's points that I felt were not strictly correct. First, no UK export credit guarantees were granted for weapons—there were no credit guarantees for the sale of guns, as he put it. Some guarantees were related to defence expenditure, but not to the purpose that he suggested. Secondly, as a result of the Paris club deal, debt is set to be restructured over 23 years, not 50, and no payments at all will fall due until 2008. Thirdly, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates although it did not come through clearly in his remarks, the International Monetary Fund programme to which he referred critically was negotiated with Iraq, not imposed on it. The stand-by agreement, to which he also referred, is in the process of being negotiated. Like other Governments, we must await the outcome of the IMF's negotiations with Iraq to see the SBA's precise content. My hon. Friend raised a couple of points about that, but, in all honesty, I would expect certain conditions and a reduction in fuel subsidies to be part of the stand-by agreement once it is settled with Iraq, for the simple reason that a system of subsidies such as the one for fuel in Iraq creates strong economic incentives for smuggling and corruption. I think that he, like me, would want that to be stamped out.

As I understand the point about fuel subsidies, it is the timing that is crucial, because there are extensive fuel subsidies at present and the Iraqi economy cannot get going. However, I want to draw the Minister out on the conditionality in respect of privatisation. Are the Government in favour of the IMF conditionality as part of the Paris club deal that there must be wholesale privatisation of the Iraqi economy?

My hon. Friend is slightly overstating his argument, which, as I am sure he would accept, he is occasionally prone to do. Some stand-by agreements include an element of privatisation, but we do not yet know whether that will be an element of the SBA that is negotiated with Iraq through the IMF. We will simply have to wait and see.

My hon. Friend referred to odious debt law, but there is no such thing as established and accepted odious debt legislation. Were we to pursue the odious debt route, rather than doing what we have tried to do with the Iraqi Government—which has been to take a pragmatic, practical approach to quickly securing the debt relief and aid that the country needs—we would be likely to provoke a series of legal challenges that would tie up efforts to help Iraq for a decade or more.

My hon. Friend made a passing, welcome, reference to his strong support for the debt relief and aid programmes that the Government have put in place for Africa. He and I share a sense of pride that the Government have led the international efforts to put in place a comprehensive programme of significant levels of aid and debt relief for the poorest countries, including the recent fresh agreement among G8 finance Ministers.

Iraq is not considered to be one of the world's poorest countries. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it faces immense social and economic challenges and hardships. Although Iraq's first democratic elections were an historic occasion, with 58 per cent. turnout and almost 8.5 million people voting, the upsurge of violence since the formation of the new Iraqi Government only adds to the challenges. Not only does Iraq face the challenge of establishing a truly inclusive political process, drafting a constitution that reflects its diversity and building security, but it faces a significant reconstruction challenge. Iraq has one of the largest estimated petroleum reserves in the world, but years of economic mismanagement, international sanctions and the recent conflict have hit economic activity hard. My hon. Friend vividly described the impact on Iraq's people. Social development that was once well ahead of the regional average has now well fallen behind to be one of the lowest.

Neither my hon. Friend nor the Government underestimate the challenges that Iraq faces in rebuilding the economy or the challenge that we face in trying to assist. Under Saddam Hussein, mismanagement and embezzlement of Iraq's resources was rife. The oil sector was starved of investment and the regime built up huge debts. Infrastructure, public services and industry were left in a poor state, unemployment was high and 60 per cent. of the population were dependent on food rations. Overall, GDP per capita is estimated to have fallen from more than $3,000 in the early 1980s to about $500 by 2003. It was then, through analysis by the IMF and World Bank, that Iraq's external debt—approximately $120 billion at that time—was judged to be unsustainable. The UK Government have therefore worked hard with the Americans and others to devise what we regard as a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems.

We have also been at the forefront of international efforts to rebuild Iraq's economic institutions. In passing, I pay tribute to a number of officials from the Treasury and from HM Revenue and Customs who served for periods in Iraq to help with that rebuilding effort, in some cases putting themselves in danger in the process. Specific economic achievements have included some recovery in oil production, the stabilisation of inflation and the exchange rate, a financial management law, a new currency and an IMF emergency post-conflict assistance package of $436 million. However, by far the most important achievement with the most significant long-term gain was the negotiation of a debt relief deal with the new Iraqi Government. That is the view of the Iraqi Government, albeit not that of my hon. Friend.

The Paris club deal in November 2004 was an agreement to give to Iraq 80 per cent. debt relief, to be delivered in three tranches, linked to Iraq's economic reform. The first 30 per cent. tranche of relief was delivered on 31 December 2004. More than £340 million of Iraq's debt to the UK has already been written off. Part of the Paris club agreement was a moratorium on debt repayments until 2008, and part was a rescheduling of debt over 23 years. The latest reports from Iraq indicate that good progress is being made with other creditors, and even though a number of technical issues have to be resolved we feel that the risk of Iraq's not achieving comparable treatment with its other creditors, which was one of the conditions of the deal, is low.

Once the agreement is fully implemented, Iraq is expected to receive almost $100 billion of debt relief. The US and a few other creditors have offered to give 100 per cent. debt relief; we welcome that generosity, but we have taken a different view. The UK intends to focus its resources on maximising the immediate benefits to the Iraqi people through aid, and we have pledged $544 million in direct aid over three years to March 2006. That money is being put to good use now, as the Iraqi Finance Minister made clear to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when they met last month. It is being used to rebuild facilities and to set up new infrastructure and new institutions, particularly in southern Iraq, as well as to provide support to key ministries of the new Government. If the UK offered 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief, some of that aid money would have to be diverted, Iraq would not feel the benefit of further debt relief until 2008 because of the moratorium on payments, and the benefits would be spread over 23 years, rather than concentrated now, when the need is greatest. However, as I said to my hon. Friend, we have an historical relationship with Iraq and therefore stand ready to consider any request for aid or debt relief that the Iraqi Government might make of us.

Despite the difficulties, there is real hope of progress and hope for the future of Iraq. It is not merely a country beset by severe economic difficulties but one with the prospect of and potential for a sound economic future. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that the deep damage done by decades of a repressive regime cannot be rectified in one, two or three years. It will take time to build Iraqi institutions and to improve infrastructure, and for the private sector to flourish. We hope that by 2008, Iraq will be in a position not only to start repaying the remaining debt, but to become the major economy in the region that it once was.

My hon. Friend said that the Paris club debt relief deal was not acceptable to the Iraqi people, but it is acceptable—

Order. Time is up.

I am pleased to have secured the debate. I have come to the Chamber hot foot from the Committee that is considering the Identity Cards Bill and understand that we are to have the benefit of your chairmanship there, Mr. Hood, so your chairmanship of our debates this afternoon in Westminster Hall is an unexpected pleasure.

I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) on his recent promotion. I also make it clear to the House that I approach the subject of digital switchover without the benefit, or possibly the hindrance, of any particular technical expertise.

The switchover to digital television is a multilayered subject that brings with it a whole range of technical and regulatory issues, only some of which I intend to touch on today. The Northern Isles, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are looking forward to the switchover to digital. Like others, we see it as progress. In recent years, however, because of our geographical remoteness from London, we have been left behind in several other areas of technical progress, particularly in the roll-out of broadband. If the Minister can give us nothing else today, I hope that he will be able to assure us that we will not be left at the coo's tail simply because we are geographically few and far away from London.

As I said, digital switchover is an enormous subject with many angles, but I shall focus today on two important issues: the impact of coverage on my constituents, and help for vulnerable groups.

In 1999, the Government set a target of 99.5 per cent. of homes being able to receive digital terrestrial reception. At the start of June, however, Ofcom announced that 98.5 per cent. of households should be covered by the digital transmitter networks. So there has been some slippage even in that short period. That slippage causes the Scottish highlands and islands communities, and indeed other peripheral parts of the UK, particular concern. A recent piece in The Guardian explained that the coverage had been

"a disappointment to those in the Welsh Valleys and Scottish Highlands who hoped the conversion to digital between 2008 and 2012 would mean an end to fuzzy analogue television pictures".

In the same article, Allan Williams of Which? magazine said that the decision means that

"some homes may lose TV reception when digital switchover takes place."

He went on to point out that

"Ofcom must make sure that alternative means of reception are in place so no one loses out".

I hope that the Government agree and are already working on such alternatives. Subscribers in many parts of my constituency would dream of having the fuzzy analogue television pictures mentioned in The Guardian article, and we would be concerned if even that provision were to be lost.

The Minister will be aware that the independent Consumer Expert Group has called for at least 99.5 per cent. of the population in each region, and not just in the UK as a whole, to be able to receive digital at the point of switchover. Will he make clear the Government's position on that proposal? Does he accept that such a small shift in target would give a great deal of comfort and reassurance to people in the highlands and islands?

Communities in my constituency are split into three categories of television reception. First, most people in the main towns and villages have reasonably good analogue reception and have the option of converting to digital by purchasing a freeview set-top box. Secondly, some people can receive analogue reception, but cannot use freeview through the digibox. That is true of many households in many parts of communities such as Yell, Brae and Unst in Shetland, and for some people living in parts of Hoy, Orphir, Longhope, Westray and Evie in Orkney. Finally, there are some communities, in Graemsay in Orkney and Ollaberry in Shetland, in particular, who have no analogue reception at present. They rely on satellites to access the main terrestrial channels. Digital switchover will affect each of those groups differently.

The first group will experience the process pretty much as will most people in the rest of the country, and my main concern in those communities is for the vulnerable groups. The second group, who have analogue reception at present but no set-top box option, causes me some concern. I am concerned about the incentives to prepare for switchover. Given the 98.5 per cent. target, it is highly likely that after switchover some people in my constituency who cannot at present obtain television reception using aerials will be able to do so. Additionally, some people who can use aerials at present to access the main channels will not be able to do so after switchover. I fear that the second group may be larger than the first and that freeview set-top boxes, if I can call them that, will not work in large parts of Orkney and Shetland.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern for a constituency that is covered by the ITV Border region, which, as I understand it, would be the first to switch over in the region? There is a low level of public awareness about the switchover and about what individuals will have to do to continue to have television reception after it happens.

I am grateful for that intervention. Yes, I think that Border Television, the company that gave us "Mr and Mrs", is a broadcasting institution that deserves every protection. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the level of awareness, we should be on a rising curve. If the Government can, by way of public information, put us on that rising curve, we should have no problem in the end. However, we are not there yet. The hon. Gentleman's concerns are legitimate, and he has done us a service in putting down a marker for the future.

The Minister may be aware that his predecessor, the Minister for Sport and Tourism answered a debate on digital switchover on 15 March. His only answer to some of the concerns that I have set out about constituents' predicament post-switchover was that there

"are issues that have to be worked through".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 55WH.]

I hope that, four months down the line, some of that work has been done. I should be interested to know where we stand on them today.

When will we be in a position to know who will be able to use digital terrestrial after switchover? Will we simply have to wait for switchover to happen before we know whether or not it is worth while buying a digital box? What will the Government do to assist the 1.5 per cent. of the population who will apparently not be able to access digital terrestrial? Colette Bowe, who chaired the Ofcom consumer panel that considered what measures might be necessary to protect vulnerable groups said last November:

"As a society we ought to damn well make sure that people who currently have access to television continue to have access to it. And if that means that the Treasury . . . have to open their pockets, well, so be it. Because that is the way it's got to be."

With slightly more temperate language, I could not have put it better myself. Will the Government ensure that people unable to receive digital terrestrial are given the necessary financial support to receive freesat?

Those in my constituency who have no analogue TV reception were not able to watch ITV or Channels 4 and 5 for part of 2003 after Solus cards, the predecessor scheme, became obsolete. Previously, the BBC had offered services "in the clear" on satellite, but thereafter removed their funding for Solus cards.

If my recollection is right, an Adjournment debate on 21 October 2003, which I attended, was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). In reply, the Minister for Sport and Tourism was able to announce that ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 had come forward with a replacement card. Those cards cost £20 plus VAT, and he assured the House that they would

"last until Sky does another card swap-out, and for at least two years if the next swap-out is sooner than that."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 252WH.]

So far as we can ascertain, the provision continues to be valued by my constituents, but does the Minister have any information on a longer-term solution? Are ITV and others working towards operating "in the clear" on satellite so that people who do not subscribe to Sky can receive the main terrestrial channels? Once digital switchover happens, will the 1.5 per cent. of the population who are unable to get digital terrestrial be treated fairly?

In the time that remains, I want to speak about helping vulnerable groups. Last week, the Minister announced a targeted assistance trial; I believe that it will be run in Bolton. I understand that it will consider the best way to assist vulnerable groups. Will that be the full extent of the trial, or will it be the first of many?

The Minister will be aware that the issues affecting people in Bolton are not necessarily those that affect people in more rural or island communities. Does he accept that there will be a benefit in running further trials to deal with the problems of people living in communities that are less urban than those currently being trialled? Of course, many of the issues would be the same, but I suggest that there will be particular difficulties helping the old or house-bound in places such as the Northern Isles.

The Minister will be aware that take-up of digital among the over-75s is especially low. Only 16 per cent. of households in that category had digital in 2003. When will the Government be in a position to outline what support will be provided to the elderly, disabled and those on low incomes? I am keen to allow the Minister as long as possible to respond to a number of my questions.

I finish with a query that relates more to radio than television. I have received a number of letters from constituents who feel frustrated that they receive repeated adverts promoting digital radio services to which they cannot gain access. In the longer term, do the Government hope to switch over radio services in the same way as television? Does the Minister think it acceptable that, although we pay the same licence fee to TV Licensing, we are effectively barred from some of the services provided by the BBC, which is supposedly a public service broadcaster?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. He has been a long-term campaigner on the subject and I thank him for his co-operation in advance of the debate. I shall try to answer as many of the points that he raised as possible.

Access to digital broadcasts is probably one of the most dominant issues in my postbag. The Department receives hundreds of letters every month from members of the public who want freeview and digital terrestrial television but cannot yet receive it. The only answer that we can give them is that they will have to wait until digital switchover. That, in a nutshell, is why the switchover programme is so important; it extends choice and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it will ensure that as many people as possible have access to digital TV.

Digital TV has been a great success and it is already in 62 per cent. of homes. Mobile broadcasting trials are under way and the BBC recently trialled podcasting with its Beethoven experiment. Yet despite nearly two thirds of the country getting digital TV, there are still people who, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, cannot receive a single television signal or who have to watch poor, ghostly pictures. That is a real problem for his constituents and those of some other hon. Members.

Does the Minister accept that the problems that my hon. Friend Member for Orkney and Shetland described also pertain to rural areas of Wales? The real difficulty is that the 1.5 per cent. of households—roughly 300,000—that have trouble with the signal tend to be grouped in rural areas, so there is a disproportionately high percentage of them in places such as Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales. I hope that he can give us an assurance that the Government are seriously seeking practical solutions to prevent as much as 20 or 30 per cent. of the population in some areas from being left out of the digital switchover.

That is a good point, and I am coming to it. The key issue is that, even now, some people do not have access to analogue signals, not because broadcasters or the Government are unwilling to provide them, but because the cost of reaching that last 1.5 per cent. of the population is exponentially greater than the cost of serving the rest of the population. It costs about as much to extend coverage from 92 to 96 per cent. as it does to reach 92 per cent. coverage, and it costs the same again to go up to 98.5 per cent., so that extra 2.5 per cent. coverage costs the same as 92 per cent. coverage. The last 1.5 per cent. is very difficult to reach. That is why the Government gave the guarantee that we would reach the same proportion of people after the digital switchover as we do now.

It is worth taking a little detour into the issue of the 99.5 per cent. versus the 98.5 per cent. The difference in the figures depends on how we define receiving television. The definition that the Government use is that people should be able to receive a good range of TV channels that are of good quality; that definition takes us to 98.5 per cent. coverage. The remainder can receive some signal, although it is not terribly good and would not be graded as receiving TV by the people in charge of the technical specifications. Our guarantee is therefore that we will reach 98.5 per cent. coverage.

In a world of unlimited funds, one could continue building transmitters to reach more and more people, but the question that we have to face in rolling out digital television is how best to reach people. As we go forward, we need to consider the other technologies that are available. As the hon. Gentleman said, satellite is important, and take-up is higher in areas where people currently have less good analogue reception. Work is also being done on technologies for delivering television over electricity lines, and there is a technology called WiMAX, which is a wireless form of access to television. There is the potential to serve people more efficiently; what we need to do is balance the desirability of universal coverage against the practicability of providing it.

If digital terrestrial will not reach everybody, that highlights the important points that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about the practicability of satellite and other options. Let me therefore turn to the issues that he raised, particularly digital satellite.

Before the Minister moves on from the coverage target, will he make clear his position on meeting regional, rather than UK-wide targets?

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. We currently have national targets and we will investigate whether it is practicable to have regional targets, but I cannot give him a guarantee at the moment.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, digital satellite is no longer just a pay option. People can now receive the public service channels through satellite in a kind of freesat option offered by Sky. There was real concern when Solus cards stopped being an option, but people can now purchase the kit to provide, in effect, a free satellite option. The hon. Gentleman asked how long such an option could be guaranteed. At present, it is guaranteed for a minimum of two years. Therefore, there is now a reasonable option to get public service channels through satellite, and, post-switchover, that may be the best way for some of his constituents to access those services.

The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what progress ITV, for example, is making on providing services in the clear. I understand that ITV has a problem with rights, in that it has rights to broadcast a proportion of its programmes only in the UK. If it were to broadcast on satellite, those programmes would be available outside the UK, and it would either have to take them off or increase the amount that it spends on programmes. We are happy that the BBC has agreed to go in the clear, as that solves part of the problem. I understand that the difference between the BBC and ITV is that the BBC has a much smaller proportion of programmes that are affected by rights, and it gets around the problem by not showing such programmes on satellite. For ITV, at about two hours of programming a week, the problem is more significant. We would encourage any solution, but the best option at present is for people to pursue the freesat option. With a cost that is comparable with the digital terrestrial option and with the two-year guarantee, that option is attractive to a significant number of people.

There are alternatives for people who cannot get digital terrestrial television, but we take seriously the hon. Gentleman's argument that more must be done. Ofcom is working with the broadcasters on specific technological solutions to increase coverage in certain areas. In fact, there are already many ad hoc arrangements—for example, a village got together to buy an aerial to boost the signal. As we go through the digital switchover, we will need to work through what can be done in particular cases, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that technical exercise must be led by people who understand the technology rather than by politicians. People will not have only one option available to them. As I said, other solutions are coming through, such as new DSL technologies, including the new ADSL2, and experiments with broadband internet carried through the electricity lines. There will be a patchwork of provision.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee for every household in his constituency, and I am aware that there will be frustration for each constituent who is not able to receive digital TV. However, I am confident that the vast majority—more than at present—will be able to do so. We will provide information in good time on whether people will be able to receive digital pictures. That information will include detailed postcode information, and I hope that there will be some technological means by which people can check before they buy a set-top box whether it would be a good investment. As I said, almost all the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be able to watch BBC and ITV digital programmes in one way or another. The figure may well be more than 98.5 per cent.. Although we cannot give a guarantee for every household, I hope that I have given him some comfort.

Will the Minister comment on the timetable of the digital switchover? It is of particular importance for Scotland, as the borders area is due to be switched over in 2008 and the rest of Scotland in 2009. In particular, will he discuss what steps he will take regarding affordability—for example, for those households that currently receive analogue but may not have upgraded to digital in three or four years' time?

Those are good points. I shall deal with them later in my speech, if I may.

A final point on analogue signals is that we will have to consider aerials, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. That is important, but we believe that only about 5 per cent. of people need to upgrade their aerial to receive the DTT signal. However, to achieve that we must complete the digital switchover. It is the only way to increase the coverage of DTT. Until we switch off the analogue signals we cannot increase the power of digital signals. We made a firm manifesto commitment that that will happen between 2008 and 2012. The Government are committed to it, and broadcasters and transmission operators are working with manufacturers and retailers. We can give a clear guarantee that it will happen between 2008 and 2012.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), we shall make an announcement about the timetable shortly. We had, however, given a commitment to let people know what our package for the vulnerable would be. We want to make both commitments clear at the same time, so that is why we are not confirming the timetable right now. We must be able to confirm both commitments in tandem.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked whether the trials would include the consideration of rural areas. I can reassure him that they will. The trial already undertaken in Ferryside and Llansteffan took place in an area that had many of the features that he described. Bolton has some rural areas and there are some outlying farms, but we shall continue in the wards that we are considering. We have already undertaken a trial in Wales. I know that conditions are not exactly the same as in his constituency, but there was a genuine parallel and we shall continue to consider the points that emerged as the trials progress.

One encouraging feature of the trial was that once people had experienced digital TV, they were overwhelmingly supportive of it. About 99 per cent. of people voted to keep digital TV, which shows that whatever people's concerns about it, once they experience the extra channels and, for example, the advantage of being able to watch extra tennis matches on the BBC by pressing the red button, they value the services. However, we must continue to communicate the benefits of switchover, and we are working with a new organisation, Switchco, which was created by broadcasters and the supply chain to lead the implementation of switchover, to ensure that everyone gets all the information they need.

Although the vast majority of viewers need only a source of good information to help them through switchover, some people will need more than information, which is the point that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was making about vulnerable people. Although take-up is about 60 per cent. among the population as a whole, it is only slightly more than 30 per cent. among the over-75s. The elderly may need help to understand what they have to do when they receive a set-top box to install their boxes, to check their aerials, or to use their new equipment, and we acknowledge that a few people might also need financial assistance. As we said in the Green Paper on the future of the BBC, we shall require the BBC to establish and fund schemes for the most vulnerable consumers.

Some people might presume that the vast majority of elderly people need assistance with the technology, but in Ferryside such a presumption turned out to be wrong. It is easy to overestimate the difficulty that older people have using technology. We found that about 20 per cent. of the pilot group needed help and that most of them were able to deal with the issues by using a telephone helpline. In Bolton we are trialling not just the provision of information over the phone, but visits in person. We are considering the most appropriate way to help, whether it is through social workers, charities or other organisations. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we shall launch a trial of targeted assistance in Bolton this autumn; we shall use that to work with about 250 to 300 households to identify any further issues on which we need to build.

I have addressed as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as I can. We cannot give a guarantee for every single one of his constituents, but we can guarantee that we shall continue the current coverage. We believe that more people than now will be able to access the digital public service channels and we shall continue to introduce digital terrestrial services. At the same time, we shall work with the new technologies, so that the coverage achieved through a patchwork of technologies will reduce the problems that his constituents face and result in there being less concern about digital terrestrial services than there has been about analogue transmissions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the future of primary school provision in Rossendale in Lancashire. I say at the outset that I represent only a small part of the borough of Rossendale, most of which is represented effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). I shall confine most of my remarks to how my constituents in Haslingden are affected by Lancashire county council's review of primary provision and, in particular, by the proposal to close St. Mary's Roman Catholic primary school in Haslingden.

Any responsible Government or education authority need to tackle surplus places. I welcome the review of primary provision in Rossendale that Lancashire county council has initiated. We need a review and I welcome the way in which the council is going about it. The review is open and transparent and, although no final decision has been made, the process is a good one. We need to congratulate county councillor Hazel Harding, the leader of the county council, on how the review is being conducted. I also support the objectives of the review. The review document says that a balance must be struck between providing school places within the immediate community and ensuring that schools are large enough to be educationally and economically viable. I support that. The document says that there should be a vision of schools operating at the centre of their immediate or extended communities. St. Mary's in Haslingden is at the heart of its community. Keeping it open dovetails with the vision outlined in that document.

Lancashire enjoys diverse provision—there are probably more faith schools in the Lancashire LEA than in any LEA in the country. I welcome that. We need to cherish and maintain that diversity. In my constituency there are not only community schools, but Roman Catholic schools, Church of England schools and even Methodist schools. I welcome that diversity. The review document says that Lancashire recognises the

"need to retain a reasonable pattern of denominational and non-denominational provision wherever possible (even if this means retaining some surplus places) in order to preserve a range of choices for parents."

Preserving that choice for parents is at the heart of what I want to say. I contend that the current proposals, which provide for the closure of St. Mary's Roman Catholic primary school in Haslingden, would deny that parental choice to Catholic parents in my constituency.

The document also refers to the Education Act 2002, which enables small schools to flourish by working in co-operation with other schools or, in some circumstances, by federating with them. It is important that the Government recognise the role that small schools have to play at the heart of communities. I just hope that the Lancashire LEA and, importantly, the Roman Catholic diocese of Salford also accept that role.

None of us would deny that there is a problem with surplus places in primary schools in Rossendale. There are currently about 6,700 primary places in Rossendale, give or take a few. Six years ago, the schools were broadly full, with 6,500 primary pupils and 6,700 places. It is always good to have a small surplus capacity, to provide for new build or for parents to exercise choice or to move. Now, however, there are only 5,500 primary school pupils in the same 6,700 places. The demographic trends show that, with the birth rate and planned building projects in Rossendale, the number of primary school pupils is set to fall to 5,100 by 2010. If we do not do anything, that will leave a vacancy rate of more than 20 per cent., which is unacceptable.

We know that tough decisions will have to be made, but why, in tackling surplus places, is St. Mary's Roman Catholic school in Haslingden the only faith school to be singled out for closure, with no other option open to it in the review document? If it was a failing school in special measures, all reasonable people could understand the logic. That is not the case. It is an improving school that has been turned round. Ofsted has described it as being the sixth most improved primary school in the country. I went to the school last week and can say that it is a happy, succeeding, improving school.

The school is at the heart of the community. Its history is interwoven with that of the town of Haslingden. Following the famine in Ireland in the middle of the 19th century, many Irish people sought a new life in England. They came through Liverpool and formed a diaspora in Lancashire and the north-west of England. Haslingden has a large Irish community, which came seeking food and work in the middle of the 19th century.

The community established St. Mary's church and wanted to establish a school to go with the church. It is worth bearing in mind that that period was only a generation after the Catholic emancipation Acts. There was still a large amount of anti-Catholic sentiment and anti-Irish bigotry. When people learned of the proposal to open a Catholic school, an angry mob descended on what was to become the site of the school. It was dispersed only when a lone figure fired a revolver in the air. That man was Michael Davitt, the founder of the Irish Democratic Land Federation and a renowned Irish nationalist.

The school opened a year later in the summer of 1869. There are not many schools that can claim to have been founded on a single gunshot dispersing an angry mob. We ought to cherish our history.

The review document has some figures about the school that are not entirely accurate. It says that there are 150 places. In reality, there are more like 125, because one of the classes has been converted into an information and communications technology suite. The review document refers to problems with flooding as though that were a perennial problem that would lead one to conclude that the school had no viable future. In fact, nobody can remember the last time that the school flooded. Flooding is a problem that was solved a long time ago.

The school is much loved by the community and the wider community. I have received letters from as far away as Boston, Massachusetts urging that it be kept open. I have been inundated with letters and have petitions running to hundreds, possibly thousands of signatories, urging that the much-loved school be kept open.

I have noticed that pupils do not always love their schools, but I have many letters from pupils saying that they do love the school. One letter said that many pupils are not Catholics but they still come to the school because it has kind teachers. Someone else said:

"How could you even consider closing this lovely school?"

One pupil said:

"My teacher . . . is the coolest teacher here . . . if you end up shutting down St. Mary's . . . her children . . . could end up with a horrible teacher."

That is a fair point. Two pupils wrote to say that if the school were closed, they were

"going to go on strike!"

I suspect that that referred to a day when maths was being taught.

St. Mary's really is a school that is at the heart of the community. The point that I make to my hon. Friend the Minister is that closure should not be the first or the only option for schools such as St. Mary's. There are other ways of tackling surplus places. It should be possible to reduce the number of pupils on the roll to tackle surplus places. It should be possible also to look imaginatively at co-operation with other schools.

The review document says that, if St. Mary's closes, there are sufficient places, either at St. Veronica's Roman Catholic primary school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen or at other schools in the area. Frankly, that would deny the choice of Catholic education to many of my constituents because there are more than 70 Catholic pupils at St. Mary's but there are only 17 places available at St. Veronica's. There are places available at community schools and faith schools of different faiths but that is not the same thing.

I return to what the document says. It talks about preserving a range of choices for parents. If we are not careful, that will be denied. I cannot understand why St. Mary's is the only school earmarked for closure. All the other schools have been given other options and St. Mary's deserves that choice as well.

Who wants the school to close? The parents do not, nor do the teachers, the pupils, the governors, the local councillors, the local MP, the Catholic community in Haslingden, the wider community in Haslingden, and nor even, I suspect, does Lancashire local education authority. I suspect that the only people who have the school earmarked for closure and who have their hearts set on that are, sadly, members of the Roman Catholic diocese of Salford. I cannot imagine why they should want to close a popular school with a large playing field in a residential area with rising property prices. Those considerations have led some to speculate on their motives, which I would not dream of doing.

The school was born out of adversity in the 19th century, and has the chance to flourish in the 21st century. All that it requires is a helping hand and an imaginative reconsideration of the circumstances. That is not to deny that the problem of surplus places in Haslingden, Rossendale and across Lancashire needs to be tackled—of course it does, but I am sure that we can tackle that problem and find a future for this popular, improving and happy school. I hope that the Lancashire education authority and the diocese of Salford will listen, through the debate, not to me but to my constituents and the community I represent, who want to keep the school open.

rose—

Order. I do not have any information about a request from the hon. Lady to speak in the debate, and I do not have the approval of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), so she is not eligible to speak in the debate.

I shall be more than happy to take a few interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) so that she can make some points.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented his points. He makes a powerful case in advocating some alternative solutions to an issue that he acknowledges needs to be tackled by the local school organisation committee and local council. There is no doubt that issues arise out of the proposals made, but, as both my hon. Friends will know, the Government's role in this matter is not as active as it would have been before 1998, when Ministers made decisions about the local reorganisation of schools. We no longer have that power, and we think it right that such arrangements should be made locally and that final decisions should be taken locally, although we are committed to continuing the drive to raise education standards throughout the country.

Local authorities undoubtedly need to create a pattern of provision that supports raising the attainment of children, and to make sure that it meets the changing needs and numbers of children in any particular area. The Department's five-year strategy for children and learners, which follows on from our document, "Excellence and Enjoyment: A strategy for primary schools", sets out the extensive success story of primary education, with many schools delivering high-quality education. There have been impressive strides in literacy and numeracy in recent years, as well as teaching having improved in every curriculum subject in primary schools since 1997. Of course, we recognise that we need to do more to provide a high-quality primary education to all pupils. There is still an unacceptable variation in performance between schools, and authorities are encouraged to consider that when determining proposals under a review of provision.

Primary standards for 11-year-olds in Rossendale are improving and are broadly in line with the average for Lancashire schools. In Lancashire as a whole, key stage 1 and 2 results are above the national average. No primary schools in Rossendale have been identified as needing special measures, as having serious weaknesses or as underachieving, although eight have been identified as needing additional local authority support to address educational, personnel or financial issues.

As my hon. Friend set out clearly, Lancashire county council is reviewing primary school places across the Rossendale area, because of surplus places. I have the same figures as he does for the number of surplus places. There is no doubt that that issue needs to be tackled. The review covers 32 primary schools. The surplus place percentage is almost 17.5 per cent., and it will reach 22.8 per cent. by 2010 if nothing is done, so, clearly, something must be done. The authority and the diocesan body state that falling rolls have had a greater impact on Catholic schools than other schools, although there is significant unfilled capacity in all sectors.

On the option put forward in the consultation document, my hon. Friend made the point that there is only one option for his area of Haslingden, and I understand his concerns on that. I have listened to his points and am sure that the local schools organisation committee will do the same and consider some of them, which I am sure he will also make locally in every possible way. The parents and pupils sound to me like quite an active lot, and I am sure that they will make those points as strongly as he has made them during this debate.

I thank the Minister for giving way and I apologise, Mr. Hood, for not having indicated that I wanted to say something.

The Minister mentioned that there was only one option for St. Mary's in the review, and she is absolutely right. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) has said in welcoming the approach of Lancashire county council, which has indicated that it is willing to listen and think again.

A number of schools in my constituency are affected, but for one in particular—Bacup nursery school—there is only one option in the review document, which is closure. I visited the school on Saturday and I know the strength of feeling locally. We would very much like for that school to remain, and replacing it with a nursery class would not improve the provision for local people in Bacup. In fact, it would make it significantly worse. I just place that on the record. Part of the solution to the problem may be some sort of new build throughout the borough of Rossendale, and I wonder whether the Minister would explain what help might be available from Government to assist with that.

My hon. Friend has raised a point that I shall come on to during my remarks.

I congratulate the teachers, parents and, most of all, the pupils of St. Mary's for the impressive achievement of being identified by Ofsted as one of the most improving schools in the country. From my constituency experience, I understand how difficult things can be in a school that is improving and has been turned round from a slightly difficult position—albeit not special measures in this instance—only to be faced suddenly with such a threat to its future, after all the effort that has gone into turning it around. All I can say is that I congratulate the school and all connected with it on its achievement. No matter what happens to the local organisation, there is no doubt that it is a significant achievement to be named by Ofsted as one of the most improving primary schools in the country. That is something of which everyone should be very proud.

I understand that one difficulty is that pupil numbers are quite small, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn referred to that. I am told that the number stood at 81 in January and that there are currently 78 pupils. My hon. Friend raised some issues in referring to our 2002 legislation about the way in which small schools might be helped to continue even though the numbers are smaller. That is particularly important in rural areas where schools are centres of the community, and I am sure that all those factors will be taken into account during the current consultation and in the decision-making process thereafter at the level of the schools organisation committee when it considers the points made or whether the proposals should go ahead.

The consultation document was issued in May and open evenings have been held at schools that could be directly affected. I am not sure whether that applies to the nursery, but I am sure that it should. I am sure that it will have had meetings where parents of the children who go there could make those points. I know that there were open evenings at St. Mary's school on 7 June and at St. Veronica's on 6 June. The results of the consultation are to be reported to the cabinet member for education on 13 September, which leaves my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn, and those of his view, the summer in which to campaign. Of course, before making any decisions, those making the decision locally will take into account the views put forward.

Lancashire county council and the Salford diocesan schools commission recognise in their consultation document the important role played by denominational schools. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn about the possibility of removing the option of a Catholic primary education from some parents is important, and I am sure that he will stress it to those who are to make these decisions in due course. I understand that a reorganisation of Roman Catholic churches is being undertaken in Rossendale and Ramsbottom, which may result in an amalgamation of the parishes of Haslingden, St. Mary's and St. Veronica's. I do not know what impact that might have on some of the proposals that have come forward, but I am sure that the two things are not unconnected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen raised a point about a nursery school in her constituency and asked what, if anything, the Government can do to ensure that funds are available to ensure that schools can continue where that is wanted. I am afraid that I will have to write to her on that point. However, she will be well aware of the increasing resources that the Government are putting in to ensure that pupils attain in their current school buildings and to extend and extensively rebuild our school infrastructure throughout the country. I will have to check at the Department to see what might be available for her nursery school, but she will be aware of our 10-year child care strategy and the concept of extended schools, which may well provide some options that could be considered locally to ensure that valued local facilities can not only continue, but be expanded.

Over the next 10 years, there will be a vast expansion in the availability of child care and extended schools in particular areas, which will offer all kinds of additional support services to parents, families and learners of all ages. I am certain that, in conjunction with the local authority, local diocesan schools commissions can come up with helpful plans.

The Minister stresses something important. We feel that one of the ways forward for the nursery school in Bacup would be for it to combine with the local Sure Start scheme to provide wrap-around care for all the families in Bacup.

I am interested to hear that local people are already ahead of the game. They will have spotted that there are a lot of resources in extending schools to ensure that they provide services for much longer periods during the day to assist parents who are at work by ensuring that they can have proper child care for an extended time. Such expansions are planned throughout the country.

Sure Start has led not only to services in respect of children and early-years education being put together much more coherently, but, in areas in which it is established, to underachievement being tackled effectively. If my hon. Friend already knows of a Sure Start scheme, that is an obvious way in which services can be not only preserved, but improved in future. I undertake to contact her further in that regard, although I am sure that she is aware that I cannot make decisions about school reorganisations. I am certain that those involved at local level will have the best interests of all the communities at heart and will want to ensure that the proposals that they finally come forward with are fully supported by parents and local people.

My hon. Friend will be well aware, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn, that to the extent that there is not an agreement at the end of the process of consultation, there are procedures by which decisions can be taken by the independent schools arbitrator that will ensure that a resolution is reached to allow the reorganisation to go ahead.

I have heard what both my hon. Friends have said. I am certain that the local schools organisation committee, the LEA and the diocesan authorities will read carefully what they have had to say and that parents, pupils and those with an interest in the local area will be involved in the consultation, will make their views known and will put forward alternatives if they feel that they are viable. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn had one or two points about that.

At the end of the day local decision making, along with the arbitration that is available if there is no agreement, will ensure that, when it happens, the reorganisation of schools in Rossendale will happen to the benefit of all pupils whether they are at community schools, denominational schools or wherever, and whether they are at nursery or primary level. That is the aim of the way in which schools reorganisation is now carried out. That is best done locally and at the end of the process Rossendale will have a plan for the future that will do right by all the children of the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.