Commons Sitting of 14 January 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales in relation to NHS dentistry. [90189]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): Officials from the Department of Health continue to have a regular dialogue with the National Assembly in relation to NHS dentistry.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I am grateful to know that the dialogue is still ongoing. Is the Minister aware that just 31 per cent. of the population in my constituency are registered with an NHS dentist? That is the lowest figure ever, since the NHS dentistry system came in. According to figures released last week, we also have the highest rates of lip and mouth cancer registered in Wales at European level. The Select Committee on Health report on NHS dentistry published in March 2001 identified the scale of charges for NHS dentists as the main obstacle to increased access to NHS dentistry. What is the Department doing to change that scale of charges to encourage more dentists to come into the NHS and to ensure that we pay them not just for the treatment that they provide but for the preventive care that they undertake?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the Welsh Assembly is responsible for dentistry in Wales. The Assembly has rightly set out its reform agenda under "Routes to Reform". Like us, it is also examining how local commissioning can be taken forward, and our "Options for Change" document is a vision for that local commissioning.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Without wishing to cast a slur on the whole dentistry profession, I wonder whether the Minister would agree with a colleague of mine, my dentist, who primarily treats NHS patients, that there is a problem with the motivation of many of
    528
    those now coming into dentistry? We need to encourage more of those who have an ethical reason to be there, rather than simply a financial one.
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is key that dentists should be able to move away from the piecework and methods of payment that we have had in the past. My hon. Friend will know that we intend to put proposals before Parliament to change the structure to ensure local commissioning by primary care trusts. I believe that that will empower dentists to move in the direction that they and the British Dental Association want.

    Specialist Stroke Units
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the role of specialist stroke units at NHS acute hospitals. [90190]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): As the national service framework for older people makes clear, all hospitals that care for people who have had a stroke should have specialist stroke services in place by April 2004. Monitoring of implementation of the national service framework shows that progress is being made with the introduction of those services.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for restating the national service framework target. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that, at present, only 27 per cent. of patients are being treated in specialist stroke units, which, in its judgment, is resulting in 6,000 unnecessary deaths a year. Is the Minister really telling the House that, within one year, 73 per cent. more patients will be treated in specialist stroke units in places such as Blackpool, which has no such specialist unit? What comfort can she give to people there that the money and resources will flow at a speed that will enable her target to be met in one year?
    Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right: we do need to make more progress. That is why provision of stroke services is a key priority in the Department's priorities and planning framework issued last October. I am sure that he will be pleased to reflect that the third national sentinel audit showed an increase in the number of hospitals with specific stroke units, notwithstanding the fact that the Government's objectives go beyond stroke units to involve integrated stroke services covering preventive care, rehabilitation and long-term support for stroke patients. The right hon. Gentleman also makes the important point that this progress is dependent on investment. I do not think that it will be the last time that we say this today: I hope that he will explain to his constituents that the progress we have made and that we expect to make is dependent on the investment that this Government are putting in and that his party would take out.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I am always grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the help that you gave me in 1998, when you rushed me into St. Thomas's hospital from Westminster when I had a stroke in the House. Is the Minister aware that the

    529
    diagnosis, treatment and prevention of strokes is cost-effective as well as humane? Is she also aware that magic potions are not what are needed to deal with strokes? It is mainly a matter of careful treatment, sensible eating, exercise and, if you have the stomach for it, a mild aspirin a day. It is, therefore, just sensible organisation that is required. Surely that can be delivered according to the time scale that the Minister is describing. We do not need high-tech to deliver this programme.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least from his experience. Although stroke rehabilitation units are important, so is the increasing amount of preventive work in primary care. That is being taken forward through other initiatives; for example, it is linked to the Government's action on preventing heart disease. My hon. Friend referred to the importance of exercise and healthy eating. On Friday, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), made an important announcement about the Government's five-a-day project to encourage healthier eating.
    My hon. Friend is right that stroke services are about prevention and long-term rehabilitation. He is also right that the Government have made that a priority, and we are confident that the sort of improvements that we have announced are being and will be made.

  Hospital Waiting Lists and Times
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress on reducing waiting lists and times in the NHS. [90191]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Waiting lists and waiting times are falling. Waiting lists for primary care and hospitals have fallen, and waiting for in-patient and out-patient appointments has reduced. The biggest reduction in waiting times is that for cancer and heart treatment.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, within five years of coming to power, the Labour Government failed to reduce waiting lists by the promised 100,000, which was only a reduction of less than 10 per cent? Waiting times are more important than waiting lists. The right hon. Gentleman set a benchmark of reducing waiting time to a maximum of six months by 2005. Does he accept that he failed to achieve the benchmark of a maximum waiting time of 15 months by March this year?
  Mr. Milburn: With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. We promised at the time of the general election that we would reduce waiting lists by 100,000 and we have achieved that. It might benefit hon. Members if I read out the figures. In March 1997, 283,000 people waited more than six months for a hospital operation. That figure is down to 230,000. In March 1997, almost 6,000 people waited more than 15 months for a hospital operation; the latest figures show that six people are waiting that length of time.
  530
  More than 70,000 people were waiting more than 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment when we came to office; that figure is down to 700. There is a long way to go but waiting times and waiting lists are moving in the right direction for one simple reason: our reforms of the national health service and the resources for which we voted and against which the hon. Gentleman voted.
  John Mann: The NHS in my constituency is going from strength to strength according to every indicator except one: that for drug treatment services. Will my right hon. Friend examine the returns on waiting lists that the drug action team for Nottinghamshire provides for my constituency and the rest of the county, and work out why I know people on 12-month waiting lists when the team's results imply a maximum wait of 12 weeks? Will my right hon. Friend consider the specific cases, the details of which I can provide to him, and the way in which the waiting lists for drug treatment services are being fiddled?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I appreciate that he takes a passionate interest in issues that involve drugs, such as drug-related crime and drugs treatment. I understand that he mentioned some of them in yesterday's debate. Progress has been made, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the performance of drug action teams varies throughout the country. Some are good and some are unfortunately less good.
  When effort has been focused, especially on areas with high street crime, waiting times for treatment have changed remarkably. In some cases, people who obviously needed drug treatment were arrested, but told that they would have to wait many months before they received such treatment. Nowadays, people in high street-crime areas receive treatment almost instantaneously. If we can do it in some areas, we must do it in others. That requires a combination of national and local action.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing concern about fiddling waiting list figures? I refer not only to the National Audit Office findings of more cases of fiddling but the scandal at St. George's hospital, where it appears that some figures were fiddled. Will he assure us that he is confident that clinical priorities are not being distorted by his obsession with waiting times and waiting lists, and that we are treating the sickest thickest—I mean the sickest quickest? Will he also assure us that he has confidence in the figures on which he relies to demonstrate the claimed improvements in waiting times?
  Mr. Milburn: Obviously the hon. Gentleman spent too long in front of the mirror this morning. He claims that the Government are obsessed with waiting times, but it is the public and patients who are rightly obsessed with them. As he knows fine well, by and large the biggest public concern about the national health service today is not the quality of treatment received once people get into the NHS, but how long they have to wait to get into it. We believe passionately that the right way forward is to get the reforms into the national health service—I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes all of them—and to get the resources in as well, so that we can

  531
  bring down waiting times. Of course, nowadays there is more independent scrutiny of the NHS than there has ever been.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: The reforms are certainly working for us in Doncaster. Of those waiting for treatment for less than six months, nationally the figure is 76 per cent., but in Doncaster it is 88 per cent., which is obviously good. Nationally, 76 per cent. of those waiting for GP referrals are seen within 13 weeks, but in Doncaster the figure is 86 per cent., so the reforms are working. Where there is a will, there is a way. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the doctors, nurses and management in Doncaster, who are doing an excellent job?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is quite right, and what he says is true not just in Doncaster. I join him in paying tribute to the Herculean effort on the part of staff and management in Doncaster, but although major problems still exist across the national health service—unsurprisingly so, after literally decades of underinvestment—it is very striking that, for the first time since records began, in-patient and out-patient waiting times are falling, and falling together. The same is true in primary care, and also according to virtually every indicator. What gives me particular pleasure—I know that my hon. Friend will feel the same, particularly since he comes from an area that suffers not just from deprivation but from a high incidence of coronary heart disease—is that the biggest falls in treatment have been in precisely those clinical priority areas of cancer and heart disease.
  It is worth saying that when we came to office, heart patients were in some cases being asked to wait more than 18 months for hospital operations. By April of this year, we expect such waiting times to have been halved to a maximum of nine months. There is clearly a long way to go, but the only way to keep the waiting times moving in the right direction—downwards—is to keep on with the reforms, and, most importantly, to keep the resources going in. That is what the Government want to do, and what the Opposition oppose.
  Dr. Liam Fox: What estimate has been made of the number of casualties that the NHS could deal with if there is war in the Gulf, and the number of staff who could be sent there without significantly affecting current levels of NHS activity and, thereby, waiting times?
  Mr. Milburn: We obviously have not made estimates of the number of potential casualties, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told this House just a week or so ago, we have put in place contingency plans. That is sensible, particularly in the first instance for the call up of reservists. This will affect many NHS hospitals throughout the country, but I expect that, on average, the impact will be limited to two or three members of staff being called up. Sometimes they will be doctors, sometimes they will be nurses, and sometimes they will be allied health professionals such as therapists. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, last week a meeting was held in the Department
  532
  of Health with six of the principal NHS and other hospitals that would be used to deal with casualties in the event of a conflict.
  Dr. Fox: Last July, the armed forces said that they had only 195 GPs when 415 were needed, only 23 anaesthetists when 120 were needed, only 11 orthopaedic surgeons when 28 were needed, and only 18 general surgeons when 43 were needed. The whole House will undoubtedly agree that all our troops should have optimal treatment. If we are talking about a deployment of more than 20,000, how will the extra numbers be made up in those areas without having a very significant impact? Of course, that could cause great difficulty to the NHS.
  Mr. Milburn: Perhaps uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is being something of a merchant of doom and gloom. The reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made that statement in the House—I very much support what he said—was precisely that the national health service has to plan for all contingencies. The House—and, I dare say, Opposition Front Benchers—would be the first to criticise the Government were we not to put in place suitable contingency plans. That is precisely what we have done, in the first instance with reservists. If it is necessary to supplement the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made to the House, we will take any further action that needs to be taken. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have taken this tack. It is worth pointing out that the Government who cut the defence medical services in our armed forces were not this Labour Government, but the previous Conservative Government.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he intends to ensure that foundation hospitals are treated equally with non-foundation hospitals when strategic health authorities are considering hospital re-organisation. [90192]
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on financial independence for foundation hospital trusts. [90199]
  Mr Dave Watts: If he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the likely effect that foundation hospitals will have on staff retention in non-foundation hospitals. [90200]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): National health service foundation trusts will provide NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles and NHS standards. They will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally, by members of the public in the local community, and by local staff, patients and local primary care trusts. The freedom that they will have to improve services for NHS patients and

  533
  meet local needs will be balanced with safeguards to ensure that their primary duty to NHS patients is always met.
  Dr. Ladyman: I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve with foundation hospitals, and I support him in that. However, when schools were given grant-maintained status, many started competing against other schools instead of co-operating with them. I need to be reassured that that will not happen with foundation hospitals. If a strategic health authority that includes two trusts decides to localise services in one to create a centre of excellence, will the other trust accept that, and will the two trusts co-operate and work together? Will my right hon. Friend give me that assurance?
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Foundation hospitals will be part of the NHS. They will operate under a statutory duty of partnership, and we will introduce legislation to ensure that they will have the freedoms necessary to empower front-line staff and managers to shape local services to meet the local community's needs. With the best will in the world, that cannot be done from Whitehall, but those freedoms need to be balanced by significant safeguards. Our intention is definitely not to reinvent the dog-eat-dog competition that prevailed under the previous internal market. That is why so much effort is being made across the NHS to ensure that NHS standards are good in all hospitals and not just in some. As far as questions of so-called reconfiguration or service change are concerned, any NHS foundation hospital that wants to propose a service change will have to go through precisely the same process of scrutiny as any other NHS hospital. That process will involve the oversight and scrutiny committee of the local authority. That democratically elected committee will provide a significant safeguard and ensure that it is the interests of the local community, and not the vested interests of any one organisation, that come first.
  Mr. Swayne: I shall stick with Question 11, Mr. Speaker, which the Secretary of State has not begun even to address. He has merely lumped three questions together and answered them according to a query that he has imagined. Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely how much the foundation hospitals will be able to borrow from the private sector?
  Hon. Members: Keep taking the tablets.
  Mr. Milburn: I do not want to incur any more expense for the NHS, but the hon. Gentleman is in scary creature mode today, as he often is. His specific question concerns how much NHS foundation trusts will be able to borrow. That will be determined by each individual trust, against a prudential code that the independent regulator will have the duty of monitoring. The borrowing will be based on one simple principle, with which most people—as individuals and members of organisations—are fully acquainted. That principle is that borrowing should be based on ability to repay. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Government would
  534
  want NHS foundation hospitals to overstretch themselves in such a way that local services were lost to local communities.
  Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend will know that there is much concern among Labour Members about the proposed introduction of NHS foundation hospitals. Many of us believe that that could lead to a two-tier health service. Will my right hon. Friend give me the assurance that one-star and two-star hospitals will be raised in a very short time to the standards of foundation hospitals, and that they will be allowed to join the foundation scheme as soon as possible?
  Mr. Milburn: I can give precisely that assurance. I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I know that my hon. Friend is not saying such things, but all the talk suggesting that what we envisage is a group of half a dozen or a dozen elite hospitals is entirely removed from the truth. In fact, we want as many NHS hospitals—as many NHS trusts—as possible to become NHS foundation trusts, as quickly as possible. But we must start somewhere, and, as my hon. Friend knows from his constituency, there are now different starting points in the NHS.
  Some hospitals are performing very well, some are producing a middling performance and a few, sadly, are persistently underperforming. We need different approaches and different strategies to deal with the different starting points. Some hospitals can benefit from more freedom, many need more support, and a few need not less but more intervention. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about that many times in the context of his local hospital. There will, however, be no arbitrary cap on numbers.
  I hope my hon. Friend is also comforted by the fact that 75 per cent. of NHS trusts that were given a zero rating in our first round of star ratings had improved by the following year. Twenty-five per cent. had become two-star trusts, and I expect that before long some will have become three-star trusts.
  Mr. Simon Burns: How can foundation hospitals be truly independent from Whitehall control, as the Secretary of State keeps claiming they will, when they will be subject to a star-rating system that is imposed on all hospitals by the Department of Health?
  Mr. Milburn: For the simple reason that they will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally. They will be owned by members of the local community—not by me, not by any other Minister, and not by Whitehall.
  What the hon. Gentleman's question reveals all too starkly is the fundamental difference of view on this. The Tories want foundation hospitals—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Every time the Secretary of State has got to his feet he has told me what the Tories want. I do not want to hear any more about that. I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say for himself.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: There have been some mischievous suggestions that the governance proposals for foundation trusts are being included as a sweetener for people like me who have some reservations about the concept of such trusts. To prove that that is not so, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the concept of these governance proposals to other elements of the NHS?
  Mr. Milburn: In time, we will. The guide that we published on 11 December makes that absolutely clear.
  The proposals are certainly not a sweetener. The governance structure and the ownership structure of these organisations, and their independence, are intimately related.
  Michael Fabricant: Order. Face Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Milburn: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had taken over your role, Mr. Speaker. Heaven help us if he does. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would like to pass his pills to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Perhaps then we will hear a bit of sense.
  I was talking about the independence and the governance of foundation hospitals. We want to use our current model because whatever the great strengths of the NHS—and it has enormous strengths: its staff, its public service ethos and some of the advances it has achieved in public health—what cannot be done with the best will in the world is matching local services to local needs if these organisations are run from Whitehall. They must be run by members of the local community and local staff so that they can shape local services in accordance with communities' differing needs.
  Alistair Burt: I hope the Secretary of State agrees that if the House is to be reassured about foundation hospitals it is essential for us to have confidence in the views expressed by those who work in the NHS. Is he concerned about the climate described by the Institute of Healthcare Management? It says that
  "Over half of the managers…from board level down to heads of departments, felt unable to raise concerns about the Service, or their own organisation, for fear of recrimination".
  What does he intend to do about that climate, and who or what does he think those managers are afraid of?
  Mr. Milburn: I think we should give more independence and greater freedom to NHS organisations that are capable of using it.

  Consultant Contracts
  Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the reform of consultant contracts. [90193]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Following the ballot of British Medical Association members in October, we are carefully considering the options in relation to the best way forward and will make an announcement shortly.
  Mr. Edwards: May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist and overcome the opposition of consultants to the reform of their contracts? Constituents who need an orthopaedic operation feel deeply frustrated when they find out that they could have it done in the next couple of weeks by the same surgeon at the same hospital. The situation is so intolerable at the Royal Gwent hospital where my constituents go that the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales, Jane Hutt, has set up an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that those consultants who are dedicated to working full time for the national health service are rewarded for that? We should not have a two-tier system.
  Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with hon. Friend. It is important to make it clear that no one has a veto on reform in the national health service. It is our job to find the best way to proceed with the reforms that we wanted to make. Our objective, however, is clear and it remains the same—to better reward NHS consultants who do the most for NHS patients. As I said, we will be making an announcement shortly about the way forward.
  On my hon. Friend's specific point about private practice, he will remember from the agreement that we negotiated with the BMA last year that we proposed a way forward for dealing with the perceived conflict between NHS practice and private practice. The need for clarity around the relationship between private practice and NHS practice remains the same, and we will be saying something about this in the near future.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) has raised an important point. While we have to give full credit to the overwhelming majority of consultants for their skill, dedication and commitment, is it not important that any contract should encourage a consultant to carry out as many operations as possible within the national health service in accordance with safety, hygiene and all other considerations that are important when using theatres? Will the Minister give me an assurance that that objective will lie behind any decision that the Government take?
  Mr. Hutton: Yes.
  Mr. John Baron: Dr. Paul Miller, the new BMA consultant negotiator, has today called for a resumption of national contract talks, saying that the consultants
  "are becoming increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change…The Government is quick to claim credit for reductions in the longest patient waits but slower to acknowledge that the long waits have simply moved further down the system, with more patients waiting between six and 12 months for treatment."

  537
  How can the Government hope to gain the trust of the consultants when they are responsible for this sort of systemic distortion?
  Mr. Hutton: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's latter point. It is no coincidence that waiting times are falling across the national health service, because we have set clear national standards for the first time. We have pursued those with vigour and energy, and patients have been the beneficiaries.
  On the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course the doors of the Department of Health remain open to the BMA, and we look forward to the discussions to which he has referred.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I have in front of me a letter from a consultant who says that he voted in favour of the reforms. He goes on to explain that as specialists in one of the smaller trusts, he and his colleagues are becoming increasingly frustrated with our region's attempt to rejuggle the management of some of the smaller trusts. As we need to build on the trust of good consultants such as my constituent, will my right hon. Friend look closely at what the north-west region is doing in terms of mergers of small specialist trusts, which are the jewels in the crown of the local service?
  Mr. Hutton: Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; He is more than welcome to discuss any detailed concerns or issues with me.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Peter Pike: What discussions he has had with primary care trusts regarding improved access to NHS dental services. [90194]
  Colin Burgon: What steps he has taken to improve the availability of dental treatment on the NHS. [90196]
  Mr. John Grogan: What plans he has to increase the provision of NHS dentistry. [90201]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are committed to providing NHS dentistry for all who need and seek it. In addition to the annual general dental services budget, more than £125 million has been made available to the NHS to improve local services over the past three years.
  Despite the increase of nearly 2,000 dentists since 1997, we recognise that in some areas it can be difficult to find an NHS dentist. We therefore propose to legislate for far-reaching reform of NHS dental services.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust supported a bid, made under one of his Department's initiatives, for an improved NHS dental service in east Lancashire, but that the bid failed? Does he recognise that people in Burnley cannot get on to NHS dentists' lists? There is much poverty, as a result of which people cannot afford private treatment, and
  538
  dental health in east Lancashire is poor. We want the Government to take action to solve those problems; people are paying for NHS dental services, but they are not able to get them.
  Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the Department recognises the issues relating to poor dental health in Burnley. That is why Burnley has benefited from a number of other pilots, including dental access centres. Burnley has also received a substantial increase in its primary care allocation, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced shortly before Christmas. That, too, will improve dental access in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Colin Burgon: I am glad that the Minister has a strategy for improving access to NHS dental services, as the problem is also present in my constituency, even though it is a reasonably affluent one. Recently, a Garforth constituent gave me a letter that he had received from his dental practice, informing him that it was going private. Two things disturbed me about the letter. There was a strong implication, first, that unless my constituent signed up for a dental care plan, the practice could not guarantee treatment; and, secondly, that NHS dental care was of lower quality and that inferior materials and techniques were used. What is my hon. Friend's comment on that letter?
  Mr. Lammy: I am very concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says. If he passes the letter to me, I shall ask Department officials to look into it.
  NHS dentistry is overseen by a quality assurance system, as my hon. Friend would expect, and the dental reference service undertakes 55,000 random checks on dentists across the country.
  Mr. Grogan: Many NHS dentists feel strongly about fluoridation. What is the Government's current policy, following the Medical Research Council report that built on work carried out by the university of York?
  Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will understand that the subject is controversial, but the MRC supported the benefits of fluoridation in improving health inequalities, especially for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief medical officer and the chief dental officer to look further into the issue.
  Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Minister give me his definition of access? Does it include, for instance, the five to six-hour journey by public transport to fulfil an appointment that is often experienced by my constituents in south-east Cornwall?
  Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has, I know, been concerned about a case in his constituency that arose over Christmas. It is important that people ringing NHS Direct have access to a dentist within a reasonable distance. We must continue to strive to ensure that there is investment to improve dental access in the hon. Gentleman's area—as in others.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the Minister aware that in many rural areas—Sleaford

  539
  in Lincolnshire, for example—it is almost impossible for individuals to register for an NHS dentist? The primary care trusts say that they face great difficulties in attracting dentists to rural areas, and to Lincolnshire in particular. Will he, in concert with the working group, see what can be done to attract dentists to rural areas, and to Lincolnshire in particular?
  Mr. Lammy: Of course I am concerned about dental access in Sleaford and I am tremendously concerned about why we arrived at this position in the first place. The then Administration introduced a contract in 1990, but there was a 7 per cent. cut in 1992. The Conservative party currently supports a 20 per cent. cut, which would make things worse for the people of Sleaford. We have 17 dental access centres in rural areas and investment is being made to improve access. That will benefit the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Is the Minister aware that a mother in Freshwater in the west of my constituency cannot access an NHS dental practice unless she travels to Southsea, which involves public transport by way of bus, train and ferry? Does he recall the Prime Minister making a promise at the Labour party conference in 1999 that everyone should have access to an NHS dentist within two years? Why has the Prime Minister broken that promise?
  Mr. Lammy: The Prime Minister has not broken his promise. We remain committed to that investment. We will improve access by enacting legislation that will propose local commissioning for primary care trusts. Will the hon. Gentleman vote with us on that measure, or will he propose a 20 per cent. cut?
  Chris McCafferty: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the need for extra funding for primary care trusts, such as the one in Calderdale, that cover large semi-rural areas and face specific problems? There are pockets of need where access to dental care is not available. Those areas do not qualify for extra funding under the current arrangements because they are pockets rather than larger areas of specific need. The Government could help such areas by carefully considering their special needs.
  Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will know of the recent announcement on allocations; Calderdale will certainly have benefited from an increase. As I have explained, the legislation will enable her primary care trust to ensure better local commissioning and to provide better access for her constituents.

  MRI Scans (Yeovil)
  Mr. David Laws: What his estimate is of the waiting time for MRI scans in the Yeovil constituency. [90195]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am advised by Dorset and Somerset strategic health authority that both East Somerset NHS trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS trust are currently meeting the target for urgent referrals for MRI scans as set by the NHS cancer plan. Waiting
  540
  times for non-urgent MRI scans have fallen significantly at East Somerset NHS trust, although waiting times for non-urgent MRI scans at Taunton and Somerset NHS trust have risen in recent months.
  Mr. Laws: Is the Minister not aware that waiting times for MRI scans at Yeovil hospital are longer than they were in 1997, and that at Musgrove Park hospital they are now 38 weeks? Are not some of the longest waiting times in the NHS for diagnostic tests and for consultant-to-consultant referrals? Would it not be better for the Government to publish the information nationally so that we do not have a distortion in priorities across the NHS?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that waiting times at Yeovil hospital, which serves his constituents, have been coming down recently. It is also due to get a new scanner in May, which will make the process even faster. It may be able to help out with waiting lists at Musgrove Park hospital, which has problems with non-urgent MRI scan waiting times, although it has just appointed two new radiographers and extended the working day from 8 o'clock in the morning to 8 o'clock at night. In addition, people are working on Saturday mornings. The combination of extra investment and reform to working practices is beginning to make a difference on this very important issue.

  Nicotine
  Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to reduce nicotine deaths. [90197]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Some 120,000 people die every year from smoking. Forthcoming changes that will reduce deaths include banning tobacco advertising, starting with newspapers and billboards from 14 February, new stark warnings on cigarette packets and a major expansion of NHS smoking cessation services.
  Paul Flynn: The Government are to be warmly congratulated on their work on this issue, but is it not amazing that over the past 20 years the number of male cancers in Sweden has been cut in half and that smoking among men has gone down from 36 per cent. to 17 per cent.? Last month, the Royal College of Physicians said that using smokeless tobacco is up to 1,000 times less hazardous than using smoking tobacco. Is it not right that the product that has achieved that remarkable health improvement should now be taken off the banned list and become available in some form in countries outside Sweden? Unfortunately, the Government have said that setting up a regulatory authority to consider all those matters is not planned at the moment. When is that likely to be done, enabling us to take a rational look at all forms of smoking?
  Ms Blears: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that smokeless tobacco should be encouraged. All tobacco products are addictive, and it is much better to take our approach—helping people to give up smoking entirely, with Zyban and nicotine

  541
  replacement therapy—and to see how that works. I am afraid that we do not have a history of oral tobacco use, as people have in Sweden. The Swedish National Institute of Public Health does not support the use of Snus as a smoking cessation product because it is very concerned indeed that it could become a gateway to tobacco use, particularly for young people, at whom it is specifically marketed. Far from helping people to give up, it could increase the number, especially of young people, who use tobacco. It is a very interesting debate—I am sure that it will continue—but I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this issue.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Minister join me in congratulating South East Hertfordshire primary care trust, together with local GPs, pharmacists, practice nurses and the Hertfordshire stop smoking groups, on the excellent work that they are doing in my constituency to help my constituents to give up smoking? Although we still have three months to go, the primary care trust has already exceeded its 2002–03 Government target, with more than 200 people having given up smoking. Will the Minister please tell the House what action she is taking to put pressure on Ministers in other Departments to tackle the very serious problem of tobacco and cigarette smuggling, which has a serious impact on the issue that we are trying to address and which, of course, she particularly wishes to solve?
  Ms Blears: I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in congratulating all the people in her local area on the magnificent results that they have achieved. Those results are replicated throughout the country. More than 200,000 people are now being helped to give up smoking, and we are aiming for an extra 800,000 over the next three years. We are putting in the money to ensure that that can happen, because it requires extra resources as well.
  On cross-government action to reduce smuggling, we are in constant contact with Treasury Ministers to ensure that we bear down on the problem. We have a cross-government action plan to tackle not just smoking but all the damaging effects of tobacco on our community. We have a whole range of policies in the Treasury, the Department of Health and, particularly, the Department for Education and Skills, and we are doing a great deal of work to alert young people in schools to the dangers of tobacco and, indeed, of other drugs.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on tobacco, particularly in relation to tobacco advertising. The next huge timebomb that we face in health is obesity in children. Is she prepared to consider as part of a strategy limiting the advertising to young people of products high in fat, sugar and salt, which cause such huge damage to our young population?
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend highlights an extremely important issue, which is almost a timebomb waiting to hit us in years to come. He will know that the Government have a huge range of policies to improve people's diet and nutrition: the national school fruit scheme, the five-a-day projects and a range of plans to
  542
  encourage people to have access to a healthier diet. He raises the important issue of advertising to young people. The Food Standards Agency is conducting a research project to examine the effects of advertising foods high in sugar and salt to young children. I shall read its report with great interest to see what action we can take to improve the diets of young people in this country.

  GP Appointments
  Mr. John Bercow: What estimate he has made of the number and proportion of missed appointments with general practitioners in each of the last five years. [90198]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Information is not available for each of the last five years. Surveys conducted over the past two years by the Doctor Patient Partnership and the Institute of Healthcare Management, with funding from the Department of Health, have shown a reduction in the number of missed appointments of more than 8 per cent. during that period.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that answer. Given that people who miss their general practitioner appointments without good reason cause unnecessary cost to public funds, waste doctors' time and selfishly inconvenience other patients, does the Minister agree that, although people should always be free to use their GP, they should certainly not be free to abuse their GP?
  Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point, and I also agree with his views on the Conservative party, which we have all enjoyed reading. He raises a serious point, so he is entitled to a serious answer. He is right that the waste of resources caused by people who do not bother to turn up for appointments is a huge drain on the NHS; we are trying to find the best way to make sure that we minimise the incidence of the problem. As he will be aware, a number of GP practices in Buckinghamshire are taking part in the work of the primary care collaborative, including some, I think, in his constituency. We have found that improving the appointments system that practices operate can have a beneficial effect on the number of missed appointments. I am glad to say that, so far, the introduction of better appointments systems through the primary care collaborative has seen the national average of missed appointments fall by 50 per cent. That is the right way to proceed.
  Caroline Flint: Everyone would agree that missing an appointment with a doctor or at a hospital requires good reasons. I urge my hon. Friend, however, to do further work to examine why people do not attend appointments. Too often, statistics are produced showing that X per cent. of people have not attended appointments, but we do not go on to ask why. We need to spread good practice in terms of having an efficient appointments system, but we must understand that people may not attend appointments for many

  543
  good reasons. They may be fearful of seeing their doctor, or they may have got better, which is also worth knowing. We need more research in this area.
  Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are committed to working with the Doctor Patient Partnership to examine some of the issues that she raises. We know, for example, that the incidence of missed appointments tends to be higher in mental health trusts than in other NHS organisations, probably for obvious reasons. We certainly need to examine the background, including access, transport and convenience issues. I say to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): it is important that we work with the primary care sector, GPs and practice managers to improve the convenience and accessibility of the appointments system. If people are given a genuine choice not only over the time at which they are seen but where they are seen, all the evidence confirms that they are more likely to attend their appointment than if they are given little choice.

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What representations he has received about the impending closure of King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst. [90202]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other Ministers and departmental officials have received a number of representations on the financial situation that has been developing at the privately run King Edward VII Hospital, particularly over the last few months. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend last week. Furthermore, the director of health and social care for the south of England met the hospital's chief executive and director of finance to explore what the NHS could do, and discussions continue with NHS officials.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that the hospital is not private but independent, with half its patients coming from the NHS? Will she urgently examine why 40 per cent. of NHS work has been withdrawn over the past few months, which is the immediate cause of the closure, and whether that work can be restored? Is she aware that the hospital's closure will create a dramatic increase in waiting times for orthopaedic and cardiac work in the area? Is not it absurd that people from the area are being sent abroad for treatment, especially for orthopaedic work, when they can be treated at less cost at the King Edward VII hospital?
  Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman says, the hospital is not an NHS hospital, but the NHS in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire has worked with it for a number of years and recognises its contribution to local NHS patient care, as well as to providing care for independent private patients. The NHS throughout the country, certainly in the areas that concern the hon. Gentleman, is planning for and funding increased capacity and activity. Its purpose is not to reduce it. It is in that context that detailed discussions are ongoing with both
  544
  the hospital and the liquidators to maintain capacity, subject obviously to cost and quality considerations at the hospital.
  Tim Loughton: I am aware that discussions have been going on with Ministers behind the scenes. I acknowledge the hard work and approaches of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the receptiveness of Ministers. We certainly hope that this outstanding not-for-profit hospital can survive its centenary year and continue as a centre of excellence, having looked after a majority of NHS patients over the past 50 years in cancer care, cardiac work and orthopaedics in particular.
  As my hon. Friend says, is not it absurd that NHS patients are being sent abroad rather than up the road to a hospital that has state-of-the-art scanners, angioplasty equipment and its own intensive care unit? What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact on waiting times for NHS patients served by hospitals in Guildford, Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight and the whole of Sussex that previously relied on the centre, especially if the worst comes to the worst?
  Jacqui Smith: Serving the interests of NHS patients in that hospital and others in the area is, of course, the priority. That is why the NHS was willing to enter into partnership with private sector partners who were negotiating with the hospital and to undertake longterm contracts, given the necessary consideration of quality and price. That objective will continue to underlie the ongoing work with the liquidator. As I said, our priority remains to increase capacity and activity to ensure the very best services for NHS patients, wherever those are provided.

  Complementary Medicines
  Mr. David Tredinnick: What steps he is taking to improve GPs' understanding of acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal medicine and homeopathy. [90203]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being called to ask his question; it has relieved my hon. Friends of the guessing game of who will be on the happy receiving end of it.
  In June 2000 we issued an information pack for primary care groups on the most commonly used therapies. We are currently co-funding with the King's Fund a project run by Westminster university to develop good practice in the clinical governance of complementary and alternative medicine, using a network of primary care trusts.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that with 20 per cent. of the population now using complementary therapies, the time has come to make doctors more aware and thereby ensure a better interface, which is what many doctors want? Does she accept that the problem is that the royal colleges and faculties are not issuing guidance or providing post-graduate courses for doctors, which goes against the

  545
  recommendations in the Lords report, in particular recommendation 6.85, which says that the royal colleges should address the issue of familiarisation by
  "supporting appropriate Continuing Professional Development opportunities"
  for doctors? Will she assure us that she will consider the issue to determine whether it is appropriate to issue guidance to the royal colleges?
  Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman points out, many of the decisions are for the royal colleges to make, but the medical profession has recently added a
  546
  mandatory requirement for complementary and alternative medicine familiarisation to the medical curriculum.
  Alongside that, the network that I referred to earlier is important in helping to ensure that GPs and primary care trusts are confident about clinical governance issues concerning the use of complementary and alternative medicine. To support that process, Ministers recently agreed to provide additional funding to help to extend the network and to create an interactive website for participants, so that more people can understand what I know the hon. Gentleman strongly believes to be the benefits of such treatment.

Sizewell (Security Breach)
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the urgent question, I point out to the House that this is a very narrow matter, and I do not intend to allow it to run for a great length of time.
12.30 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications of yesterday's security breach at Sizewell nuclear power station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): At 6 o'clock yesterday morning, Greenpeace activists illegally entered Sizewell B nuclear site and carried out acts of protest. From the initial incursion at the perimeter fence, site security was at all times monitoring the intruders and their actions. At no time did they enter sensitive areas such as the control room or the reactor building, which remained secure throughout. To avoid unnecessary risk to both protestors and security staff, no action was taken to remove protesters from the roof of facilities. Suffolk constabulary were in attendance.
Security at nuclear power stations is designed according to the "defence in depth" principle. A perimeter fence alone cannot stop mass intrusion. Systems installed at the perimeter fence serve to delay and detect intruders, thereby enabling management to assess the threat posed by the intrusion and to activate appropriate contingency arrangements. I am satisfied that the response procedures at the site were adequate and were carried out according to plan.
Sensitive areas and systems within the site are given additional protection. The objective is to contain intruders while continuing to protect the sensitive areas and systems within the site. The security did protect the sensitive parts of the site; it was adequate and it worked properly. Despite their attempts, the intruders did not breach any of the internal security barriers.
Security precautions at sites have to distinguish between the type of irresponsible behaviour that we saw at Sizewell yesterday and real threats. I am satisfied that both the Sizewell site security and Suffolk constabulary acted appropriately in the circumstances. However, there will be a full report into the incident by both the DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security, which, as the House knows, regulates security at civil nuclear sites, and British Energy, which operates the reactor. That will not be published, as the House will appreciate that it is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites. However, security is kept under regular review, and we shall use the reports to review the security arrangements.
Mr. Blunt: The House and the public will be slightly concerned by the Minister's account, which sits rather at variance with that given in The Mirror by the journalists involved in the incursion. I would be grateful if the Minister answered one or two further questions.
Is it the Minister's initial assessment that security was so lax that immediate action is required at other nuclear installations? Exactly which people and organisations were responsible for security, and should changes be
548
considered? How long did it take for the incursion to be detected and for the assessment to be made that this was not a terrorist operation? What lessons were learned after the previous incursion last October, and what actions were taken?
What inquiry process do the Government intend to initiate in the wake of the report to which the Minister referred? When will the report's preliminary conclusions be acted on? Do the Government think that it would be appropriate to publish the conclusions of any further inquiry following the report, and if not, how can Parliament be satisfied that lessons have been learned and acted on?
Does the Minister believe that it is possible to defend all key economic installations on a permanent basis, or must we accept that our security must be intelligence-led? In the light of these events, do the Government propose to review the balance between those two requirements?
Finally, does the Minister think that The Mirror and Greenpeace have done a service or a disservice to the country by undertaking the raid? What would the position now be if armed policemen had responded with lethal force to the incursion?
Nigel Griffiths: The House will be well aware that we have a tradition of peaceful protest and civil disobedience in this country. That is a tradition that we are loth to change. Security arrangements were able to detect the incursion yesterday within minutes and react to it appropriately to ensure that the critical building and areas were not entered. The picture in The Mirror— I am glad that the newspaper has a new fan in the Conservative party—shows, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies it closely, that it was taken outside the control room, not inside the control room, which is strongly defended and protected.
Of course, any lessons that should be put in the public domain will be given to Members of the House and the public, as appropriate, but I know that the House will endorse the long-standing practice that sensitive security matters should not be put in the public domain. The House has Committees that can scrutinise them fully with the proper security and privacy necessary for that.
Of course, the response yesterday was appropriate and non-violent. It was taken to ensure that security staff were not put at risk by having to climb unnecessarily on to a roof from which protesters were willing to come down. Of course, there was no armed response to peaceful protesters. The facilities are designed to take attacks of considerable strength and hits from the air, the House will be pleased to know, and the appropriate response is available quickly on such sites in the event of a non-peaceful demonstration.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the treatment of the protesters that he described is in stark contrast to what happened when the Tory Government were in power during the pit strike of 1984–85? I can tell my hon. Friend that if any of those miners had dared to get into a nuclear power station, or even get anywhere near the fence, there would have been thousands of police jumping on them, the miners would have been put in jail, and the Tories would be calling for them to be sacked for life. I applaud the fact that the

549
Minister is taking a more reasonable attitude, for I do not take kindly to the Tories whining about the incident—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that the subject was very narrow.
Mr. Skinner: And you do not want me attacking the Tories.
Nigel Griffiths: The Government are always grateful for the support that they receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He makes a forceful point.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Clearly, there has been a serious breach of security, which has drawn attention to the potential vulnerability of our large power-generating plants, particularly our nuclear installations. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made, following 11 September, of the risks of damage and catastrophe within the plants, and the potential for catastrophic consequences for civil society? Had those protesters been disciples of bin Laden, what assessment has the Minister made of the consequences that might have flowed from that incursion? Does he accept that the incident highlights the vulnerability of our large generating plants and our nuclear industry, and makes the prospect of a new generation of nuclear plants absurd?
Nigel Griffiths: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I can tell him that there has been a major review of the security of such facilities in the light of the events that occurred the September before last. Steps have indeed been taken to ensure that the threat from terrorism and violent protest can be countered. As the House knows, the breach was not a violent threat, but a peaceful protest. While I do not endorse it in any way, I think that there are great differences in that respect. I hope that the House will be reassured by the fact that a major review of security at such plants was initiated very shortly after the events of 11 September.
Mr. David Chaytor: Given that the Government's long-awaited energy review will be published in the next few weeks, may I ask whether it will consider the issue of nuclear terrorists? With regard to the Minister's remarks about the ability of nuclear installations to withstand attacks from the air, is it not the case that British nuclear stations are not built to the same specification as American ones, which are constructed to withstand such attacks?
Nigel Griffiths: I understand from discussions that the Department has had this morning that the plant would withstand an attack or hit from the air. In respect of the other matter, no, I do not believe that it is part of the review, because safety has always been a paramount issue on the Labour Benches and for this Government in terms of nuclear facilities. Although it is an important factor, the energy review is more wide ranging. We do not take security for granted, but it must be built into the heart of any process involving nuclear reactors.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Just before Christmas, a number of foreign anti-nuclear protestors
550
broke into Devonport dockyard and were able to access a nuclear submarine. Although no damage was done, the breach was a massive publicity coup for anti-nuclear protestors. In the review of security, will the Minister and others take into account not only issues of public health or damage in wrongful access to such sensitive facilities, but the sort of propaganda that anti-nuclear protestors in this country can get if security is too low and lax and they can gain such access?
Nigel Griffiths: Yes. I think that lessons should be learned about the message that goes out from incidents such as that of yesterday.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having visited Sizewell on several occasions, but more relevantly, having attended day 157 of the Sizewell committee inquiry in the Aldborough festival hall, does the matter not justify the thought that the late Sir Richard Layfield, the lawyers involved, Lord Silsoe and the engineers gave precisely to the questions of eventualities in relation to security? Has not the response been a very sensible one? Should not some tribute be paid to those who gave a great deal of thought to precisely these possibilities at the planning stage during that long, extended Sizewell inquiry?
Nigel Griffiths: Indeed, we do owe a debt to people who gave a great deal of time and effort to thoughts of security. The track record has been very good in this country and it is right that we can today discuss the issue, examine the questions and re-evaluate and re-endorse the advice that was given.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister tell the House whether the financial chaos in British Energy has led to any reduction in the number of security staff or procedures or any of the security measures needed at Sizewell? Will he investigate that and assure the House on a future date that sufficient resources are available for security at the site?
Nigel Griffiths: The answer to the first question is no. On the second question, the issue may obviously be taken into account by the security review.
Paul Flynn: Following speculation that the plane that did not reach its target on 11 September was targeted on the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, the French have guarded their nuclear stations with rockets that can shoot down aircraft. We know that in this country since then jets have been scrambled as a result of a false alarm. As it is the opinion of the French think tank W.I.S.E. that the containments would not withstand the sort of attacks that occurred on 11 September, can my hon. Friend the Minister give us an assurance that sufficient protection is given to our nuclear power stations, because W.I.S.E. also said that the result of such an attack would be contamination a hundred times greater than occurred at Chernobyl? Is it right that the cost of this security is put at the door of nuclear energy, a form of power generation that is already the most expensive of all forms of power generation?
Nigel Griffiths: I attended the Cabinet Committee meeting that considered this very issue—that the best possible security, both appropriate and effective for British sites, is being attended to.

Points of Order
12.45 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
We recently deployed to the Gulf the largest number of troops since the last Gulf war, yet many of us feel that in the answers we are receiving from the Government when we ask questions about one of the most onerous decisions any Member of Parliament will take—going to war—the Government are being evasive. At yesterday's press conference many relevant questions were asked that were not fully answered.
What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to protect democracy in the House and the right of Back Benchers to know whether or not our Government have taken a decision to go to war?
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In the last debate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he would bring this issue back to the House before any troops were sent, and that before any war was declared there would be a vote in the House. I remember him saying it, and I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can remember him saying it and will ask him to come and do it.
Mr. Speaker: I noted the comment that the Foreign Secretary made, and I certainly will hold him to that comment.
Mr. John Taylor: Really?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members. Tomorrow we have Prime Minister's Question Time, and these are matters that can be put before the Prime Minister, who is accountable. There is also a debate on defence next week, when hon. Members like the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) can apply to speak. These are opportunities that can be taken. There is nothing to stop hon. Members applying for an Adjournment debate, when they can raise their concerns and a Minister has to come before the House and be accountable.
What I am saying to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members is that I understand their concerns and that there are many ways in which Ministers can be brought before the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On matters of peace and war, is it really sufficient to say that there can be Adjournment debates, either half an hour at the end of business in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall? Surely the importance of this issue supersedes Adjournment debates. Although there is a debate next week, it would be much more authoritative if the motion were amendable.
Mr. Andrew Stunell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer.
552
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is inviting me to express an opinion. I am not entitled to express an opinion; the rules of the House are quite clear on this matter. The hon. Gentleman can approach Ministers, put pressure on various Ministers and express the concern that he expresses here in the Chamber.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On another point of order, which I think is related, Mr. Speaker.
The House understands the restrictions that are put on you. They are traditional and quite clear. However, there is a very important point about what happened yesterday, in that a very serious statement was made, but not to the House of Commons. I think it is a matter not only for you, Mr. Speaker, but for all of us, that perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers should be reminded that in matters of very serious content it is preferable that such statements should be made here, where Ministers can be questioned.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right—anything new should be brought before the House. Did the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) wish to make a point of order?
Mr. Stunell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I wanted to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that the House has an opportunity to vote for or against action before it is taken and not simply for it to be a mater for an Adjournment debate—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Government to decide the shape of motions put before the House, not the Speaker. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is one of the usual channels, and has perhaps better input than I do in the matter that he has raised.

BILL PRESENTED
RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY
Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Hain, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Mr. John Spellar and Mr. David Jamieson presented a Bill to make provision about railways, including tramways; to make provision about transport safety; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 40].

Litter and Fouling of Land by Dogs
12.50 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement
Aficionados of ten-minute Bills may feel a sense of deja vu today, as they will remember that I introduced the same Bill in Nov 2001 in the previous Session of Parliament. Unfortunately, it met the fate of most such Bills. Those who take a special interest in seriously late Adjournment debates may remember a debate that I initiated at 5 o'clock in the morning in May 1999, when I first put forward the essential idea behind the Bill that I have introduced today—how we can enforce our litter and dog fouling laws, giving councils the means to do so by making the polluter pay.
Although 1999 may seem a long time ago, a good idea is worth pursuing. If at first we do not succeed, it is worth the long march when the prize is a road to march on that is free of litter and where we do not have to watch our step, if I can put it that way. However, it is now clear that we are close to success. I will not repeat all the arguments today, save to emphasise that litter, including dog fouling, is pollution. It is the most common and widespread form of pollution, perhaps so common that people often do not think of it as pollution. The cause is very simple—people drop it or permit their dogs to drop it through laziness, thoughtlessness, carelessness or plain loutishness. Visually, it spoils both the natural and the built environment. Litter is also a health risk; dog faeces even more so.
Litter pollution has a simple solution. It does not take an earth summit, an EU directive, complex technology, a climate change levy or even congestion charging to tackle it—just do not drop it. That is already recognised in law, as it is illegal to drop litter and dog dirt, but the statute book itself is littered with legislation that either is not used or is ineffectual. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 placed statutory duties on councils and introduced fixed penalty fines, which were doubled to £50 last year by the Government. The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 put dog fouling on the same basis as litter. Yet as we know only too well, our streets and open spaces are nowhere near clean because the law is simply not being enforced. There are only a few hundred prosecutions a year in magistrates courts. Fewer than 3,000 fixed penalty notices for litter and fewer than 2,000 for dog fouling are handed out annually in the whole country. In my county of Suffolk, for instance, there seems to be only five or six convictions a year, and in my own district of Waveney I can find no recent record of prosecution or fixed penalties for litter, with just one recorded fixed penalty for dog fouling since the Act came into force.
Instead, the culture in this country is that people drop litter, we wade around in it, pay enormous amounts of money—£450 million a year—in taxes to clear it up, then moan that councils do not get it all cleared up properly. By any standard, that is a waste of money and human effort. We must make the polluter—the litter lout—pay, but councils must have the means to enforce
554
that. About 50 councils out of 450 employ any litter wardens at all, and they only employ two or three people each. Most councils have only one or two dog wardens—it looks like some kind of "Dad's Army" is trying to tackle the 1,000 tonnes of dog faeces dropped daily by Britain's 5.4 million dog-owning households.
As the law stands, all revenue from fixed penalty fines has to be returned to central Government. That sum currently amounts to just £70,000 a year, which is a measure of how little enforcement is going on. The essential measure in my Bill requiring councils to keep fines would incentivise them, as it would require them to enforce the law of the land and give them the means to do so. I put that idea to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions last March, and he gave his support to the principle. Since then, the proposal has been piloted in 13 local authorities under public service agreements. My office conducted a survey to find out what has happened. There have been some real successes, particularly in Newcastle, where the number of fixed penalty notices increased from none in 2001 to 309 to the beginning of December 2002. Similarly, in Wigan the number has increased from none to 221.
These are still early days, but it is clear that where the local authority has the will, the system works. Newcastle publishes the names of people issued with fixed penalty notices in the local newspaper, which adds to the effectiveness of the new system. So why not change the law and roll out the new approach to litter across the whole country? I was delighted to see clause 116 tucked in at the end of the Local Government Bill, which was given a Second Reading in the House last Tuesday, as it includes the essence of my Bill. Presumably, we can look forward to the provision becoming law. However, there are two reasons why my Bill should still be reintroduced. Clause 116 of the Local Government Bill leaves the retention of fixed penalty fines to councils' discretion—it does not require them to do so. As the explanatory notes to the Bill make clear, the revenue from fines does not have to be spent exclusively on enforcement of litter and dog-fouling laws. They state that
"the new regulation making power will be sufficiently wide to give an authority complete freedom as to how it spends its receipts".
I want to make two key points. First, I mentioned my survey of pilot authorities, and cited the successes. But there is another side to the story. Some pilot councils had done nothing, and some had made only a feeble attempt, even though they had volunteered for the scheme and had signed up to public service agreements. There is a lesson to be learned—unless councils are required to operate in the new way, we will not make the progress that we should in bearing down on litter louts and dog foulers. We have had enough postcode lotteries with NHS prescriptions and the like—we do not want postcode litter enforcement.
Secondly, the new revenue stream must be spent on enforcement, because it works. The money from the fines should certainly not be spent on services unrelated to litter, but even in the services that deal with it we must focus sharply on enforcement of the laws and not dodge the issue. We have had anti-litter campaigns for years—they do not work. As someone who was a teacher for 25 years, I can say that when it comes to litter, education does not work. Some of the most littered places I have seen are school playgrounds. Sadly,

555
although many young people are concerned about holes in the ozone layer and saving whales, they drop litter like confetti.
Then there is the old "no bin" excuse—"I had to drop it because there was no bin." But there is always one's own pocket or a bag. There are more bins in this country than ever before, but litter is still on the streets. I do not want money from fines to be spent on education campaigns and bins—I want it to be spent on enforcement, otherwise we will not change the culture that I described of dropping litter, then paying to have it cleared up. What will change the culture more than anything else, as with other crime, is people knowing that they are likely to get caught. The more litter wardens we have, the greater that chance.
The public want this measure. We all know from our doorstep work and our surgeries that people are concerned about such issues. When I introduced my previous Bill, Meridian Television carried out a telephone poll and received its biggest response ever, with 97 per cent. in favour of the proposal. It fits in with the Government's agenda, set out in the Queen's Speech, of tackling antisocial behaviour and improving the quality of everyday life in local communities. I hope that my Bill can play its part in that agenda and encourage the Government further to develop in Committee the essential provision in their Local Government Bill. I can tell the House that the Minister for Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), has already offered me a meeting—outcomes will be important.
The prize is great—cleaner streets, parks and open spaces, and a cleaner countryside—and making the polluter pay costs the Government and the taxpayer nothing.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Blizzard, Andy Burnham, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. David Lepper, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Alan Meale, Lawrie Quinn, Jonathan Shaw and Mr. Neil Turner.

Litter and Fouling of Land by Dogs
  LITTER AND FOULING OF LAND BY DOGS
  Mr. Bob Blizzard accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 April, and to be printed [Bill 41].
Opposition Day

  Education (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Prime Minister.
  1.1 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I beg to move,
  That this House urges the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to honour the clearly expressed preference of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland to retain a selection procedure for transfer to post-primary schools, thus limiting the damage flowing from the administrative vandalism of the former Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; congratulates governors, principals, staff and pupils in Northern Ireland schools on achieving higher qualification levels at post-primary level than their counterparts in England and Wales; calls on the Government to maintain the levels of excellence achieved at so many schools while striving to enhance the performance and status of schools with a lesser level of achievement; regrets that too many able students from local grammar and secondary schools cannot obtain university places in Northern Ireland; calls for a change in household income thresholds to encourage higher uptake of discretionary awards; and urges the Government to honour its pledges to ensure a fair allocation of resources to education in Northern Ireland, including adequate research funding for Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Ulster.
  The future well-being of our education system is critical to Northern Ireland's long-term success. We must have a well educated and well trained work force if we are to commend and promote Northern Ireland nationally and internationally as an ideal location for investment and job creation. That is why we believe that it is essential that these issues should be debated in full on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
  One of the key issues that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland has inherited is the future structure of post-primary education. Unless this matter is handled very carefully, there is a real danger of doing irreparable harm to our education system and of undermining the good standards presently being achieved by pupils in Northern Ireland. Standards in Northern Ireland's schools—controlled, maintained, voluntary and integrated—are already high compared with other areas of the United Kingdom. According to the Northern Ireland annual abstract of statistics 2001—the most recent set of figures available—pupils in Northern Ireland continue to perform better than their counterparts in England at the higher qualification levels, with 57 per cent. of year 12 pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 49 per cent. in England and Wales, and with 93 per cent. of final-year pupils gaining two or more A-levels, compared with 81 per cent. in England and 92 per cent. in Wales. Indeed, it is interesting to note that only 4 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved no GCSEs, compared with 6 per cent. in England and 8 per cent. in Wales.
  This issue has its genesis in the Burns report on post-primary education. One unfortunate legacy of that report is that the statement by the then Northern Ireland Education Minister that the present transfer test would be abolished by 2004 was made without any attempt to spell out alternative selection transfer procedures. We were therefore utterly amazed that one of the first acts of the present Minister with responsibility for education

  557
  was to reiterate and support that statement of educational vandalism and malice. According to the Burns consultation report on post-primary education, only 30 per cent. of the 200,551 respondents to the household survey believed that academic selection should be ended, while 64 per cent. stated that academic selection should be retained in some form. A further 7 per cent. were undecided.
  There is evidence that these trends run across the sectoral divide, and many Roman Catholic parents support academic selection. Indeed, one of the strongest advocates of academic selection is Monsignor Faul, a distinguished former head of a large Roman Catholic grammar school and a leading spokesman on community issues. Bearing these figures in mind, does the Minister still think it wise to press on with implementing proposals to abolish the 11-plus without a suitable and acceptable alternative transfer procedure being put in place? Would it not serve the educational needs of school children in Northern Ireland much better if we were to keep the current transfer system in place until such time as a final replacement system is found and agreed to? Any results from focus groups—which, at best, will be no more representative than a widespread survey of households into the future of post-primary education selection—cannot be allowed to overrule the democratic wishes of the people in an attempt to subvert democracy.
  Representatives of the Ulster Unionist party met the Minister on 7 January and put forward the sensible recommendation that she should appoint an education advisory panel which could make recommendations to her on how a new transfer procedure could be put in place. At the meeting, the hope was expressed that she would act to create a new body that could be transparent, open, independent and capable of ending the chaos and uncertainty in education that has arisen out of the decision by the former Minister to abolish the 11-plus examination. There is concern as to whether the Department for Education and Skills could develop an alternative system in a truly impartial manner. An independent body could bridge the gap caused by the suspension of the devolved institutions. I ask the Minister to show her commitment to the future of post-primary education by adopting the suggestion for an education advisory panel.
  We accept that there are problems with the present 11-plus transfer procedure. Indeed, we support its replacement, but only when a suitably worked out alternative has been put forward. We have our own alternative proposals based on informed parental choice and the use of pupil profiles, with the requirement for objective assessment. We want genuine choice, greater diversity and a greater emphasis on vocational and skills-based education. Diversity in the provision of post-primary education is to be encouraged, as long as it provides families with real choices and maintains high standards of education and opportunity. We must ensure that any change enables all our young people equally to maximise their individual potential, whatever
  558
  their various personal abilities. Equality and diversity are central to our education system. I ask the Minister to look at the question of equality legislation in schools.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's background means that he takes a serious interest in education. How would his ideas on equality and access deal with the problem that only 8 per cent. of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in Northern Ireland are able to gain access to grammar schools? What are his proposals for tackling that obvious inequality in the current structure?
  Mr. Beggs: We need a clear definition of disadvantage. I am a member of a family of 12 children; I have six sisters and five brothers. My father worked in the shipyard and in the textile industry for a time. He also worked hard on a small farm to provide for his children. Was I disadvantaged? The education system in Northern Ireland afforded an opportunity to every member of my family and to many others who did not start off with a silver spoon. We were able to make our way and benefit from the excellent education in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Let me press my hon. Friend on what is meant by access. In my constituency, children are disadvantaged by their inability to access secondary education without undue expense for their parents. It is not simply a matter of grammar school children being disadvantaged; they get their fares paid if they live outwith the area.
  Mr. Beggs: I believe that every child in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to benefit, irrespective of family circumstances. We must perhaps do more to encourage the parents of children in households where there is no history of third-tier education. I try to do that in my constituency by encouraging the university of Ulster, which is the local university, to contact primary and secondary schools in East Antrim when there is no clear sign over time that children have moved through them and taken advantage of the excellent opportunities that further and higher education affords in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the previous question. The figures that an Ulster Unionist councillor gave me for his ward in north Belfast show that only 6 per cent. of children made it to grammar school. What does the hon. Gentleman propose for the other 94 per cent.?
  Mr. Beggs: As I said, we must encourage parents more. Many youngsters do not even enter the selection procedure. In parts of north Belfast, children traditionally grew up to believe that the greatest achievement for them and their families was gaining an apprenticeship with Short Brothers, the aircraft factory, with Mackie's foundry or in the shipyard. They had no higher expectation. However, many able pupils who stayed at school until they were 14 or left at 16 without qualifications have subsequently taken advantage of workers education courses and night classes to improve their skills and qualifications. They have continued

  559
  through our university system as mature students. The process will take time, but we must focus on the group that has benefited least.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that 25 per cent. of the adult population of Northern Ireland are at the lowest literacy level? Does not the hon. Gentleman perceive a relationship between the selective system that has operated historically and the exceptionally poor achievement in literacy?
  Mr. Beggs: A few years ago, we were worried about the low achievement of a significant proportion of our school-age population. I am happy that that has been tackled and that steady improvement has occurred in the past three or four years. We hope that that will continue.
  It is vital that an academic option be available to pupils for whom that path is appropriate in order to maintain and improve standards. It is equally important to develop a strong technological and vocational curriculum, which should have parity of esteem with the traditional academic path. If our schools are oversubscribed, they must be permitted to select pupils on ability. Every school should be helped to achieve academic, vocational and technological excellence.
  We ask the Minister to be careful not to destroy the existing strengths of all our schools when making the changes that we agree are necessary to the detailed transfer arrangements. I should like her to assure us about that. We are happy to meet her and discuss the matter at any time.
  We must congratulate school governors, principals, staff and pupils of Northern Ireland schools on maintaining high standards of educational achievement, especially given the external difficulties that they have faced in the past 30 or so years. I am referring not only to grammar schools. Many secondary schools provide excellent support services to pupils and assist them to achieve their full potential.
  Any changes to our post-primary selection transfer system must acknowledge and protect the vital role of primary school teachers. We must continually try to raise the esteem in which teachers are held in our community and ensure that any new administrative burdens are kept to a minimum. An obvious improvement could be achieved by the Government's making a conscious effort to listen to teachers' voices as expressed through respected organisations such as the Ulster Teachers Union.
  The union took the time and trouble to conduct a survey on stress. It also undertook a health and safety risk assessment for teachers. However, the Government ignored the results and the Department of Education decided to waste a great deal of taxpayers' money on launching its own surveys, only to discover what everyone else already knew. In the light of such incidents, is it any wonder that teachers suffer from low morale?
  We must develop a stronger working relationship between universities and further education colleges and primary and post-primary schools, especially in communities where low numbers of young people go on to the third level of education. I do not apologise for
  560
  emphasising that again. The reasons for educational failure among pupils, especially young males, must be tackled.
  Approximately one third of people in Northern Ireland who gain university degrees have studied outside Northern Ireland, mainly in Great Britain. In some cases this reflects free choice, but the worrying aspect is the extent to which many of these leavers—of whom there are some 4,500 annually—have left Northern Ireland because there are simply not enough local university places to accommodate them.
  In 1997, the Dearing report concluded that, compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland had a shortfall of about 12,000 places. The devolved Executive in Northern Ireland were able to bring about an increase in places of some 5,500. Clearly, much remains to be done. It is important for our economy that we encourage local undergraduates to study and to work in Northern Ireland. Some of those additional places in the pipeline related to the Springvale campus of the university of Ulster and to the Belfast institute. It seems that the future of that project is now in some doubt. I ask the Minister to provide further information on the review of Springvale. In particular, if it is concluded that Springvale is not now a viable concern, we will want to know whether those places will be reallocated to other parts of the higher education sector in Northern Ireland.
  Even before the conclusion of the 2000 review of student support by the then Minister with responsibility for further and higher education, training and employment, the Ulster Unionist party had called for a return to means-tested grants. We therefore welcome the introduction of a maximum bursary of £1,500 in the 2002 academic year, which will be increased to a maximum of £2,000 next year. We support the principle of wider social access to further education and, indeed, to higher education, so we think that the level of these grants, and the extent to which they are tapered off according to income, should be kept under review. Much more should be done to encourage the uptake of discretionary awards by further education students.
  The Ulster Unionist party has long recognised the need for an injection of additional resources into higher education. As this cannot all come ultimately from the taxpayer, it may be that the most equitable method is some variation on the model of deferred or graduate contributions. In other words, to the extent that students will, on average, gain a private monetary benefit from their course of study—the available evidence strongly confirms this—it is not unreasonable that after they have graduated they should, as they are able to, make some contribution to cover part of the cost of their university training.
  We call on the Government to honour their pledge to ensure a fair allocation of resources to education in Northern Ireland. We welcome in principle the planned introduction of the common funding formula, but we realise that this is enabling legislation. We await the fine detail and hope that the consultation process will be open, transparent and inclusive.
  There are certain issues relating to the common funding formula that need to be given particular consideration, the first of which is teachers' salaries. We consider that further detailed consideration needs to be given to determining a factor in the formula that will

  561
  reflect the natural progression of teachers towards the top of the salary scale, but which will still leave schools with the freedom to take staffing decisions within their delegated budgets. We also consider that more guidance should be available to school governors to assist them in determining appropriate individual salary ranges for principals and vice-principals, and the salary levels within these ranges.
  Secondly, we accept that there is a need to tackle the problem of underachievement in a minority of Northern Ireland's schools. We consider that further research is required to justify present funding levels before any additional allocations are considered. There is a need to address the educational and skills requirements of specific groups of disadvantaged young people, such as those in care, school-age mothers, those from traveller and other ethnic minority backgrounds, and the disabled. Furthermore, we do not believe that targeting additional funding on the basis of free school meals is suitable or appropriate. Allocations should be founded on objective measurements that are based on key stage results.
  Our third concern about the common funding formula is its impact on schools. We are aware of the funding problems facing primary schools, but we have also been alerted to a number of financial pressures in the secondary sector. It is clearly essential that we look again, in some detail, at the balance of funding between the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland. It is also clear that the current underfunding of the primary sector cannot be allowed to continue.
  Finally, we feel that there is a need to refine the way in which money is allocated for the upkeep of buildings under the formula. The formula must reflect the fact that it is much more expensive to maintain old buildings than purpose-built, newer ones.
  I want to commend what has been achieved so far in the funding of higher education. Teaching and research assessments indicate that, in many cases, standards are in line with national and international aspirations. That said, as Universities UK has highlighted so effectively, universities in Northern Ireland, like their counterparts in Great Britain, have suffered from long-term underfunding and there is a limit to the extent to which they can be expected to continue to deliver quantitative and qualitative improvements without greater input of funds.
  While I welcome the recent announcement of £10 million extra annually over the next three years for core university research funding, a good case can be made for the need for a further £20 million per annum, to close the gap that has opened up in comparison with Great Britain. Such research is intrinsically desirable, but it would almost certainly also deliver considerable economic spin-offs. It is worth remembering that the total level of research and development spending in Northern Ireland is low by United Kingdom regional standards, and very low compared with most of the rest of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We welcome the current innovation strategy and await the results of the consultation process with interest.
  562
  On the Northern Ireland spending block, the "Barnett read-across" has implied that Northern Ireland's universities have been unable fully to match some of the very worthy initiatives being taken by English, Scottish and Welsh colleges in terms of widening social access. That said, we already have a larger proportion of students coming from low-income backgrounds. One further point of concern is that the pay of university lecturers and staff has fallen behind the private sector. This is a UK-wide problem that the Government have to address.
  I end where I started out. Investment in our education system means investment in all of our futures.
  Mr. McCabe: I must confess that I am slightly astonished to discover that the hon. Gentleman has opened a debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party without making even a passing reference to the integrated education movement. Before he finishes his speech, would he care to tell the House how he thinks that that movement relates to the wider argument that he has made today?
  Mr. Beggs: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, but I am conscious of the breadth of opportunity to speak that this short debate offers, and of the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute. However, responsibilities are shared in my party, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he winds up the debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed by what he has to say.
  If ever there were a place where people needed to look to the future with a greater sense of hope, it is Northern Ireland. I trust that the Minister of State has listened carefully to my remarks, and I hope that she will act on them.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  1.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates governors, principals, teachers and other school staff on the contribution they make to educating young people in Northern Ireland; welcomes the high qualifications achieved by many pupils but acknowledges that there are also large numbers of young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, leaving school with low qualifications; urges the Secretary of State to continue to take forward the review of post-primary education with the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will maintain those high standards of achievement and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential; and further welcomes the additional higher education places and the Secretary of State's decision to increase Government funding for research and knowledge transfer at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster.".
  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party on giving the House the opportunity to debate the 11-plus, post-primary and transfer arrangements in Northern Ireland, and the wider questions of education and lifelong learning for which I now have responsibility.

  563
  The motion neatly encapsulates the conundrum that I face when it
  "calls on the Government to maintain the levels of excellence achieved at so many schools while striving to enhance the performance and status of schools with a lesser level of achievement".
  That is very much one of aims of the post-primary review, which we will debate in detail today. Sadly, the Government consider the rest of the motion flawed, and that is the reason for the amendment. However, I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate gives me, as Minister with responsibility for these matters, to place on record my appreciation of the efforts and achievements of principals, teachers, governors, other school staff and pupils in Northern Ireland.
  The Liberal Democrat party tabled an amendment that was not selected but which paid tribute to the integrated schools movement in Northern Ireland. I should like to associate myself with that tribute.
  As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, over the past 30 years schools in Northern Ireland have operated in the most arduous of circumstances. Governors and staff have worked tirelessly to make schools safe and secure places where children can learn.
  The recent deplorable events in north Belfast at Holy Cross, Wheatfield and Currie primary schools demonstrate the ongoing pressures that schools have to face. However, I have no doubt that, across Northern Ireland, schools will continue to display the resilience and fortitude that have sustained them through the most difficult of times.
  Northern Ireland's schools have long had a well deserved reputation for high achievement. They have produced more pupils with qualifications at the top end of the achievement scale than England or Wales. Northern Ireland grammar and secondary schools are to be congratulated on those achievements, but there is no room for complacency. As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, alongside the high achievers, Northern Ireland has also historically had more pupils leaving school with low qualifications than elsewhere. Various programmes, such as the raising school standards initiative and the school improvement programme, have been successful in reducing the proportion of school leavers with no GCSEs, but the problem of low qualifications persists.
  There is strong social differentiation in educational achievement in the Province. Pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds do significantly less well than other pupils. The most disadvantaged pupils are only one third as likely to achieve a grade A in the 11-plus and only around half as likely to achieve five or more high-grade GCSEs as the least disadvantaged pupils. This matter has been debated for many years in Northern Ireland, and it is appropriate for me to set out its recent history. When we also consider the results of the 1996 international adult literacy survey, which showed that almost a quarter of the Northern Ireland work force are at the lowest level of literacy, it is clear that although the Northern Ireland school system does very well for many pupils, it does much less well for many others.
  564
  I agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I shall therefore limit the number of interventions that I accept.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give the House the figures that show how pupils in England and Wales are doing worse at the lower end even than pupils in Northern Ireland?
  Jane Kennedy: I could provide those figures, but I have chosen not to go into too much detail in my speech. We can discuss statistics, but there is broad consensus among the political parties, members of the educational establishment and the general public in Northern Ireland that the poor performance of the education system for the most disadvantaged pupils is unsatisfactory. That is largely the reason why we are discussing the subject today, and I should like to go into detail about these matters.
  Kate Hoey: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the acknowledged inequalities in Northern Ireland, more children from working-class backgrounds there go to university than is the case with pupils studying at comprehensive schools in England?
  Jane Kennedy: Yes. As I said, the high level of success achieved by Northern Ireland pupils is remarkable. They deserve congratulation and encouragement, and any review that is set in train should not damage their success. I take my hon. Friend's point: the figures show that 4.5 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve no GCSEs, compared with 5.5 per cent. in England. However, it is important to take account of the number of pupils who achieve more than one pass at that level.
  I do not want to get bogged down in statistics. Although they can enhance our debate, we are discussing questions of principle. I do not argue with the clear and demonstrable achievement of the grammar school system in Northern Ireland, to which the figures provide testimony. I want to explain today why the 11-plus is deemed to have been failing in Northern Ireland, and why there is such a broad consensus about the need for change.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Is not the strongest principle of all that we should not risk replacing a system that works well with one that works less well? The statistics show that fewer children in Northern Ireland emerge from school with no GCSE passes. They also show that pupils in England do slightly better in the next band above that, with 89 per cent. leaving school with five or more GCSEs at grades A to G, compared with 86 per cent. in Northern Ireland. However, the Minister must know that that is vastly outweighed by the fact that 57 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve five or more A to C grades, compared with 50 per cent. in England. The Northern Ireland system is achieving better than the system in England. She must take that fact very seriously as she considers replacing the Northern Ireland system with something that does not work as well.
  Jane Kennedy: Clearly, I take that very seriously. That is why we are approaching the issue with great care and

  565
  engaging in detailed discussions with all those who have an interest and a stake in developing a new method of transferring children from primary schools to secondary schools. The wide disparity that exists in Northern Ireland and the concern about the low achievement of significant numbers of children was one of the key findings of research into the effects of the selective system there commissioned in 1998 by one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington).
  A report by Professor Tony Gallagher of Queen's university and Professor Alan Smith of the university of Ulster, published in September 2000, emphasised the adverse impact of the transfer tests on the primary curriculum and the undue pressure placed on children, teachers and parents. It said that many children entered secondary schools with a sense of failure.
  Further research by Professor Gardner of Queen's university found that the transfer tests had the potential to misclassify pupils by up to three grades above or below their given grades. Following the publication of that research my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), established a post-primary review body chaired by Mr. Gerry Burns—and mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim—to consult widely and produce recommendations for post-primary arrangements. The Northern Ireland Assembly's education committee conducted its own review of post-primary arrangements, and made an important contribution to the debate. Its report concluded that change was both necessary and appropriate, and was subsequently endorsed by the Assembly.
  The Burns report was published in October 2001 for consultation. Its proposals have implications for every child in Northern Ireland, along with his or her parents, and for every primary and post-primary school. It generated huge interest, and sparked a healthy and continuing public debate.
  Mr. Connarty: Did the Burns review body look at results in Scotland? Rather than comparing, say, Kent with Northern Ireland, would it not be better to consider a comparable system across the water that has shown much higher levels of achievement because it has a universal comprehensive system—unlike England, which is a hotch-potch of grammar schools, comprehensives and mixed messages?
  Jane Kennedy: My immediate predecessor was looking at other systems. I cannot definitely say, hand on heart, that we looked at the Scottish system in detail, but I know that many different systems were compared, and I would be surprised if that were not the case.
  Reflecting the importance of the issue, the consultation on the Burns report was the widest ever undertaken on an education matter. There were five strands. Twenty-eight ministerial meetings were held with the education sector, business, the Churches, the main political parties, and voluntary and community organisations. Moreover, more than 1,300 written submissions were received from a range of stakeholders, 40 per cent. of schools completed detailed response
  566
  booklets, 200,000 people completed and returned household response forms, and the views of young people were obtained through focus groups and independent research.
  Those responses were published last October and published in a report by the Department of Education. They demonstrated a clear demand for change. While there was little support for the review body's model in its entirety, individual recommendations attracted support. For example, there was consensus about the guiding principles, abolition of the transfer tests, and the development of a pupil profile.
  I found the recent threat by the Irish National Teachers Organisation to refuse to co-operate in the development of the pupil profile extremely disappointing and unhelpful at this stage of the review. The majority view is that pupil profiles would be useful to teachers, pupils and parents and would formalise the good practice that already exists in many Northern Ireland schools, and I hope that the INTO will reconsider its position.
  David Burnside: Confusion has arisen over the Burns report survey every time the Minister has come here to answer questions on the subject. Will she confirm, clearly and precisely, that although most of those surveyed opposed the existing 11-plus procedure, a majority did not favour the ending of a form of academic selection between primary and secondary school?
  Jane Kennedy: Yes. Now I will make progress while I am winning.
  There was consensus on the need for more cooperation and collaboration among schools, and a common curriculum for those aged up to 14. Many respondents also thought 14 a more appropriate age than 11 for pupils and their parents to consider and make choices about the curricular options or pathways best suited to the interests, needs and abilities of those pupils. There was also agreement on the need for young people to have broader curricular choice and more flexibility to change the nature and direction of their learning. Support was expressed for a range of approaches enabling post-primary arrangements to reflect the differing needs and circumstances of local areas.
  Following publication of the report on responses to the consultation, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster announced the abolition of the transfer tests and said that the last tests would be held in 2004. When I assumed responsibility for education, I considered the responses carefully. I was satisfied that there was a clear demand for a change in the current arrangements, and support from, among others, the political parties for abolition of the transfer tests. They have disadvantaged too many children, and that cannot be allowed to continue. I therefore announced, on 31 October, my intention to take forward the post-primary review and work towards the abolition of the tests as soon as practicable. I should make it clear, however—reinforcing the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside)—that no decisions have been made about academic selection or the shape of new arrangements.
  It is important for the review to progress in a way that has the confidence and support not just of parents but of the education sector and the wider community. I want to

  567
  build on the emerging consensus from consultation as we proceed with the review. I believe it is the responsibility of everyone involved in education to work together to develop new arrangements. As part of the process, my officials and I have held a series of meetings to discuss the responses to consultation, explore the full range of suggestions for new arrangements—including arrangements involving academic selection—and consider the next steps in the review. I have already met representatives of the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party, and further meetings have been arranged with other political parties. My officials have met representatives of the education sector, and will meet parents tomorrow.
  I have found those meetings very useful. When they have been completed, I intend to consider carefully the views that have been expressed—along with the responses to all strands of the consultation—before deciding on the next stages of the post-primary review.
  Lembit Öpik: Can the Minister give us an idea of when she might be able to share her conclusions? If she intends to proceed with these changes, she should bear it in mind that the clock is ticking.
  Jane Kennedy: There are a few more meetings to be held before I can begin to pull together all the strands of the thinking that is currently taking place. I hesitate to give a definitive timetable, but this should take only a few weeks. I am well aware that a deadline is looming. Schools want certainty: they want to know what to begin to plan for. I know of the pressure that is on us, and it is right for us to work under pressure. One of my reasons for saying that I would try to meet the deadline if that was practicable was my feeling that it was necessary to maintain pressure on my Department to resolve the issue.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned issues relating to higher education and student support. Northern Ireland is fortunate in having so many young people, and indeed mature adults, with access to higher education. It is also fortunate in having a superb range of higher education provision in its universities, teacher training institutions and further education institutes. Northern Ireland has around 40,000 undergraduates in the university system at present, of whom more than 28,000 attend the local institutions. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, almost 15,000 undergraduate students study part-time in Northern Ireland. In total, that represents a rise of 33 per cent. over the past five years.
  The Government and, indeed, the Executive, have pursued policies that continue to encourage the movement of students within the United Kingdom while, at the same time, steadily increasing the number of places in local institutions. As the hon. Gentleman said, from 1999 to 2005, it is planned to have an additional 5,500 full-time undergraduate places in Northern Ireland. He is right that there is more to do, but that was the programme that was in place; it was the objective of the Executive, and we are continuing to work towards meeting that objective. There is no cap on part-time students; the system caters for as many as wish to undertake their studies in that way.
  568
  The expansion in full-time places has included additional places at St. Mary's and Stranmillis for diversified courses, the pilots of foundation degrees in further education institutions and, of course, expansion at the two main universities. The figures show clearly the expansion of local places and the growth of overall participation. The proportion of young people who leave Northern Ireland for their higher education has reduced, from 31 per cent. in 1996 to 27 per cent. in 2001.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that money has been found for research for Queen's university and the university of Ulster. However, is the Minister aware that Stranmillis university college and St. Mary's university college received no money for research and that, under the new regulations, they are required to have research facilities or they will be marked down in the next review? Has she been given any account of that and can she give us any guidance and hope?
  Jane Kennedy: I was not aware of that issue, but now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention, I will look into it and write to him, if he will permit me so to do.
  A significant proportion of young people seeking undergraduate education clearly wish to undertake it outside Northern Ireland. They are attracted for a variety of reasons including, no doubt, the desire to experience life elsewhere, as in my wonderful home town of Liverpool. Those who wish to undertake their higher education in the rest of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to do so. The Government are, at the same time, conscious of the need to expand local provision, and have responded positively to that need. We will keep the issue under consideration.
  Student support was an area of much interest to the Executive. A major review of student support was carried out in 2000–01 and resulted in a number of changes to the prevailing arrangements. Grants were reintroduced in 2002 for full-time undergraduate students from lower-income families. The threshold for the payment of a private fee contribution to higher education was raised to £20,000 in 2001, and has since been raised further in line with inflation. Child care grants were introduced in higher education and a number of further education bursaries were introduced in 2001 for full-time students over 19 on vocational courses, to supplement the existing discretionary awards. The threshold for such bursaries was set in line with the higher education scheme.
  The changes have begun to affect the system. Some 11,000 students have so far availed themselves of the reintroduction of grants in higher education, and around half of all students do not have to pay the fee contribution either in full or in part. Some 300 students have taken up child care grants, and in further education, more than 400 students have so far taken up the new bursaries. The question of thresholds is important. The Executive set the further education and higher education bursary thresholds at the same level. It will take time to judge whether that is the appropriate level.
  Student support arrangements, including bursary levels and income thresholds, are kept under continuous review. I shall consider them again in the light of any

  569
  proposals that may be contained in the higher education White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will shortly publish. In addition, I shall be considering how we might make entitlements to the rather complex student support system easier for students to understand.
  Last month, the Government announced the budget for the three years from 2003–04. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), gave the details. It provides an additional £239 million for education by 2005–06, an increase of 16.6 per cent. In addition to maintaining existing service levels, the budget delivers £52 million across the period for real-terms increases in schools' core budgets to improve schools' capacity to achieve further improvements in pupil performance. A further £530 million will be available for a major programme of investment to improve the education estate.
  I am pleased that the budget includes an increase of £10 million a year for funding for research and knowledge transfer in the universities, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) alluded. The increases will allow Queen's university, Belfast and the university of Ulster to sustain and build on their performance in the 2001 research assessment exercise.
  In addition, there is to be an increase in higher education capital funding of £5 million for next year, rising to £10 million a year for the following two years as part of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Combined with the injection of £25 million from 2003 to 2007 under the second phase of the support programme for university research, those additions represent the most significant investment in higher education for the past decade. They will allow Northern Ireland to play its full part in the Government's science strategy, "Investing in Innovation". Including the proposals for the strategic investment programme, it represents an overall increase by 2005–06 of just over 27 per cent. in student support and 31 per cent. in higher education. I am delighted that we have been able to make these very significant increases in the capacity of our universities, through the excellence of their teaching, the breadth and quality of their research and their expanding regional mission to contribute to society and the economy in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim made three points. He asked me about Springvale, which I should like to deal with briefly. As he knows, the current plans are for 4,500 full and part-time students to enrol at Springvale. He will be aware of the difficulties that we are facing with the project. However, I remain committed to it. I want to see it taken forward, if not in its original form then in a revised form that offers the best and most appropriate provision for the people of north and west Belfast. Given the pressing needs of this part of Belfast, I am not prepared to walk away from the current difficulties.
  David Burnside rose—
  Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to give way, given the time, but I will as long as the intervention is very short.
  David Burnside: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is making the mistake of talking about Springvale benefiting north and west Belfast. That is a political decision. If we want an additional campus within the university of Ulster, it should benefit Greater Belfast and the whole educational outreach area of Northern Ireland. To sell something academically for political reasons is a mistake; to sell an additional campus as benefiting all the people of Northern Ireland but based in north and west Belfast is very different. Does the Minister agree?
  Jane Kennedy: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes his point forcefully and I hope that he will have the chance to reinforce it. That is my initial response on Springvale.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim talked about the common funding formula. I will not delay the House on that today; I hear the hon. Gentleman's points and there will be an opportunity to discuss it further in the debate on the order, which will take place soon.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about morale among teachers, and I accept his point. However, we have set up an independent inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions, being careful to ensure that the unions agreed. The employing authorities and unions have received an interim report on principals' and vice-principals' salaries and differentials. We will discuss all that through the negotiating machinery in the immediate future. The full report is scheduled to be received in the spring. I appreciate that teachers are not merely concerned about pay and remuneration, but about many other issues that affect morale in the difficult environment in which they work in Northern Ireland. We are listening and responding to the representations that teachers have made and are making.
  In conclusion, there has been—
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make a speech later in the debate, but I will briefly give way.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as I realise that she is coming to her peroration. I thank her for her general support for the Liberal Democrat amendment and I listened carefully to her remarks to ascertain whether there would be anything other than that general message of support. She will be aware that there is mounting interest in the possibility of opening more integrated schools in Northern Ireland, especially the Maine integrated school in Randalstown. As I have heard nothing about that possibility, can she tell us when we might hear something about it?
  Jane Kennedy: Very, very imminently but not today. We remain extremely interested in the development of that sector. Everyone working to develop such schools deserves our support and encouragement.
  There has been extensive and inclusive consultation on the Burns report, which provides a firm basis on which to take forward the post-primary review. I do not

  571
  accept the description of the current situation as "chaotic". I am determined to build on the emerging consensus to achieve the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential and that will maintain the current high standards of achievement.
  We have a major success story in Northern Ireland with regard to higher education in all its forms, whether one looks at investment, participation or performance. Higher education is a tremendous asset, especially for supporting economic development and attracting inward investment. All those who work in the sector deserve our congratulations and encouragement and I am sure that the House will join me in confirming that later in the vote.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the House that, in a limited debate, of which an hour has already been taken up, it would be appreciated if all further contributions, whether from Front or Back-Bench Members, could be moderated with that in mind?
  2.2 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I take note of your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is my intention to be brief.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on choosing to debate this vital matter this afternoon. Although my congratulations and my pleasure in discussing the topic are entirely sincere, equally sincere is my sense of regret that such matters should be decided here in Westminster and that we have brought to an end debate in the Assembly.
  I hope that that suspension will not be for too long, but I warned the Government that once institutions are suspended it takes a long time to get them going again. I fear that the current period of suspension will last much longer than the Government calculated and while it continues we must do the best possible job, but I cannot disguise from the House our regrets about the present situation or the fact that these matters cannot be discussed by the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who could take the time that is required to go through them in detail. Some of the confused statistical discussion that we have already heard this afternoon has demonstrated how damaging and dangerous it is to deal superficially and rapidly with such important matters. I greatly regret that it has not been possible for the Assembly and the Executive to continue to play their role in making important decisions about the future of education in Northern Ireland.
  Before I talk about schools, I should like to say something nice and, I hope, encouraging to the Minister about higher education. I was delighted and heartened by the commitment that she gave from the Dispatch Box that she will not allow the Springvale development—the university of Ulster campus on the Springfield road site—to be dropped, as there was real fear of that. The Minister and I have discussed the matter privately and I am glad that it will not happen.
  572
  I agree very much with the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim: such a campus will be an asset for the whole of Northern Ireland and especially for the greater Belfast area—for obvious reasons—and we look forward to it. However, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are two especially strong reasons for locating a campus in that area? First, it is close to the most deprived communities in Northern Ireland. More than anything else, people in such communities need ready and easy access to education locally, if we are to solve the problems of deprivation. Secondly, as the hon. Lady knows, the campus will be within walking distance of both the Falls road and Shankhill road areas, which are not merely deprived but also subject to paramilitarism and extremism of all kinds. Those communities suffer from a sense—even a complex—of being neglected hitherto by the establishment and by people who have an easier life than them. It is important to reverse those feelings and to provide for people from both communities so that they can work together and share in making a success of an institution that is located, literally, between both of them. It will enable people to form the normal social and personal relationships across the community divide that have been so lacking in that part of Belfast. The Opposition set great store by the coming to fruition of that project and we support the strong commitment to it that the Minister has made so clear this afternoon.
  Anyone coming to Northern Ireland afresh, as I did when the Leader of the Opposition asked me to take on my present role, is immensely and immediately struck by the extremely high standard of and commitment to education. As an Englishman, I can perhaps say that we are a bit philistine in this part of the United Kingdom. That problem does not exist so much in what is sometimes known as the Celtic fringe. It certainly does not exist in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland, in Scotland or in Wales, where people value education even if they have not had the chance to benefit very much from it. People set great store by their children being able to have access to education. Teachers and university professors have the status that they deserve.
  The achievements in Northern Ireland have been striking. The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned some of the figures—57 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved five or more GCSE at grades A to C in 2000–01, whereas the corresponding figure in England was only 50 per cent. A further statistic from the same period struck me forcefully: 93 per cent. of Northern Ireland pupils achieved two or more A-levels whereas the figure in England was only 82 per cent.
  Those are statistically significant differences. Those results were achieved despite the apparent disadvantage faced in Northern Ireland due to the troubles and the difficulties in access to schools caused by the sectarian divide. As the Minister pointed out, some schools were targeted by paramilitaries. Those results were achieved despite the fact that prosperity in terms of per capita income is lower in Northern Ireland than in England. Normally, there is a positive relationship between per-capita income and educational performance.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Davies: I give way to the hon. Gentleman but, like the Minister, I shall not give way frequently this afternoon.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman repeated a statistic that I hear again and again—that 93 per cent. of pupils gained two A-levels—but it relates to the 93 per cent. of pupils who enter the final year and actually sit A-levels. Can he tell us the number of pupils who enter the S1—secondary 1—in Northern Ireland and who then achieve two A-levels before they leave high school education?
  Mr. Davies: When I am a Minister, I shall be delighted to take the initiative in publishing such figures. However, for the moment—I hope that it does not last long—the Conservatives are not in government so the hon. Gentleman should ask his Front-Bench colleagues to publish the statistics.
  I emphasise that the figures I quoted are aggregate figures, so they do not reflect the performance of one sector—the grammar schools. They reflect the average position, taking account of the performance of other secondary schools. Therefore, it is not true that the better outcomes of the grammar schools in Northern Ireland are discounted by the less good performance of other secondary schools. The aggregate position takes account of both types of school.
  The Minister's treatment of the statistics was somewhat confusing. One point struck me, and it would have been an egregious piece of special pleading if it were not confusion. She prayed in aid in her argument against selection the fact that adult literacy rates in Northern Ireland are lower than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom. Adult literacy rates reflect the education that was delivered 20, 30 or even 50, 60 or 70 years ago and they are an extraordinarily poor guide to the current performance of the school system. If one is taking important strategic decisions on that basis, God help education in Northern Ireland or whatever else they may affect.
  I am not the only one to have been struck by the fine performance of schools in Northern Ireland. Many visitors notice that, and the people of Northern Ireland are extremely proud of their system. They relate the performance of their schools to the existence of selection. There can be no doubt about that. That is why the responses to the Burns report showed that, although people were not satisfied with the test currently used, there was overwhelming support for selection itself. Of those who returned the household response form—more than 200,000 people and far more than ever take part in any opinion poll—64 per cent., or nearly two thirds, opposed the ending of selection. Some 62 per cent. of teachers who returned the survey opposed the ending of selection. Those are very eloquent figures.
  The previous Minister of Education in Stormont used his last hours of power before the institutions were suspended to try to establish a fait accompli by abolishing the test. It is extraordinary that the Minister of State has simply endorsed that decision. She has not listened to other views and not taken the opportunity afforded by the Ulster Unionist party in this debate to
  574
  tell us with what she intends to replace the current system. The current position is that the test will be abolished in 2004, but we do not know what will replace it. That is a thoroughly irresponsible approach to administration and a particularly irresponsible approach to schools, because of the long-term consequences of any decision that is taken. How can one abolish anything at all without knowing what will replace it?
  The Minister has acknowledged that the existing system of education in Northern Ireland is working very satisfactorily, and that makes her approach even more irresponsible. Surely the right professional approach to the problem would be to leave the present system in place until and unless she is persuaded that a better solution exists. She should then come before the House and argue for that better solution. To destroy a system or to create a gap without knowing how she will replace what has been destroyed or how she will fill that gap is extremely frivolous.
  Jane Kennedy: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to intervene on his diatribe and on his heaping of coals on my head. Surely he accepts that I inherited the decision when I took up my post. If I had reversed it, I would have created even more chaos. I considered carefully the reasons and details for the decision, and my work is now entirely focused, with the Education Department in Northern Ireland, on coming up with an alternative. As I have made clear, we will seek to find an alternative but the current system will continue until we do so.
  Mr. Davies: With respect to the Minister, I cannot accept that excuse. She took over her new functions almost within hours of Mr. McGuinness having signed the decree to abolish the test. No structural consequences had flown from his decision and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have reversed it. She could have said that the Government were not going to allow an outgoing Minister to take a decision in his last few hours in office without their being clear as to what would be put in its place. They could have decided to allow the present system to continue while they restored confidence and discussed whether to maintain selection and whether it should be conducted under the 11-plus or some other test. When they had come up with a better system, they could have introduced the changes.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will not give way at this stage for the reason that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already given. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point in the debate.
  The fact is that the Minister took a decision. She may have decided that it was easier to do nothing than to do something, but it was a decision, if only by default, and it was quite unnecessary. By default, she endorsed the destructive decision taken by Martin McGuinness just before he left office. The decision raises anxieties, particularly because a Labour Government are behaving in this way. We know that it is in their nature to try to do things by stealth. The nastier the thing that they are trying to do, the more likely they are to want to

  575
  use the weapons of stealth. We must seriously ask whether the Government are ideologically committed to destroying good schools in Northern Ireland, but do not have the courage—they never have the courage of their convictions—to say that they will abolish selection and will force excellent schools to cease to have any further role in selecting their pupils. The Government do not have the courage to say that they are destroying the character, ethos and individuality of those schools, and they will not tell the public in Northern Ireland or in Britain as a whole.
  The Government are acting indirectly by saying that the decision was taken before the suspension of Stormont. They say, "We can't do anything about it. It will take us months to look at the matter. We are awfully sorry but there is no alternative in place to the system that we are going to abolish." I am not suggesting that the Minister is making plans along those lines, but to abolish the existing test without being clear as to how it will be replaced raises justifiable suspicions. There are only two possibilities in such circumstances. The first is that the Government do not have an agenda and have abolished something without knowing how they will replace it. When I made that suggestion, the Minister leapt to her feet in indignation. I accept that it was not a particularly flattering suggestion and, as I have said, I do not accept her explanation.
  The alternative is that the Government have an agenda, but they will not tell the House or the people of Northern Ireland what is in their mind. The Minister might not know what the agenda is, but perhaps she will receive orders one day from Alastair Campbell, who wants to create what he has described as "bog-standard comprehensives" in Northern Ireland. She may be acting in entirely good faith and be sitting here with her brief without having yet received her orders from Alastair Campbell. She may have been told to soft-soap the House of Commons to try to keep us all as happy as possible in the meantime. I have no idea whether that is true. However, if one is abolishing something and is not clear with the House about how one will replace it, we can come to one of only two conclusions. The first is that the Government do not know and do not have an agenda. In that case—this is probably the more likely explanation—they are being irresponsible. The second is that there is an agenda, and we will not be told what it is today. That would be a far more reprehensible course of action by the Government.
  I am glad that we have had an opportunity to air these issues, and that my remarks have smoked out some response.
  Lady Hermon: I am delighted at the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. Will he comment on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) that we should establish an education advisory panel? Does the hon. Gentleman support that proposal?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier remarks if she was in the Chamber at the time. I expressed reticence about deciding such matters of detail in the House. It is unfortunate that the Government have placed us in this position by abolishing Stormont. Before we make detailed decisions about how we replace the present test, there should be
  576
  much more detailed, thorough and professional discussion than we have had in this debate or are likely to be able to have. In the meantime, we should keep the existing system and lift the threat to it. We should do what I have already suggested the Government should have done and leave well alone. It is a fine and performing system and we should not replace it until and unless we have persuaded ourselves that there is a better solution. So my answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I am not committed, nor are the Conservative Opposition, to a particular form of selection test in Northern Ireland. We are committed to supporting good, thriving schools and to the principle of choice—that is fine—and we are against any act of educational vandalism. If a technically better mechanism to achieve selection than the present one can be found, we are open to being persuaded to consider it.
  However, the mechanisms are not in place for the House to take an intelligent decision, given the very limited time now available to discuss Northern Ireland business. Meanwhile, when in doubt, we should not destroy what we have got, and I hope that the Government will think again about what was obviously an extraordinarily rapid—if it was not worse—decision simply to endorse Martin McGuinness's final present to the people of Northern Ireland.
  2.20 pm
  Kate Hoey: I welcome this debate and congratulate the Ulster Unionist party on initiating it. I hope that it will help to make the Minister—I see that she is now leaving the Chamber—and the Government realise that they should be cautious about what is happening in Northern Ireland. I want to urge caution on two levels.
  First and foremost, it is still quite dreadful that not a single person in Northern Ireland was able to vote for the party that will now take the decisions about the future of the education system. The reality is that there is a huge democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. It is very sad indeed that the Assembly is not taking such decisions and I hope, like everyone, that it will soon be working again.
  Given that the education system has done so much for so many years, such changes should not be rushed through by dealing with them in this Chamber, when they could easily be delayed, allowing more discussion and debate, so that the decisions could be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that those in the Assembly want to get back to work as soon as possible and that such issues would be on the horizon for them. So caution really does need to be shown.
  I want to declare an interest: I am absolutely convinced that I would not be a Member of Parliament if I had not had the opportunity to have a grammar school education in Northern Ireland at an extremely good school, Belfast Royal Academy. It is still an extremely good school, and it takes children from all parts of Belfast and all sorts of backgrounds. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) talked about his farming background, but my background was probably more deprived. I grew up on a much smaller farm. I have absolutely no doubt that, without the opportunity offered by that school, I would not have been able to go on to college and university and become a Member of Parliament.

  577
  I have another interest to declare. I often visit schools in Northern Ireland, so I know that the standards of all schools—grammar and secondary schools—are so much better than anything that we have in England. So I urge caution because it seems absolutely amazing that we should want to destroy something that is working. I accept that too few people in some areas of Northern Ireland are able to go on to the right sort of education, but that happens in my constituency and deprived areas of England. The idea is that, somehow, what is really good and works should be destroyed to give, in theory, more children from deprived areas a better education, but we have shown that that just does not work in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
  As recently as November, the Prime Minister himself condemned the "enormous damage" done by the pursuit of the comprehensive ideal and said that he is determined to provide choice and diversity in education. He said that it is time to lay to rest the controversy over the future of the comprehensive system and that
  "It has all too often carried with it the notion that children should be treated as of the same ability."
  Given that not one person in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to vote for a Labour Government, I cannot understand how we can try to push the current proposals through. The Burns report is clear: there is unhappiness with the 11-plus. That is taken for granted. My sister and I both passed the 11-plus. I went along feeling absolutely wonderful and looking forward to taking that test. Apparently I told my mother and father that I was looking forward to meeting lots of children. I lived in the country, but went elsewhere to take the test and it was nice to meet other children. My sister was much brighter than me, but she was absolutely terrified by the test. She hated it and worried about it. Children are different, and there is no doubt that the test needs to be adapted. We need profiles and different ways of doing things, but I do not accept that a majority of people in Northern Ireland favour ending academic selection. It is nonsensical to try to change what has proved to be very good indeed.
  I also want to give the Minister some sense of caution about the Education and Libraries Bill. Again, the provisions in that Bill may be pushed through by an Order in Council—I am not quite up to date on when that may happen—and it will give the Minister strong, dictatorial powers. The Minister will have the power to remove all the governors of any grammar school—quite unacceptable—and make all sorts of changes to alter the system by stealth. I urge the Minister that that measure should not be pushed through the House, and I will certainly not support it. I do not understand why any Labour Member should support any measure on Northern Ireland when we do not even allow people in Northern Ireland to join the party that is governing them.
  Lots of Members wish to speak, but I want to say that the standards of education in Northern Ireland are unquestionably high. That does not mean that we cannot do better or that we should not give greater encouragement to those children from some parts of Northern Ireland who do not even sit the exam. They do not take that opportunity for all sorts of reasons, which
  578
  are similar to those in some of the worst parts of my constituency, where the assumption is that parents and children cannot become properly involved in education. Such problems should be considered, but I want to urge caution.
  I recently visited one of the best girls schools in Northern Ireland, Strathaern school. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) knows it well. Some of the children at that school have come from the most deprived parts of Belfast. The young girl whom I presented with the overall achievement award was from a very poor part of Belfast. In my constituency, such children would have great difficulty getting the sort of education that they would receive at Strathaern school, because no school in the immediate area offers that kind of opportunity.
  Another important thing, which has not been mentioned at all in today's debate, is that private education hardly exists in Northern Ireland because no middle class parent needs to buy private education. The changes will affect the work being done by schools such as Belfast Royal Academy and the Methodist college—I could name many others—if they are no longer able to select pupils.
  Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend knows that I hold her in very high respect—we share many similar views—but she sadly appears to be guilty of trying to portray the future of Northern Ireland without selection as being like the position in her constituency, Vauxhall. Does she accept that, in fact, it would be more comparable to parts of Scotland, where the comprehensive education system allows parents to work hand in glove with the local education authority to improve the results? That vision may be denied to the people of Northern Ireland to protect the privileged system that she herself came through.
  Kate Hoey: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, and he also supports my view that people in Northern Ireland should be allowed to join the Labour party. The statistics about Scotland, however, are not necessarily as good as he made out earlier. The comparison would not be between like and like, although I do not want to go into the detail of that now.
  The other thing that is different about Scotland is that there is still a large amount of private education there. People who go to Northern Ireland, perhaps to take a job in the BBC or in the civil service—the kind of people who would pay for private education here—are helped to move when they realise that they will not have to pay to get their children into a good school, as there are so many of them. If we opt for a straightforward, one-sizefits-all comprehensive system in Northern Ireland, we will have private schools as a result, and we will lose the fantastic mix in the very best schools in Northern Ireland, in which young people from very poor backgrounds—the kind of background from which I came—can mix with the children of people running Northern Ireland industry. That mix still exists, and it is a huge advantage to young people.
  I therefore urge the Minister to be cautious. There is absolutely no reason to go ahead with what Martin McGuinness did in his last few hours, outrageous and vindictive as it was. Instead, we should use the

  579
  opportunity of the current lull before the Assembly is reconstituted to bring people together to talk about a solution that will build on our best provision, not destroy it.
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome this debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) for his opening speech, which set out in detail and with great clarity the issues that confront us in terms of the future of education in Northern Ireland. I want to speak about my experience both as a parent and as a constituency MP, having spent a considerable amount of time visiting and getting to know the teachers, boards of governors and parents associated with the various post-primary schools in my constituency.
  First, speaking as a parent, may I say that my eldest daughter underwent the 11-plus transfer test last year? As it happens, she did very well. She got an A grade and was accepted into Wallace high school, which is one of the grammar schools in my constituency: a very successful school named after one of my illustrious predecessors, Sir Richard Wallace, who was the Member of Parliament for Lisburn. Wallace is one of a number of post-primary schools in my constituency enjoying considerable success. The Friends school, which comes from a Quaker background, is an equally successful grammar school. Secondary schools such as Laurelhill community college, Forthill school, Lisnagarvey high school and Dunmurry high school are all proving successful and improving the standards of educational attainment in the greater Lisburn area and the Lagan Valley constituency.
  My eldest daughter, however, like my youngest daughter, who sat the 11-plus last November, undoubtedly felt the stress and the pressure of the 11-plus examination, and it was the focus of concern and discussion in our family home for months. We felt the pressures on our children—we await the results of the test for my younger daughter, and I hope that she will be successful—and, as a parent, I see the need for the reform of the transfer procedure and of the 11-plus examination. I agree with many in the field of education who believe that two examinations are not the best or fairest way of determining a child's academic ability at the age of 11. I strongly disagree, however, with the recommendation in the Burns report on post-primary education for an ending of academic selection. Having looked at the practicalities, in my constituency in particular, I do not see how the proposal for a collegiate system can work in practice and be fairer than the academic selection that exists at present, even though I support reform of the method but not of the principle of academic selection.
  I have received a large number of letters and telephone calls and have had many conversations with parents in my constituency who are very concerned about the proposals in the Burns report and the impact that they will have on their ability to have a proper choice to send their children to the school that they desire. The Burns report is very much based on the concept of parental choice, but the consequences of its proposals will, in many cases, limit the choice of parents. To give a simple example, I live in the village of Moira, which is on the outskirts of my constituency and about
  580
  10 miles from the city of Lisburn. It is also right on the boundary of the Craigavon area, which operates an entirely different education system known as the Dickson plan, under which transfer takes place at the age of 14 and a system of junior high schools and senior high schools or colleges exists. That system has been quite successful in many respects. Lurgan college and Portadown college, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will know, have a record of successful educational achievement for their pupils. Lurgan college is particularly well placed in terms of its results, although I do not want to single out schools in the constituency of another Member too much—I am simply repeating what I read in the newspapers.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Do you believe them?
  Mr. Donaldson: Not always.
  Under the system that would exist if the Burns proposals for post-primary education were adopted, however, parents living in Moira would be at a real disadvantage. A constituent from Moira wrote to me:
  "The new system is supposed to introduce parental choice. I should be able to list my school of choice, which would be a school suitable to the academic ability of my child. I have an extremely bright child. His reading ability is of the standard expected of children three years older. Under the new system he will have no chance of gaining a place at"—
  what is currently known as—
  "a grammar school because he lives in a rural area, even though he currently attends a school next door to a grammar school."
  Under the Burns proposals, that child will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of gaining a place at such a school because of his place of residence. Many of my constituents are therefore afraid that we are moving to selection by postcode.
  Another constituent wrote to me:
  "We should find some way to retain an academic sector at the same time putting a great deal more emphasis and funding into a technical and vocational sector. This would give us the best of both worlds—excellence for all. Selection ultimately by postcode offers no real parental choice and should be vigorously opposed."
  That is from a constituent living in Lisburn who is in closer proximity to the post-primary schools in my constituency than those who live in rural areas.
  The collegiate system also has other consequences. In terms of fairness, section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1988 places on Departments an obligation to treat people fairly and equally. The consequences of implementing the collegiate system, however, can be arbitrary. Let me quote two examples in which people in my constituency will be placed at a distinct disadvantage, and, in my opinion, will be discriminated against. A constituent living in Dunmurry has written to me to make the point that since Dunmurry will be in the west Belfast collegiate area, the parents of Protestant boys attending primary schools will no longer have any choice to send their child to what is now a controlled grammar school, because there is no controlled grammar school for boys within the west Belfast

  581
  collegiate area. The only controlled grammar school within the west Belfast collegiate is Hunter House, which is a girls' school.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the chances of Hunter House getting anyone from west Belfast are nil and that it will be cut off from the natural hinterland?
  Mr. Donaldson: I accept that. Indeed, the principal of Hunter House college made precisely that point to me when I met her recently.
  Protestant families living in Dunmurry are discriminated against and severely restricted in their choice of school. However, Roman Catholic parents from Lisburn wrote to me explaining that Roman Catholic families from that town who wish to send their children to what is a maintained grammar school have no choice within the collegiate area covered by Lisburn, Banbridge and Crumlin. In fact, when the previous Roman Catholic maintained grammar school in Lisburn was closed in the 1960s, the Education Department gave a written undertaking that the parents of Roman Catholic children in the area would be given preferential places at Rathmore grammar school, the replacement for the new school. However, Rathmore is now in the west Belfast collegiate, so Roman Catholic parents living in Lisburn will no longer have that choice. Those are the hidden but real consequences of the collegiate system and the manner in which it discriminates against parents and parental choice.
  Lady Hermon: May I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend expresses clearly? The Government will be aware that parents are entitled to have their children educated in accordance with their philosophical and religious convictions, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, and that, when not suspended, the Assembly will have to abide by those obligations.
  Mr. Donaldson: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must consider not just the equality obligations in section 75, but the implications under the Human Rights Act. That has not been fully thought through in the proposals in the Burns report.
  There is much that one could say on the issue. However, I shall deal briefly with two key aspects of the proposals in the Burns report. The first is the admissions criteria. There is little doubt that the criteria set down by Burns will lead to the creation of area comprehensives. Without any form of selection, schools will have an all-ability intake. By making distance from school the determining criterion, schools will increasingly draw their pupils from the immediate area, so introducing an element of social injustice. Parental choice for those who live in rural areas, such as those in my constituency, will be substantially curtailed.
  Friends school, for example, draws its pupils from a wide catchment area. Of the pupils in years 8 and 9, 60 per cent. come from the Lisburn area postcodes of BT27 and BT28. A further 20 per cent. come from Hillsborough and Dromore, with the postcodes of BT26 and BT25. But a significant proportion of year 8 and 9
  582
  pupils come from areas such as Moira, Aghalee, Maghaberry, Ballinderry and Glenavy. They will all be disadvantaged under the proposals because of the distance/proximity criteria. The Minister and the Department need to consider that.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the catchment area of a particular grammar school. Does he give any consideration to the people who live beside that school and who are denied access to it because they cannot pass the academic qualifications in the 11-plus? They have to watch people receiving the higher education that they are denied.
  Mr. Donaldson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but Friends school and Wallace school are within a few hundred yards of each other. Within half a mile of them and on either side are two excellent secondary schools, Forthill and Laurelhill, so I fail to understand his point. People who live within a mile radius have at least four excellent post-primary schools from which to choose, whereas my constituents in Moira, Glenavy and Ballinderry have none of those choices and will be discriminated against under the system.
  The second key aspect that worries me is the transfer test and the issue of selection. The end of a selective system will inevitably mean the end of grammar and secondary schools as currently defined. However, Burns envisages that schools will offer specialist provision and that parents will decide on the most appropriate school for their child on the basis of the information contained in the pupil profiles and in consultation with primary school principals. The report appears to be offering the best of all worlds: the end of selection and the continuance of schools with a specialist academic provision, with guidance from the pupil profile and, ultimately, free parental choice. Surely, however, the former grammar schools will not be able to offer a specialist academic curriculum and meet the needs of individual pupils in an intake that, without selection, will inevitably cover the full range of ability. So it is misleading to assert that parental preference will be given priority when particular schools will be oversubscribed.
  I hope that the Minister and the Department take on board the real concerns expressed in the debate and understand that the proposals in Burns are not the way forward. There has to be another way that commands a much broader consensus within Northern Ireland.
  2.46 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I am reluctant to contribute to the debate, because Northern Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom that I visit frequently and I would not want to be sufficiently presumptuous to comment in detail on its schools. However, I feel strongly about secondary school admission policies and want to make a few remarks that may inform the future debate in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) made a balanced and broad presentation, and most of us would agree with much of what he said. However, when he tries to defend selection at the age of 11 by academic

  583
  ability and at the same time says that he wants parity of esteem between the academic and the vocational, he is treading on difficult ground. It is intrinsic in any system that selects by academic ability that the academic will always be seen as superior to the vocational when it provides a superior level of per capita investment and superior life chances to those young people.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chaytor: I hope the hon. Lady will accept that, as I only have a few minutes in which to speak because many of my colleagues want to contribute, I do not want to give way.
  It is significant that the Government will next week publish their White Paper on the development of 14 to 19 education. We anticipate a great leap forward in the establishment of parity between the academic and the vocational which I fear many people in Northern Ireland have not yet appreciated. I note the concerns of the hon. Member for East Antrim and the consensus that the Burns report reflected on the need to do away with the existing testing regime. The debate should now focus on what is the best alternative.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke of upholding devolution and his regret at the suspension of the Assembly. Almost in the same breath, however, he criticised the Minister for merely upholding the decision taken by the Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He cannot have it both ways. In addition, he should not criticise the Minister for supporting the response to the consultation on the Burns report, which clearly called for an end to the existing selection test, by saying that she should not have taken that decision. It is important that we take a consistent approach to these matters.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chaytor: If I had something by way of reciprocation, I would give way.
  It is important that those now grappling with this issue in Northern Ireland realise that the matter has been exhaustively debated on the mainland for 40 years. The overwhelming conclusion in most parts of the United Kingdom system is that a comprehensive admissions policy serves to raise standards and build social cohesion. Even the most passionate advocate from the Ulster Unionist party cannot with conviction claim Northern Ireland as a model society for the rest of Europe in terms of social cohesion. We have to examine very carefully the nature of the secondary school system that we create and its consequences for society.
  Those who argue the importance of academic selection at age 11 have to be convinced of certain factors. First, they must be convinced that it is possible accurately to identify a child's ability at 11, the age of transfer from primary to secondary school. That age is arbitrary; in a different system we could have transfer at 13 or at nine. They must be convinced also that the young person's ability will not increase, change or develop in their teenage years, and that there is a means of identifying that ability. Clearly, the consensus in Northern Ireland is that the current means, the 11-plus, is insufficiently accurate.
  584
  We should appreciate that as standards of education rise across the board, and as more primary school children attain high levels of performance, the challenge of discriminating between those who are above a given threshold at age 11 and those who are below that threshold becomes even more difficult. As levels of achievement rise, discrimination between the twenty-fifth percentile point and the twenty-sixth percentile point becomes almost impossible. The defenders of selection have to be convinced that a test, an interview or a pupil profile can accurately distinguish between those who will subsequently be given advantages and those who will be denied them.
  Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and other colleagues, will say that the opportunities that I received were entirely due to my passing the 11-plus and my subsequent achievements at grammar school. However, we have to ask how many people are denied the opportunities that I had because they do not go to grammar school, having failed the 11-plus, and are subsequently labelled failures. Many of them feel that sense of failure throughout their lives. We cannot consider the advantages of those who succeed at 11 without considering the consequences for those who fail at 11.
  Once we have made that decision and are confident that we can identify ability and that we have an accurate testing system, we have to pick up the social consequences for the 75 per cent. who are not selected. In her opening speech, the Minister of State gave statistics for attainment in Northern Ireland. She said that the GCSE rate in Northern Ireland is slightly higher than on the mainland, but she pointed out that there is a huge amount of under-achievement. We accept that that is a factor not only for Northern Ireland but for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Comparing Northern Ireland with England on the assumption that the education system in England is 100 per cent. comprehensive is a fallacy. Although the system in most of England is, in theory, comprehensive, a significant minority is selective, and in the majority that is comprehensive, many subtle layers of selection operate. We must make sure that we compare like with like. We must be clear about the consequences of selection at 11 for those who are not selected.
  We are talking about standards for the population as a whole, not for an arbitrarily selected minority, and we are also talking about social exclusion. I ask Ulster Unionist Members to remember that this issue is not a new one for the mainland; people have grappled with it for 40 years. There is now a consensus in most parts of the mainland, although not yet in Kent, Buckinghamshire or Lincolnshire—I accept that. If we believe in parity between the academic and the vocational, in equality of opportunity for all young people and in a society that minimises social exclusion, a comprehensive admissions policy is the way forward.
  2.56 pm
  Lembit Öpik: We are all agreed that Northern Ireland achieves impressive results for a proportion of the young people who go through the education system.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Including you.
  Lembit Öpik: Including me. I am ever so grateful to have had the opportunity to go to the Royal Belfast Academical Institution. It is certainly the best school in Northern Ireland and probably the best in the world. I took the 11-plus, and I wish to talk about that and then move on to integrated education.
  As I listen to the debate, it seems to me that we are concerned about the abolition of the 11-plus because we fear that it may materially alter the excellent schools that many right hon. and hon. Members had the privilege to attend. Let us bear it in mind, however, that Gerry Burns was very clear about the 11-plus process in his report. He said:
  "We have been left in no doubt that the Eleven-Plus Transfer Tests are socially divisive, damage self-esteem, place unreasonable pressures on pupils, primary teachers and parents, disrupt teaching and learning at an important stage in the primary curriculum and reinforce inequality of opportunity."
  He clearly feels that the test is a divisive tool.
  Thinking about trauma, I can remember doing the 11-plus. The first time I mucked it up, but by an act of fate some naughty people had stolen a few papers and I had the chance to re-sit it. Obviously, I then passed it and got into the institution. However, I remember the enormous stress that I felt, and I am one of those people who prefers examinations to continuous review.
  We need to recognise that the issue is not really whether the 11-plus is the correct system of selection; it is how we maintain what is best in the Northern Ireland education system while ensuring that those who are not selected are protected from harm and given an opportunity to shine academically and make more of their education.
  On the question of whether the majority of people in Northern Ireland are for or against selection, the answer is not as clear as it may at first seem. Paragraph 4.26 of the Department of Education's report on responses to consultation on the Burns report indicates that only 30 per cent. support the ending of academic selection. However, let us remember that only 16 per cent. of the population responded, and the response rate from better-off areas was almost three times greater than that from less-well-off areas. More than 50 per cent. of the responses were from the parents of grammar school pupils. It is hardly surprising that people who benefited from the system want to retain it.
  I accept that a large body of people and organisations support the idea of a selection system, but once again the figures are very telling. Responses from the education sector show that 60 per cent. of primary schools and 93 per cent. of secondary schools believe that academic selection should be abolished, but not surprisingly only 10 per cent. of grammar schools hold that view.
  There are many examples of organisations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or changing it. It is not surprising that individuals who have benefited from the system or perceive a benefit to their work would prefer the status quo, whereas those who feel that it is harming the children in their care or has harmed their personal opportunities would be in favour of a change. For that reason, we need to look at the issue more strategically and ask how we can best find a consensus solution that is satisfactory to the great
  586
  schools that Northern Ireland has and does not compromise their performance, at the same time as widening access for other groups.
  The Alliance party has proposed some interesting ideas. It suggests that although the age of 11 is the natural time in light of emotional, physical and mental development for students to progress from the single classroom atmosphere of primary education to a system of multiple specialist subject teachers, it is not an appropriate stage of development to distinguish between students on the basis of academic ability. The Alliance party proposes that children should progress together in post-primary schools that provide a general middle school curriculum for the first three years—say, to the age of 14.
  At the end of that period, children would be in a much better position to understand their strengths and areas for development and, crucially, what their personal aspirations were, whether vocational or more academic. At the age of 14 it is more likely that they can make informed decisions about the rest of their education. It is surely not beyond the wit of politicians in the Chamber, consulting closely with the vested interest groups in Northern Ireland and led by the Northern Ireland politicians, to find a solution bringing all that together in a way that works.
  I move to the second issue that I want to cover. Although I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to those thoughts and suggestions with regard to selection, the most striking feature of the motion and the Government amendment is the absence of any written recognition of integrated education. That is one of the most significant social developments in the past 20 years in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education describes its role as
  "the bringing together in one school of pupils, staff and governors, in roughly equal numbers, from both Protestant and Catholic traditions. It is about cultivating the individual's self-respect and therefore respect for other people and other cultures. Integrated education means bringing children up to live as adults in a pluralist society, recognising what they hold in common as well as what separates them, and accepting both."
  I hope that the amendment tabled by me and my fellow Liberal Democrats adequately reflects what is missing from the motion and the other amendment.
  The first integrated school was Lagan college, established in 1981 by All Children Together, a campaigning parent group. There are now 47 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, 18 second level colleges and 29 integrated primaries. There are also eight new integrated education projects across Northern Ireland. The expected announcement of the opening of Maine integrated primary school in Randalstown, and the transformation of Springfarm primary school in Antrim and Glengormley primary school in September will bring the number of integrated schools to 50. Surely the Minister would agree that that is glowing testimony to the fact that things are changing and that parents believe that that is a good way forward. Can he assure the House that the recent rapid increase in interest in integrated education will be fully supported financially and in other ways by the Government and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland?
  More than 15,000 pupils now study in integrated schools in the Province. That represents just over 5 per cent. of the total school-going population. I am greatly

  587
  encouraged by the fact that there are so many and that the number is growing. Will the Government ensure that the obvious and continuing demand for places at integrated schools in Northern Ireland is facilitated? According to the Northern Ireland Audit Commission, there are 45,000 unfilled places in Northern Ireland schools. The only sector with no unfilled places, and the one that the population seems keen to use, is the integrated sector. There is, therefore, pressure on the Government to act more quickly.
  I remind the Minister that in the Good Friday agreement, the Government stated that they would facilitate the development of integrated education. It is disappointing that one of the few changes made to the Government's "Building on Progress" document was the removal of support for growth in integrated education from the Department of Education's public service agreement. That was a telling change and it concerns me. Can the Minister explain why it took place and assure the House that support for the growth of integrated education will be pursued, and that there has not been a move away from the integrated education project?
  If anyone doubts the benefits of integrated education, I advise them to visit an integrated school. I went to Hazelwood integrated primary school in Newtownabbey last September. After speaking with the principal, Jill Houston, I met many pupils. We discussed what made Hazelwood special. They replied that anyone could go to school there. When we asked whether it mattered where they came from, how clever they were or what colour hair they had, the children said no. Clearly, there is much more to integrated education than simply bringing together people from different religious traditions. One little boy had been turned down by other primary schools in the area because he had a hearing difficulty. I pay tribute to the fact that integrated education is about showing that all of us should be regarded as equal. By encouraging their children to go to those schools and to learn together, parents are actively contributing to the peace and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the Minister will focus on those two substantive points—selection and integrated education. I have set out the assurances that I seek on integrated education. May I impress on him the need for a clear timetable for the changes in selection procedures, as I requested from his colleague in my intervention? It is right for the schools to be nervous about the vacuum left by a stated change in policy and the absence of any detail. Perhaps even today, the Minister can say when we may expect those details to come out for consultation.
  I remind all hon. Members once again of the importance of recognising that educational reform goes hand in hand with the kind of cultural reforms that I consider so important. It is a shame that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman took a full hour between them in a debate that properly belongs to the Ulster Unionists. I hope that by curtailing my remarks, I have enabled others from those parties to speak.
  3.7 pm
  Helen Jackson: I hope that I shall not take too long. The debate is welcome, as it is a debate about real politics called by the Ulster Unionists.
  588
  It is an opportunity to discuss an issue that has been central to the politics of this country for many years—selection by academic ability at the age of 11 and its impact on educational achievement as a whole.
  I remember the 11-plus. The key thing about it was that one passed or failed. The word "fail" dominated the lives of so many people who were then passed on to a secondary system. Their self-expectations were thereby reduced. I come from a city, Sheffield, which shares with Northern Ireland the justification which, I understand, was part of what the Burns committee took on board in its deliberations on the matter—the research done by the Programme for International Student Assessment. This concentrated not on the achievements of the educational system in Northern Ireland, which I recognise is very high, in terms of the percentage of pupils getting high grades at A-level and so on, but on the differential between the best and the worst achievers. That differential reveals some of the worst symptoms of academic selection at 11.
  Sheffield is a widely disparate city in terms of educational achievement. I was greatly relieved that the 11-plus had finished by the time my children went to school there. In Sheffield, the pressure was on from day one to live in the right place. As people said that the only schools to go to were those with sixth forms in the southwest of the city. They were the schools that enabled students to get into the top universities and that was the only place to live. That residential discrepancy has, in a sense, dominated Sheffield and ensured that the educational and social achievement differences between those living in the Hallam constituency and those in the Central and Brightside constituencies are some of the greatest in any city in the country.
  This debate on selection is important and gives Labour Members the chance to demonstrate how the issue has played a part in determining our priorities. As Northern Ireland is a key part of the United Kingdom, we are a Government who are intent on driving forward equality of opportunity there. If we are going to achieve that, which I think is the thrust of the point made by those who tabled the motion, it is essential first to say that the test will be abolished. Continuity is an important point. Different things cannot be done simultaneously, so I completely endorse the idea that the first action of the Minister in wanting to change to system should be to say that the academic selection test at 11 will be abolished. It is then necessary to move forward, as I believe the Government are, in establishing further ways in which the factors that affect educational discrimination can most usefully be dealt with.
  More will be needed than the abolition of the academic test at 11, including greater emphasis on integrated education and schools. From what I know of the integrated schools, they are playing a major part. I welcome what the Minister of State said about the expansion that is being proposed in further and higher education in Northern Ireland. The opportunity of part-time and full-time places for students and part-time places for mature students will also be essential in raising expectations and opening up possibilities for dealing with disparities between the top and bottom ends. Abolition of the test is only a first step. I hope that this Government, while the current system remains in place, and also the devolved Administration, which I hope will be re-established before too long, will be able

  589
  to work on those further steps and encourage the child care provision, integrated schools and extra student support that will be necessary in taking them.
  I want to mention one other aspect of education in Northern Ireland of which I had some experience when I worked with the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland as their Parliamentary Private Secretary. I was given a brief of keeping closely in touch with educational work, especially for adults and among women in Northern Ireland. On a number of occasions, I visited the award givings of the Belfast Women's Training Services organisation in Northern Ireland. Hundreds of certificates were distributed and the courses were full year on year. I was struck by how young women from the working-class areas of Belfast on both sides of the sectarian divide were so eloquent about the fact that it was only after they had left school that they were starting to realise their own educational potential, as well as their potential for taking a useful and active role in the community. I pay tribute to a lot of the work that has been done by that organisation among mature students in the working-class areas of Belfast, as well as by the Workers Educational Association and other adult education movements, which I got to know well.
  Such organisations have lessons for many of us in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in respect of inner city areas where such disparities of educational achievement exist, but the better way forward is to establish an educational system that does not end up with huge disparities for mature students. It is in that context that I think that the Government were correct—the Minister made a strong case built on the Burns report and the work of the devolved Assembly—that it was right to say at the start was that there would be no academic selection at 11, which can be divisive, and that they would abolish it as soon as was practicable, and work hard to establish how best to ensure that the transfer from primary to secondary education results in a society in Northern Ireland that is as little divided educationally as possible.
  Of course, all of us in the House hope that a society will come about in Northern Ireland that is also as little divided as possible in any other way. This debate plays its small part in that wider political role as well.
  3.16 pm
  David Burnside: I was not in the Assembly when my party and the others chose their election portfolios. Ministries are always a difficult matter. The old hands, such as the now Lord Kilclooney—an old hand and one of the few Unionists who were in government in the old Stormont Parliament—always go for finance first, as that has the purse strings. That may be right or wrong, but I would have argued for education as the top priority with farming second on the list. That is my personal preference, but I was not there at the time.
  The Executive cannot be reformed in the foreseeable future because of the former Education Minister's continuation with an operational terrorist criminal organisation, but if and when it does come back with some sort of structure, I hope that my party and the Democratic Unionist party, which is represented on the
  590
  Benches to my left, will try to get together next time around and take education as our priority. It is the one priority that we should take. It is the major challenge and has the most importance for the future prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The administrative vandalism to which the motion refers was an act of vicious vindictiveness. It was the act of a man who is not interested in the long-term future of Northern Ireland. I hope that he never again has an opportunity to hold that portfolio, but what happened happened, and what happens under the law we must accept. The Minister, who is not now in the House, will have to make a decision in the near future about the uncertainty that is now in the minds of all parents. Parents who have a child at school in year 6 do not know what is going to happen. They do not know about the selection procedure or about how their children will proceed into secondary education. Children do not know whether they will go to grammar or secondary school, or whether there will be a new form of selection procedure.
  That uncertainty must be ended. I hope that it will end by reflecting the views of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, and the greatest possible number across the teaching establishment, as well as the political establishment, including all the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Minister's decision does not have majority support from either the Protestant or the Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
  I went to the Antrim grammar school prize giving last year, and was extremely proud. I saw increasing academic standards—a proud school, good staff and pupils who want to be part of that school. Just after I was elected, I went to Ballyclare high school and had a briefing there, and then to the senior civil servant in the North Eastern education and library board to ask for a rating of the schools in the constituency. He said, "When we bring in visitors from outside Northern Ireland, we take them to Ballyclare high to show them an excellent school, a state school performing well." As has been said, we do not have private schools. I say to the Government: do not destroy this excellence.
  Defending grammar schools does not mean that we will lower standards for our secondary sector. I heard the expression of some views that should have died with the Labour party in the 1960s—a lot of old fashioned socialist clap-trap, the sort of language that made it sound as if going to a grammar school somehow means that a social stigma attaches to the secondary school that might be only a couple of hundred yards away. When I attended one of the best institutions in Northern Ireland, the Coleraine Academical institution, I did not find such a stigma with the secondary school next door. I do not find it in my constituency now. I do not find a social stigma attaching to the very fine pupils who go to secondary school.
  Let us not try to re-fight an old class battle of the 1960s. Comprehensive education failed in this country and was a disaster economically. A few academics involved in the Burns report share the left-wing parentage of the failed academia of the 1960s. Let us not make that mistake. We have a good, strong system with high academic standards that is highly respected by the community. Do not destroy it.

  591
  After making the strong point that we need a form of academic selection, let me turn to some related subjects. Whether it is Dickson or the American high school system, let us get the academic selection put in place so that parents and children, especially in year 6 but going back to years 5 and 4, have that uncertainty removed and we know what the transfer procedure will be from next year.
  Two points on funding concern me. In this wide debate, I want to try to represent the concern within the primary sector. For historic reasons, going right back to the Education Acts of the 1940s, primary education in Northern Ireland has been the poor relation in funding terms of secondary education. On the mainland, in England and Wales, the amount in pounds per head spent on the secondary sector and on the primary sector is pretty even—within single percentage figures. In Northern Ireland the primary sector is very much the poor relation. As we all know, the overall budget is the problem on funding, but it is also the overall budget plus the allocation. I wish to make a plea on behalf of the primary school sector, which feels that it is often the poor relation of the secondary sector.
  I move on to the problem of research. Years ago, I used to advise the Industrial Development Board, which is now Invest Northern Ireland. When it brings Japanese, Korean and American business men into Northern Ireland, our standard of education, our secondary education and our highly trained workforce feature right up high in the slides and presentations. That gives us a competitive edge in inward investment when there is so much competition in the United Kingdom between the regions. Let us not destroy that. Let us try to be conservative. If it is good, do not wreck it. Keep it there, because it is a selling point for Northern Ireland.
  There is a point about research that I raised with the Secretary of State for Education last November. The underspend per head of population in Northern Ireland for the two universities, the university of Ulster and Queen's, is very low compared with that in England, Wales and Scotland. The matter needs to be considered by the Government. We need research linked into our universities, because that is how to get industry in and how to get good, modern, high-tech companies to come into Northern Ireland, where we have had considerable success in recent years.
  In conclusion, I repeat to the Government: do not wreck it. We do not need an elected dictatorship in Northern Ireland telling us that it will destroy our grammar school system. We have a fine grammar school system, a fine secondary system and a fine primary system. There is a great deal of room for improvement and we want to take part in that. If the Government follow the action of the former Minister of Education, they will impose a comprehensive form of education in Northern Ireland that is not supported by the vast majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, and that will destroy the grammar school system. I say to them: do not do it.
  3.25 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: I have only a few minutes, so I shall be swift.
  My constituency is in Scotland, so it might seem that I would not have much to say about education in Northern Ireland. However, I spent a short while
  592
  running a small but fairly diverse education service in Northern Ireland, and I did a couple of higher degrees while I was at it, so I got to know the Northern Ireland education system fairly well.
  Some strong points have been made from both sides during the debate. The main points that I can raise in the time available relate to selection and the method of transfer between primary and secondary education, and the whole business of grammar schools and how to correlate them with grammar schools in England. We have none in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) received short shrift from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) when he mentioned pass rates. The pass rate referred to was 93 per cent. in Northern Ireland obtaining two A-levels at A to E, which is not the case. The point that my hon. Friend was trying to make was simply that that is the proportion of people who sit A-levels.
  Mr. Brady: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the correct figures. As a proportion of the 18-year-old population, the appropriate figures are, for those obtaining two or more A-levels in 1999 to 2000: in England 30 per cent.; in Wales 27 per cent.; and in Northern Ireland 37.7 per cent. Again, the Northern Ireland system is delivering better results.
  Mr. Joyce: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the point made earlier confused overall attainment with the degree of selectivity. One could have a pass rate of 100 per cent., but it would not tell us anything about the people who did not sit the exam. That is different from the way in which we express GCSE figures, which gross up the whole cohort.
  Mr. Brady: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. This is even more compelling evidence. The figures I gave a moment ago are as a percentage of the total 18-year-old population, so there is a very significant improvement in performance in Northern Ireland compared with England.
  Mr. Joyce: I would not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I simply wanted to amplify the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East for which he got fairly short shrift.
  In Northern Ireland, the figures are slightly higher and have certainly improved because there is greater selectivity. In England, by contrast, there is a modest level of grammar school education. Another difference is that English grammar schools, particularly in Sutton in Surrey, for example, operate in a very different ecology. Surprisingly, the local secondaries perform at a level not far below that of the grammar schools. The latter, however, tend to perform better academically in England—I understand that this does not happen in Northern Ireland—because GNVQ and vocational figures are included in secondary school results. There is therefore a school ecology, as it were, in which everyone is getting comparable results. However, the grammar school system that has evolved in certain English counties has produced a more diverse education than exists in Northern Ireland where, I believe, a fairly conservative, old-fashioned structure has been preserved. By contrast, some of the best grammar school practice in England is forward looking and progressive.

  593
  I accept what one or two Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), said about the comprehensive system in the 1970s. There is quite a lot of room, to say the least, for more diversity and choice based on aptitude testing. There is an important distinction to be made between raw and crude academic testing and sound, valid academic testing at the age of 11 that involves complex and sophisticated tests based on specific aptitudes. The latter gives parents a choice about the kind of school their children may attend, including, perhaps, sports or art-oriented schools. That philosophy is increasingly predominant in English education and should be naturally predominant in Northern Ireland too, even though it would have different origins.
  Many Opposition Members nodded their agreement with the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). If we strip grammar schools out of the system and do not replace them with anything, people will simply opt for the private sector. Nationally, about 7 per cent. of kids are in private schools, but in Edinburgh the figure is about 20 per cent., which shows what happens when a fairly affluent group of people in a well-off city comes up against a non-differentiated system that does not provide choice. Grammar schools, or what they should evolve into, provide that choice.
  I am pushed for time, so I shall cut my comments short. Opposition Members, including those who are diametrically opposite, bemoaned the potential loss of academic excellence if grammar schools disappear. That argument misses the point that grammar schools in England are evolving in a diverse ecology and have maintained academic excellence alongside schools that have managed to develop new specialisms. That is the dominant philosophy in education in England, and ought to be in Ireland too.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome our debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland, and am glad of the opportunity to take part in it. I shall keep my remarks brief and deal with several general matters.
  First, I join the Minister who, in her opening remarks, mentioned recent events in my constituency at the Holy Cross girls primary school, Wheatfield primary school and Currie primary school. Members will be aware that, whatever our arguments on the future of our education system, the first priority is the safety and well-being of all our children, as well as staff and parents going to school. It is right that the House should put on record its outrage at events not just at Holy Cross, but also at Wheatfield school and Currie school, as well other schools across north Belfast that have suffered terribly in recent years. Some schools rightly feel that their plight has been overlooked in favour of others that have received more media attention. I therefore welcome the Minister's remarks. I wish that Sinn Fein, in its comments on those events, would declare its responsibility, rather than trying to avoid it and placing the blame for the attacks, particularly at Currie and Wheatfield, on the loyalist community, as that is deeply resented.
  594
  The main thrust of my remarks concerns academic selection and Martin McGuiness's last-minute, last-gasp decision, which reminded me of the last-gasp decisions made by the outgoing President Clinton, when he rushed to pardon a host of dubious characters. There was a last-minute rush by the outgoing Education Minister to push through his decision to abolish the 11-plus at the very last moment, in breach of his commitment to Assembly Members that no such decision would be taken without its first coming back to the Assembly for consideration and decision. Those who argue that pursuing that course and simply adopting the former Minister's decision is simply advancing what was already agreed by the last devolved Administration are wrong. In fact, no such decision was made by that Administration—a decision was made by one Minister, which points to a flaw in the devolved system.
  Speaking as an ex-Minister in the devolved Administration, I have some experience of this, and sometimes I have to say that it has worked to my advantage. The reality is, however, that Ministers are unaccountable and, in this case, the Minister of State has adopted a decision that did not have the backing of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The decision was in breach of the undertaking given by Martin McGuinness to the Assembly.
  I have to agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She attended a very good school, the Belfast royal academy, which I had the pleasure of visiting the other day and meeting the headmaster. He would be delighted with the comments that a pupil of that school has made today in the House, because he would entirely agree with what she said about academic selection.
  There is no reason for the Minister to have adopted this decision, and no reason for there to be a rush to abolish the 11-plus, particularly when we recall that no decision has been taken on its replacement. The sensible thing to do would be to take our time, look at what should replace the 11-plus— —if it is to be abolished—and then make the decision, so that parents, staff, pupils and everybody else in the education system would know exactly where they were. It would have been easy simply to say, "Look, this last-minute decision by the former Education Minister is not going to stand. We are going to maintain the status quo." There would then have been no upset whatsoever. The decision by the Minister in this House has plunged the education system into chaos because people are uncertain about what is happening.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dodds: I would love to give way, but my time is very limited.
  The decision should have been taken to maintain the status quo. I am reminded of the rush to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Without knowing what the final outcome of the House of Lords reform will be, the Government have proceeded with the first stage. In Northern Ireland, they have rushed to abolish the 11-plus with no idea at all—or certainly not one that they have shared with the people of Northern Ireland—of what its replacement is to be. I have often

  595
  heard it said, particularly by Ministers, that we cannot advance the argument for the abolition or replacement of something without having a viable alternative. Northern Ireland politicians are lectured all the time on the need to put forward an alternative. In this case the Government are saying, "Let's abolish the 11-plus system, but don't ask us what the alternative is. We will come up with that as we go along." That is not a satisfactory, logical or sensible way to proceed.
  The Government have not adopted this approach in relation to other matters emanating from the devolved Administration. For example, I had some responsibility for Housing Executive rent increases—a settled policy—but the new direct rule Minister has decided to increase Housing Executive rents by inflation plus 1 per cent., in breach of the previous settled policy of the devolved Administration that they should increase only by the rate of inflation each year. The idea that the Government are simply following on from the previous decision of the devolved Administration needs to be focused on. It is wrong to argue that that is happening. The Assembly did not have the opportunity to debate this matter following the decision announced by Martin McGuinness, and the Minister should reflect carefully on the comments of Northern Ireland Members today. He should recognise what they have been saying: you don't fix something that ain't broke. Northern Ireland has the finest education system anywhere in the United Kingdom, and that should be preserved and enhanced, not destroyed.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: May I begin by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this debate? I am quite satisfied that our party took the right decision in bringing this matter before the House; this debate vindicates that decision completely. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) at the outset of his speech, when he referred to the recent outrages at Holy Cross, Wheatfield and Currie schools, coming as they do after the disturbances that we have had over the last year in the cockpit of north Belfast, which has seen some of the worst violence of the last 30 years. Riven as it is by sectarian divisions, it is also the area of Belfast that has been most affected by the disappearance of the engineering industry that had given the area much of its culture, and the consequent disappearance of what had been the normal career path for most people who lived there. This has contributed to the violence and to the recent disturbances. Improving the quality of the schools in north and west Belfast is crucial to improving matters generally. Work in the schools that we have mentioned is therefore important.
  There is a sense of déjà vu about the debate. We have held many discussions in Northern Ireland about the Burns report and the shape of post-primary education over the years. It is understandable that Labour Members spoke in the context of their experience and the arguments in which they had been involved in England in the past 20 to 40 years. They may not appreciate that there are differences in Northern Ireland, and that it is wrong simply to compare the position in Northern Ireland with that in England. That struck me especially when I listened to the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). In
  596
  socio-economic terms, society is much more egalitarian in Northern Ireland than in England. We have political divisions and quite acute religious and sectarian divisions, but our society is much more socio-economically egalitarian.
  The greater equality is due to the current education system. Some hon. Members supported comprehensive education in England 30 or 40 years ago because they perceived it as a method of curing social divisions and a means of social engineering. It would produce the opposite result in Northern Ireland, where the more egalitarian society that they want already exists. The introduction of comprehensive schools would drive existing schools out of the state system. They would go private in ways that would reinforce and worsen the sectarian divisions. We must bear that in mind. Following the so-called comprehensive route and imitating events in England of 40 years ago would be a social disaster in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred to the economic consequences, which would be equally significant.
  The hon. Member for Bury, North and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) constantly referred to selection at 11. We are not considering that. A large part of Northern Ireland, especially my constituency, where the Dickson plan operates, uses a much more mixed approach. The age of 14 is as important—if not more so—as others. The Dickson plan works well, especially for those in the academic stream. Until recently, it did not work so well for those in the non-academic sector. That is one of the great weaknesses of the education system in Northern Ireland.
  The Ulster Unionist party has repeatedly introduced proposals to try to enhance secondary and technical education. We appreciate that that is the challenge, and that we need to level up, not down. We must retain the excellence, but tackle the weaknesses. One method is to examine parity of funding and status with a view to attracting finance. The differences in the financial structures of grammar and secondary schools should be considered and changed. That is a matter not simply of funding but of schools' ability to deal with their position. We want such matters to be examined. Parity of esteem is not an idle phrase.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, North—I must tackle that bad habit—in his criticism of the Minister's approach. It is essential to understand that the decision of the former Minister of Education in the last few minutes of devolution would not have been made without the prospect of suspension. The Northern Ireland Executive would never have made such a decision and the Assembly would not have approved it. The Minister of Education knew that his proposals on the Burns report were not going anywhere as far as the Assembly and Executive were concerned. That is the reason for the delay. If I had more time, I would explain the structures that we adopted for decision making in the Executive. They would have ensured that the decision could not be effected. Suspension led to the decision. In our motion, we use the term "administrative vandalism", and those words were deliberately chosen.

  597
  The Minister should not regard the decision as democratically legitimate, because it is not.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Trimble: I am sorry—I would like to pursue this matter further, but we are short of time and I must give the Minister the opportunity to reply. Because this important decision is not democratically legitimate—indeed, I wonder even about its legality—and because it was taken without something else being put in its place, I very much doubt whether it would have survived a judicial review.
  Before I leave the points made by the Minister, I want to refer to a matter that I touched on in replying to the hon. Member for Bury, North. One thing that we did in respect of student finance of which I am particularly proud was to introduce grants for further education. I was greatly disappointed to hear from the Minister that, so far, only 400 of them have been taken up. That is partly because of a certain reluctance within the education system to market them and to bring them to people's attention. We took a very deliberate decision to treat people in further education in the same way as those in higher education. We appreciate the importance of the skills developed in further education both in social terms, and to those who are pursuing that particular course in life. We cannot improve that sector and parity of esteem in the way we would like unless similar support is provided.
  I do not want to spend too much time on the selection issue, which has been dealt with comprehensively. I agree with the Minister's observations on the comments made in yesterday's press by the northern secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation. He has adopted a must unhelpful approach, and I was amused to learn that, in making those comments, he began by attacking political opportunism, only to proceed to engage in a bit of such opportunism himself. He should keep out of politics and leave the political decisions to those with a mandate, rather than attempting through the threat of union action to determine the decisions that Governments take. To do so is wholly wrong, and we do not want that bad form of trade unionism to recur.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned the integrated sector, and as he knew before today, I intended to raise that issue myself. It is perhaps not always appreciated here in England that integrated education is in fact a great lost opportunity in Northern Ireland. That lost opportunity occurred not 40 years ago but 80 years ago, when the first Unionist Government proposed the introduction of a single compulsory integrated education system in Northern Ireland. It was Lord Craigavon who tried to introduce that system, in 1924, but unfortunately he was unable to do so because of the combined opposition of all the Churches. Had he been successful, the history of the past 80 years would have been quite different.
  Integrated education is not a new idea, therefore, and I was a bit disappointed that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred purely to the integrated
  598
  education movement. I know that it includes a lot of well-meaning people, but they comprise just one particular movement, and there is more to integrated education than them. Some of the difficulties that people have with the integrated education movement concern issues such as accountability and creating yet another education sector. We already have too many such sectors: in addition to the controlled and maintained and the Irish medium sectors, we would then have the integrated sector. We need to look at these administrative structures more closely, and to encourage more of the integration that happens naturally. Many of the schools that are not in the integrated education movement are in fact integrated. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will know from personal experience that major grammar schools in Northern Ireland that are thought of as Protestant schools have significant Catholic enrolment, and would qualify as integrated. I do not want to speak only about grammar schools in Belfast. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the Catholic St. Columbanus secondary school at Ballyholme near Bangor has a Protestant enrolment of nearly 50 per cent. The school's ethos and quality mean that people go there as a matter of choice. There exists a significant integrated sector that is not recognised in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. We need to be more comprehensive in regard to such matters.
  I was disappointed that no member of the Social Democratic and Labour party contributed to the debate. I recognise that that means that the party does not have to say something on the question of education. There may be reasons for that, and I hope that the House will forgive me for indulging myself by saying that someone once remarked that the distinction between the SDLP and Sinn Fein was that SDLP was composed of people who passed the 11-plus.
  It is puzzling that the SDLP should have adopted a somewhat hostile approach to academic selection, given that opinion poll evidence shows that it is the most middle-class party in Northern Ireland, in terms of electoral support. Its members may find it difficult to come here and adopt a position that is contrary to the interests of most of the party's voters. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that there is a substantial number of Catholic grammar schools. I do not want to do a head count, but they may outnumber the grammar schools that are considered Protestant. Those schools have a view, as do the people who represent them.
  The proposition is simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Certain sectors in education in Northern Ireland need to be improved, especially on the secondary side. Also, certain geographical areas have massive social problems that need to be addressed. Education is an important component, but not the only one. We need to look at a variety of social issues.
  I was pleased that the north Belfast community project began to look at those matters, and it is a great disappointment that we have been interrupted in our follow-through to that project. It was an example of an approach—integrated in a different sense—that needs

  599
  to be adopted in respect of areas where huge social problems are tied to lack of attainment in schools. The problem is one for society and not just for schools, and that is where our focus must be.
  The Government are responsible for education in Northern Ireland. They could do a tremendous amount of damage, or they could help reinforce some of the good things that we were trying to do. I hope that they choose wisely.
  3.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) for initiating this afternoon's useful and interesting debate on education in Northern Ireland. I am grateful too for the lively and informed contributions from hon. Members, and I am pleased to use the short time available to reply to the debate.
  As today's Opposition day debate was chosen by the Ulster Unionists, I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the speeches made by members of the Conservative, Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist parties. However, I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions: it is clear that they have longstanding expertise in education, and specific local knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  The quality and passion of our discussions underline the importance that we all attach to the education of our young people. They illustrate why education is a key priority of this Government.
  The education system in Northern Ireland has many strengths, and these have been referred to today. We have a highly qualified and professional teaching force, governors who make a substantial voluntary commitment to the management of our education institutions, strong schools and further education institutes, and a wide range of higher education provision in our universities, which have a world-class reputation in a number of areas.
  Many young people in Northern Ireland schools and further education institutes achieve top-grade qualifications and high proportions go on to higher education. We must continue to build on these strengths, and the investment being made in education by this Government is clear evidence of our determination to do so.
  We have heard much today about the challenges facing education in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim—who made a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech—about the importance of education to Northern Ireland's economy, and the need to proceed carefully with the post-primary review. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister of State will do. The hon. Gentleman also made important points about parity of esteem via the vocational route, and made comments about Springvale and the common funding formula which were addressed by my hon. Friend.
  600
  I have not much time, but I want to say something about the university funding system, which was mentioned by a number of Members. We entirely accept that many people cross the water to attend university here although they would much prefer to be educated in Northern Ireland, and we are dealing with that.
  As the hon. Member for East Antrim knows, when—as the Minister responsible for finance in Northern Ireland—I saw the draft budget and observed that there was no money to fund education, research and the research assessment exercise, I was surprised, to say the least. I was pleased to be able to provide the necessary money—£10 million a year for the next three years—and also to announce, as part of the reinvestment and reform initiative, £25 million for capital projects that will ensure that Northern Ireland's universities have a world-class structure to accompany their expertise.
  The gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and indeed the debate in general, concerned the former Education Minister's decision to announce the abolition of transfer tests. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that neither the Executive nor the Assembly would have made that decision, and I take his word for it. I also understand why the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) urged caution. I must tell them that we did not want devolution to be suspended, but it happened, and I do not think it would have been appropriate for an incoming home rule—[Interruption]—direct rule Minister's first action to be the announcement of the reversal of a decision made by the former Education Minister.
  This is of course an important issue that needs to be addressed, and is indeed being carefully considered, but I must tell Opposition Members that consultation on the Burns proposals showed clear support for abolition of the transfer tests. I must add, notwithstanding the comments. of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), that the household form responses showed a clear preference for maintaining academic selection.
  We need to discuss the way forward with the political parties. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already had a round of meetings with education sector interests, parent representatives and the political parties, and is continuing to engage in such meetings. We hope to be able to make an announcement about the next stage of the review shortly. Again, we would all prefer local politicians to drive this forward rather than a direct rule Minister taking the decision. However, I reiterate that no decisions have yet been taken about the new post-primary education arrangements—they will be taken in the future.
  In the short time available to me, I should like to talk about the other major issue raised—
  Mr. Beggs rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 377.

  Division No. 49]

  [4:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bacon, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baldry, Tony

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Barker, Gregory

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Bercow, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, rh David

  Burns, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burnside, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Maples, John

  Cameron, David

  Mates, Michael

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Norman, Archie

  Collins, Tim

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Conway, Derek

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Paice, James

  Curry, rh David

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Randall, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Flook, Adrian

  Selous, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Francois, Mark

  Shepherd. Richard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Grayling, Chris

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John

  Spring, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Hague, rh William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hermon, Lady

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend, Michael

  602

  Trimble, rh David

  Willetts, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Wilshire, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, rh Sir George

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Mark Hoban

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clelland, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barrett, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blunkett, rh David

  David, Wayne

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Breed, Colin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doughty, Sue

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burgon, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, rh Derek

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  603

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Galloway, George

  Kidney, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gardiner, Barry

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lamb, Norman

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lammy, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lepper, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Grogan, John

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Hanson, David

  Linton, Martin

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Healey, John

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Heath, David

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hendrick, Mark

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heppell, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hesford, Stephen

  MacDougall, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McFall, John

  Heyes, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hinchliffe, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Holmes, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  McWilliam, John

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hutton, rh John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jamieson, David

  Michael, rh Alun

  Jenkins, Brian

  Miliband, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mole, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Moore, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Mudie, George

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Keetch, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  604

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Picking, Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thurso, John

  Purnell, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rendel, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Willis, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wills, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Singh, Marsha

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spellar, rh John

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Squire, Rachel

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates governors, principals, teachers and other school staff on the contribution they make to educating young people in Northern Ireland; welcomes the high qualifications achieved by many pupils but acknowledges that there are also large numbers of young people, particularly from

  605
  disadvantaged backgrounds, leaving school with low qualifications; urges the Secretary of State to continue to take forward the review of post-primary education with the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will maintain those high standards of achievement and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential; and further welcomes the additional higher education places and the Secretary of State's decision to increase Government funding for research and knowledge transfer at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster.

2012 Olympics Bid
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): This debate is indeed well timed, and I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to set out the arguments for and, indeed, against London bidding for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics and to hear the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House and with constituencies across the country.
The debate is well timed because the Government have undertaken to take a decision on whether to support a London bid by the end of this month. Only the British Olympic Association can make a bid on behalf of a British city to the International Olympic Committee. The association must indicate its intentions to the IOC by July this year at the latest, and it can bid only if it can show that all costs will be underwritten and that it has full Government support.
To give the association sufficient time to prepare for July, we feel that a Government decision by the end of January is necessary. Just mounting a bid is a two-and-a-half year marathon. By January next year, applicant cities must reply to the IOC's questionnaire. That reply is then examined by the IOC, and it will announce its shortlist in June 2004.
The final assessment will be completed by May 2005, after visits by the IOC evaluation commission. The final vote will take place in July 2005. To have any chance of success, a British bid would have to be wholeheartedly supported by the Government. If the Government decide to back the bid, we will back it to the hilt, and we will expect similar commitment from the other stakeholders.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for convening sessions of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport today and tomorrow to take evidence and hear views on the prospects for a London Olympics. Today's debate and the Select Committee hearings will help to inform the deliberations of the committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that will consider the Government's position on the Olympics, for this decision has to be taken by the whole Government, not by one Department.
We must take the decision with our eyes very clearly open and it must be tested against four clear criteria, the first of which is affordability. Can London and, indeed, the nation afford the investment needed? The second criterion is deliverability. Can the necessary infrastructure be defined, designed and built in time and to standard? The third criterion is the legacy. Will the games infrastructure leave behind a sporting legacy and a regeneration legacy that are worth the very considerable cost? The last criterion is winnability: however good and however credible a London bid can be, the question is whether it has a good enough chance of winning and is worth the expenditure of the many millions of pounds which mounting a bid would cost.
Any decision to bid must therefore be based on a thorough analysis of all the costs and all the benefits. I must therefore take into account all the risks, which is

607
why I have set in train a full assessment of the costs and benefits: an analysis of the fit between potential Olympic development and the wider regeneration proposals for east London; an examination of transport options; consideration of legacy issues; and discussions with the private sector about the level of its contribution. I have also commissioned an assessment of winnability, and tomorrow I will publish some survey research on public opinion in relation to an Olympic bid.
Mr. George Osborne: Why is it assumed that the only successful bid that could be mounted would be by London? A very successful Commonwealth games was organised in Manchester. People in the north-west feel that they have been betrayed, given that, after organising such a successful games, there is no prospect of an Olympic bid by Manchester being organised and supported.
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman's point will be received with some sympathy across the Chamber. The British Olympic Association, however, has made it clear—in discussion, I presume, with the International Olympic Committee—that London is the only credible UK city for a bid. As he will know, both Manchester and Birmingham have bid unsuccessfully in the past 15 years.
Mr. Doug Henderson: As someone who had grave reservations about the development of Wembley as an international football stadium when better opportunities existed around the country, I take a completely different view of the Olympic games. I do not believe that any other part of Britain can bid successfully for the Olympic games, which would bring great benefit to our young people and to sport in general. Those of us who represent northern constituencies recognise that if Britain is to make a bid, London must be the city.
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. In assessing whether to bid, we have drawn on the lessons to be learned from the management of big projects in the past in which the Government have been involved, such as Wembley stadium, which have led the Government to commit more money than was originally intended.
Mr. David Watts: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the impact that a successful bid would have on other regions? Would they lose resources that would have gone to them if the bid were not made?
Tessa Jowell: That is an important question. Clearly, any bid, if one is to be made, will be made for a London Olympics. As the Sydney Olympics showed, however, investment in training facilities prior to the Olympics can lead to new facilities in different parts of the country. Part of our assessment of the economic benefits of the Olympics would be to ask precisely my hon. Friend's question: how dispersed are the benefits, and will the rest of the country benefit?
Mr. Mark Field: The right hon. Lady says that one of her four main tests
608
is winnability, and that she has already commissioned research in that regard. Will she tell the House precisely how that research is taking place, and whom she has asked to determine that vital criterion?
Tessa Jowell: In relation to assessments of winnability, we have sought advice from the British Olympic Association and UK Sport, from which we have commissioned a report. My departmental officials have also made an assessment, and this Friday I will meet Jacques Rogge, the President of the International Olympic Committee, in Lausanne, to discuss the matter further. I will say more about that as I develop my argument to the House. The first three criteria of affordability, deliverability and legacy are more measurable than winnability, which is more of an art than a science. However, we have to make an important judgment before we commit a substantial sum to making a bid. We also have to assess whether the expenditure of time and effort across the Government and beyond will be worth it.
Mr. Mark Field: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make progress.
Dr. Rudi Vis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Tessa Jowell: I hope that my hon. Friend forgives me, but I will not. I want to make some progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.
Let me be the first to say that a powerful sporting case has been made for bringing the games to London. A successful bid would bring sport to the centre of our national life for a decade between now and 2012. It would motivate and inspire the young athletes who are beginning to enjoy the new facilities, opportunities and additional coaching provided by the lottery and directly by Government investment. It would also intensify the focus on elite sport, so that our athletes have the best possible chance of winning in front of our home crowds. The evidence of previous Olympics makes it clear that countries win more medals when they host the games.
The world of sport understandably relishes the prospect of a London games. Its only concern is that the expenditure needed to stage an impressive event and to prepare the UK athletes should not be at the expense of existing expenditure on sport. It understands that investment in sport at the grassroots—in talent identification and development, and in facilities and coaching to bring sporting opportunities to every community and school in the UK—should not suffer if we bid for the games. However, it is not unreasonable of others to suggest that if the Olympics games are of such high importance to the world of sport, it should be willing to reorder its spending priorities accordingly. The impact of any potential diversion of resources from within sport is one factor that we will weigh carefully before taking the final decision.
Mr. John Greenway: Given that it will be 2005 before a decision is made and that the spending programme of the Government and the new

609
opportunities fund only run until then, does the right hon. Lady agree that there are still a further six or seven years in which to make the investments required?
Tessa Jowell: To some extent the hon. Gentleman is right, but he should remember that if we decide to bid for the games and win, every pound spent on developing Olympic facilities in London is a pound that will not be spent on schools, hospitals or grassroots sporting facilities in other parts of the country. We are confronting a tough set of choices and I welcome the debate as way of informing those choices.
Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State rightly referred to the opinion in the sporting world that holding the Olympic games in London would be hugely motivational, but she also implied that the money might have to come from other parts of sport if we decide to bid for them. Does she really believe that to be the case? Surely if we want to bid for the Olympics and the Government support that, the money has to be over and above anything that is already going to sport.
Tessa Jowell: Money for an Olympic bid and for building the Olympic facilities would come from the same pool as money to fund the Government's other priorities. It would have to compete with schools, hospitals, the development of grassroots sporting facilities and the renewal of our transport infrastructure. That is a fact and it is why the decision requires us to face tough choices.
Every host city has found that the games come at a price. Past experience informs us that early estimates for the cost of major events or for other capital projects tend to escalate before their completion. The costs of the Manchester Commonwealth games, one of the great sporting festivals of the summer, more than doubled from Manchester city council's first bid, and the games had to be rescued by the Government and the national lottery before becoming the success that they were. The costs of the new Wembley stadium were originally forecast at £250 million, whereas the project that was finally agreed is budgeted at £760 million. Escalation of costs is not unique to Britain. Sydney found it necessary to spend double its original estimate, and Athens could be heading the same way.
Mr. Clive Betts: As a northern MP, I am very supportive of the proposed bid for London. However, as costs rose so much for the events that my right hon. Friend just mentioned, we have to be sure from the beginning that we are not underestimating the likely costs of London's bid; otherwise we will hear damaging stories about costs escalating out of control, which will detract from the good news about the event. Hopefully we will win the bid.
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He almost makes my point for me. I am determined to ensure that, as the funder of last resort, the Government are absolutely clear about the extent of any possible liability before we make a commitment.
Mr. Chris Smith: My right hon. Friend will know that many of us in London
610
are greatly excited by the potential hosting of the Olympic games in London. That could do wonders for the regeneration of the city as well as for sport and Britain's standing in the world. She will know also, however, that the bid depends crucially on investment not only in sporting facilities and the running of the games but in London's infrastructure. Will she take the message from the House to the Chancellor that without Government investment in London's infrastructure, particularly in transport and housing, the games cannot be the success that they should be?
Tessa Jowell: I am sure that the Chancellor will have heard my right hon. Friend's intervention.
To ensure the extent of any Government liability, we have developed the work undertaken by Arup, which concluded that the total cost of hosting the 2012 Olympics would be £3.6 billion, requiring a net public subsidy of £1.1 billion. In our view there is a significant risk of the total cost rising to £4.5 billion, with a net public subsidy requirement of £2.5 billion. The scale of work needed, the impact on the regeneration of east London and the total costs involved mean that sport alone cannot fund the Olympics, nor can sport alone justify the total expenditure. Those wider considerations must be weighed before a decision can be made.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Tessa Jowell: I shall make some progress.
Any public subsidy of the games must, by definition, come from other areas of public spending. It is the job of Government to balance what are inevitably competing claims, and I hope that one of the outcomes of the debate that we seek to have will be greater public understanding of the extent of those choices. If the Olympics would carry forward the regeneration of east London, if they would contribute substantially to the UK economy and if they could be financed without distorting other spending priorities, they could be affordable. However, if they would do none of those things, but rather inhibit regeneration and fail to leave a valuable legacy, the argument is clearly considerably weaker.
Many, if not all, Olympic host cities have justified their expenditure by those wider considerations. Hon. Members will know that the Minister for Sport and I have, over the past few months, visited a number of past and prospective Olympic cities in order to understand those points at first hand. For the 1992 Olympics, Barcelona wanted to rebuild and even reinvent itself—to turn it round to face the sea, as one resident put it to me when I visited. It wanted to emerge as a new, modern city and as the capital of a vibrant region, to increase hugely its capacity as a tourist destination. It spent accordingly, perhaps £8 billion in today's terms. Beijing clearly wants to use the Olympics to promote the city and to turn it round to face the rest of the world. Athens, too, is using the impetus of the games to rebuild and rebrand its city.
In this context, it is important to recognise what our Olympic expenditure would cover. It would cover the cost of making the bid; land reclamation and the development of sport sites and the village in the east end;

611
transport enhancements for the period of the games; preparation for our elite athletes; a world-class Olympic fortnight; and the Paralympic games. The level of funding would not provide for wider Thames gateway redevelopment. Those who look admiringly at Barcelona and Athens, with their dramatic changes to their cities, and assume that the London gain would be similar, need to know that public works on that scale would increase the costs still further and would not make a London bid any more winnable.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Tessa Jowell: No. I shall make some progress.
The third test is legacy. The best estimate to date is that the lasting legacy of the Olympic buildings and associated infrastructure could be otherwise provided for about £300 million. That would include the stadium, a 50 m swimming pool, some improved sports halls and other facilities in east London, around 160,000 sq m of employment floor space and about 400 permanent jobs, 4,000 new homes, and expanded rail capacity at Stratford station.
The subsequent use of the stadium is important. More recent Olympic and world event stadiums have been economically unsuccessful unless a viable anchor tenant has been found. That is true of Stadium Australia and also of the Stade de France. Arup's preferred solution is for the £280 million, 80,000-seater Olympic stadium that London would need to be reduced after the games to 20,000 capacity and to be used for athletics. However, even at that capacity, the stadium would make a loss and would require continuing subsidy. An alternative considered by Arup was to follow the Manchester example and find a football club to take over the venue. That would leave the stadium with a 60,000 capacity, but Arup felt that residential and commercial neighbours might be wary of being close to football grounds, and that that would be reflected in the development prospects.
There are other legacies to consider. The Olympics could bring a substantial boost to London's tourism. The benefit is estimated at £400 million to £600 million over four years.
Mr. Gareth Thomas rose—
Tessa Jowell: It is true that London is already the most popular destination in the UK, and steps would have to be taken to encourage visitors to venture beyond the capital so that the rest of the country would benefit from the Olympic impact. There could be a legacy of people enthused to take up sport because of the excitement generated by the event, but experience shows that that immediate effect is short lived, when high standard facilities and coaching are available. Even in Australia, which in 2002 had one of the most successful Olympic games ever, participation levels have fallen away, and its couch-potato population is estimated to be equal to ours. To capitalise on the Olympics in that way would require further expenditure if people are to be engaged in sport in the longer term.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Bob Russell rose—
Tessa Jowell: No, I shall make progress.
612
A further consideration is the impact that the games decision could have on the wider Thames gateway, giving confidence to investors that it is an attractive place to invest. The games could revitalise the image of London in the eyes of the world, confirming its position as a leading world city. There is the potential for improving the image of the UK around the world, something done to great effect for their countries by Sydney and Barcelona. There is the undoubted value of the games in terms of national pride. We had a foretaste of that in the Manchester games this summer, which showed that we really are a can-do nation.
Deliverability is the third of our criteria and perhaps the one in which I have greatest confidence. There is absolutely no doubt that Britain can stage a great Olympics in 2012. The Queen's jubilee and the Manchester Commonwealth games show how we can organise and deliver vibrant and exciting events, bringing together hundreds and thousands of people to celebrate. Some of our detractors will point to Picketts Lock and say that we cannot be trusted to deliver, but Manchester, the jubilee and the 1996 European football championships all show otherwise, as do the outstanding regular events that this country hosts in football, cricket, rugby, golf, tennis, rowing, sailing and many more sports.
Of course, the Olympics are on a different scale and level of complexity, but given the time available and provided that the games are fully funded and that we are confident about the costs, we can be confident about delivering an impressive event with which London's infrastructure is well able to cope. Our current assessment is that transport would not be an obstacle to a successful bid. The Government are currently considering what measures would be necessary. We would also ensure that the necessary planning and development powers are in place—an important lesson from other Olympic cities—and that the Mayor of London and relevant local authorities have all indicated their support for a bid. We would look to the mayor and the London development agency for a substantial commitment of their resources, to reflect the fact that London would inevitably be the main beneficiary of the games.
I am very grateful for all the work undertaken across government in assessing the practicality and deliverability of the games, and I should like to thank my colleagues for their wholehearted co-operation. As a result of all that work, I can say that a high-quality games is well within our reach to deliver.
I turn finally to winnability, which, as I have indicated, is not an exact science. The ballot is secret and the delegates are drawn from more than 80 different countries, each with different traditions and attitudes. We know that the competition will be intense.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Tessa Jowell: I am going to draw my remarks to a close.
It is obviously in the interests of the IOC to have as many high-quality bids as possible. Nevertheless, I welcome the encouraging remarks made by Jacques Rogge, its president, and look forward to meeting him

613
in Lausanne on Friday. However, as he says, any London bid will face very stiff opposition. We can expect New York, Paris, Moscow, Toronto, a Spanish city, a German city, possibly a city in South America and others to throw their hats into the ring. Paris and Toronto have both made recent bids. Athens and Beijing both failed with bids before they subsequently won. No matter how good the London bid is technically, we must acknowledge that winning will be difficult. Our bid will have to be highly convincing. It will have to be well organised and professionally run, it will need dedication and hard work and it will cost a substantial amount.
The final decision by the IOC will take place in July 2005. In the intervening years, we will have to show that our proposals are sound, fully funded, protected against risk and capable of being delivered on time. We would be up against cities that, in some cases, will have much more of the necessary infrastructure in place. We are also advised that we would have to demonstrate our commitment by beginning key elements of the work well in advance of the 2005 vote. We would have to begin land assembly, as well as construction of at least one key venue and probably a 50 m pool for the aquatic centre. In all, we would expect to have to incur costs of more than £200 million even before the vote took place.
London is a great city, however. It is truly a world city, the match of any likely competition. None of the competitor cities has a unique winning proposition. Although winnability is a tough test, London remains a force to be reckoned with.
In conclusion, affordability, deliverability, legacy and winnability are the key tests. We know that people love the Olympics and that they are stirred by the prospect of people coming to Britain. Our poll of public opinion, the details of which will be released to the Select Committee tomorrow, suggests that 75 per cent. of people in this country are in favour of the games coming to London, and by and large believe that expenditure on health, education and transport are all more important.
Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Tessa Jowell: We know that it would be wrong to waste money on an expensive hid if we had little chance of winning. We know that a commitment to the Olympics must boost regeneration to the east of London and must not hold it back. We know that a commitment to the Olympics must fit with a broader strategy for sport and not be at the expense of the rest of sport. And we know that a commitment to a London Olympics must not starve the rest of the country of the resources that it needs to develop sport or divert much needed resources from other key priorities.
This is an important decision, and the arguments are finely balanced, which is why before reaching a conclusion the Government are examining with such rigour and such care the extent of the liability that would fall on them. The Government are genuinely open minded, and I look forward to the opportunity to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House.
4.46 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I begin by reminding the House of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Tony Banks: What has that got to do with this?
Mr. Greenway: I am not sure that it has anything to do with this, but it is important to remind hon. Members that we have a wider experience than just politics.
This debate is very welcome and also very timely. It really is "make your mind up time". I note that the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government intend to reach a decision by the end of January. We want that decision to be "Yes". There is no time left for any further prevarication.
My hon. Friend the Shadow Culture Secretary, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), is currently in Standing Committee on the Communications Bill, and so is unable to be here for this important debate.
Mr. Banks: This is the hon. Gentleman's big chance.
Mr. Greenway: I have had other big chances before. I like to think that they have at least maintained my position. I have been doing this job for almost three years, and that speaks for itself. With no disrespect for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) or the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I am still in my job.
On 6 August, the day after the conclusion of the Commonwealth games, I issued a press release which included the following statement:
"A well-organised, viable British bid for the 2012 Olympics will naturally enjoy the support of the Conservative Party."
We had twice supported an Olympics bid for Manchester and then the Commonwealth games bid, which was a huge success. I will not go into party political semantics as to who was responsible for that success; I make the point simply to say that our support for this bid is not opportunistic. It is part of a pattern of support which we showed when in office.
Since August my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it abundantly clear that the Conservative party supports a London bid for the 2012 Olympics. I hope that this debate will equally convince the Government that the prize of a successful bid to stage the 2012 Olympics is so great that they should throw the full weight of the Government behind the bid and work with the British Olympic Association to secure the games for London.
The public have every reason to expect support. I found in my cupboard a copy of Labour's Sporting Nation, the Labour sports policy document published early in 1997, which I think was written by Lord Pendry, for whom I have the greatest respect. It is not what he said that I wish to quote; it is what the Prime Minister said:
"if we are to make the most of the wealth of talent we have in this Country, we must be ambitious as we strive to put Britain back on the sporting map. That is why a Labour Government will provide full support for British bids to host international sporting events."

615
That is my first quote—I shall use more later.
The Arup report concluded that if all levels of government and other agencies are committed to a common proposal, the potential advantages of the 2012 games centred on the lower Lea valley could be developed into a world-beating bid. We see no reason to doubt the wisdom of that conclusion or to challenge the BOA assessment that a UK bid based in any other city would be unlikely to succeed. A London-based bid, however, has an excellent prospect of success if, as seems likely, the International Olympic Committee decides that under rotation the games should return to a European venue in 2012. The Secretary of State is right—it is not an exact science, but that is the current indication.
The Minister for Sport, in an interview in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, said:
"My job as sports Minister is to put the case for sport."
The case for sport is indeed overwhelming and has been well documented in both the summary of the Arup report published by Ministers and the BOA briefing for our debate.
I should like to emphasise four points. A successful bid would secure significant benefits for elite sports, with Team GB greatly increasing its medal haul, as other host nations have traditionally done so; create a lasting legacy of coaching and sports infrastructure, with 100 training venues throughout the UK, including refurbished school gyms, leisure centres and community facilities; create a legacy of encouragement and motivation so that more young people will take part in sport—for me, that is one of the most important reasons to support a bid; and secure the right to host the Paralympics, in which we lead the world—a not insignificant opportunity.
Mr. Hawkins: I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying in my capacity as the deputy chairman of the all-party group on sport and leisure. However, does he agree that in her amazingly downbeat reading of her solemn brief the Secretary of State showed no enthusiasm for this matter and overlooked the clear evidence, starting in Los Angeles, of profitable gains to be made from the games, which The Daily Telegraph has highlighted in its very good campaign for a London bid for 2012. Back in 1984, Peter Uberroth made a profit of £260 million for sport, and $6 billion was generated through long-term advances in the tourism industry. Should we not be talking about that legacy when we look at making a bid?
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and will make three points in response. First, we cannot always repeat the experience of others—we have to make a hard-headed assessment of the position in London. I shall return to that point in a moment. However, my hon. Friend is right that a huge public subsidy is not necessarily needed if the games are organised correctly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Greenway: I want to respond to my hon. Friend and make two further points.
Secondly, The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have, we hope, run a successful campaign and have
616
certainly made the argument for holding the games here. Thirdly, this debate is an occasion on which we ought to try to have as much unity in the House as possible, so I will not overindulge in the opportunities that have presented themselves to me, save to say that at the end of the right hon. Lady's speech, I felt that we had reached half-time with a stalemate nil-nil draw. I hope that we can move on and put some balls in the net.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Greenway: I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) first, then the hon. Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), but that is all.
Mr. Banks: I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that we will bid for the 2012 Olympics, not least because many of the facilities will be in my patch of east London. As he has talked about the Ove Arup report, will he tell the House whether he agrees with its cost estimates? He has rather brushed over that, but I am sure that he will come back to it. My instinct is that the report grossly underestimates the cost of mounting the Olympics.
Mr. Greenway: I intend to come to that in a moment. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), whom I am going to mention in a minute.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am grateful for that advert. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if Arup has underestimated the cost of bidding for and staging the Olympics, it has probably also underestimated the benefits of the games? It admits to using the relatively conservative figure of £610 million for tourism income, when Sydney benefited to the tune of £2 billion, and Barcelona estimates that the net economic impact of its games was £11 billion.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has, as ever, anticipated precisely what is in the text that I have prepared for the House. I will give way to the hon. Member for Leigh.
Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the public subsidy that would be required. It will be significant, as we have heard. We also know that the Conservative Front Bench is committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public spending. In that context, is the hon. Gentleman absolutely clear from which budget he would take the money required to stage the Olympic games?
Mr. Greenway: I shall address that issue as well. The Conservative party is committed to ensuring a viable and strong economy, and the Olympic games would provide a huge opportunity for wealth creation and job creation, and for more revenue, not less, for the Exchequer.
I want to finish my assessment of sport, then I must make some progress. New facilities need only be permanent when that is essential, and when a long-term future has been identified. We accept, as the Secretary of State said, that the future use of a new main stadium to host the games remains to be settled. It is important that

617
we face up to that. We do not, however, believe that that is an intractable problem, as the initial 80,000 capacity could be reduced, depending on its future use. The Secretary of State mentioned two such possible uses.
Sport will not be the only winner at a successful Olympics. This debate gives us the opportunity to highlight the significant wider benefits of staging the Olympics in London. The benefits from social change alone that a successful Olympic bid would secure would include a more fit and healthy generation, less crime and vandalism, and the regeneration of a wide area of deprivation in east London—the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham. Those gains would, in themselves, justify hosting the Olympics here in Britain.
I also suggest that all the interests for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible would benefit from a successful Olympics bid; not just sport, but tourism, culture, art, heritage, the media and broadcasting. All would be major beneficiaries of a UK-based Olympics in London. The English Tourism Council has said in a letter to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that
"the 2012 Olympic Games in London represents a major 'once in a generation' opportunity for UK tourism. It will strengthen London's claim to be one of the top five cities"—
in the world—
"and promote huge opportunities for tourism in the rest of Britain, both during the Games and for many years afterwards."
The ETC goes on to give examples of how tourism in the north-west of England benefited from the Commonwealth games, bringing in some 300,000 additional visitors and more than 6,000 new jobs. I well remember visiting the British Tourist Authority office in Dublin when it launched its campaign for more people to come to the north-west from Ireland, both in association with the Commonwealth games and more generally.
The Arup report estimates up to £610 million from additional tourist revenue but points out, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West mentioned in his intervention, that Sydney benefited by some £2 billion from new inbound tourism. I would like to suggest to the House that London is a bigger attraction with a much larger hinterland for potential visitors from the near continent. The inbound tourism sector—a major growth area—includes events, conferences, meetings and incentive travel, and would also be expected to experience a significant increase in associated activities if the Olympic games were held here. The British Tourist Authority estimates that, on current trends, business tourism could account for as much as 45 per cent. of inbound tourism expenditure by 2010. In opposition, the Government agreed with that and the sports-tourism link. The document to which I referred earlier states that international events provide a major boost to the earnings of our tourism and hospitality industries and the Exchequer. I agree with that.
As the Secretary of State knows, the Athens Olympics will revive the cultural Olympiad, and United Kingdom arts organisations will participate in those events. There is a great opportunity for us to do the same in London. The world would spend 16 days being reminded through television of our unique heritage that is unrivalled in so
618
many ways. More than 3 billion viewers watched the Olympic games in Sydney. Our broadcasting media will have the opportunity to demonstrate what we know: they are the best at covering major international events. One has only to compare the coverage of English or British teams overseas with that in Britain to appreciate the difference.
Can we succeed? The British Olympic Association recently said:
"we don't want to bid for the sake of bidding. We want to bid to win".
I understand the Secretary of State's desire to ensure that a bid has a good chance of success—her "win-ability test"—and I agree with her analysis. However, we should not ignore the positive benefits of the bidding process. The bid that Manchester submitted helped to stimulate regeneration in that city and in the north-west and put the area back on the map.
News coverage of the bidding process, especially the visits of leading athletes and sports administrators and the International Olympic Committee, would encourage interest in sport, provide significant media opportunities and help those who promote tourism to the UK, especially to London. Positive promotion of London and Britain during the bidding period would support the process and the chance of winning.
Public support and cross-party unanimity are vital. It is rumoured that more than 75 per cent. of those polled by ICM for UKSport said yes to the games. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister tell us whether that is accurate? When do they expect to publish the results?
It is important to be open and candid about costs and the significant challenges of delivery. The point has been made that it is easy for the press to be on side now but off side when bad news arrives. Let us therefore have the whole truth. We would have liked the Ove Arup report to be published in full, but we understand that parts of it are confidential and could give competing bidders an advantage.
Nevertheless, more of the report could have been published, thus helping to confirm the quality of the study, and the advice and conclusions given to Ministers and other members of the key stakeholders' group. Will the Minister confirm that the Ove Arup study represents the most thorough in-depth analysis in advance of an Olympic bid and that no major city that wanted to stage the Olympics has had the benefit of such a detailed, location-specific analysis?
In an interview in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, the Minister said:
"We should not be events-driven, we should be strategy-driven."
He has made that point previously. However, surely any long-term strategy should be ambitious and aspirational. If we want our athletes and our teams to win more often in international competition, the strategy for sport should include the aim of hosting international events such as the Olympics, World cup and so on. Again, I pray in aid the Labour party's pre-election document—[Interruption.] I believe that it was written by a first-class parliamentarian who is a good friend and now in the other House. The document states:
"A Labour Government will provide full support for British bids to host international sporting events."

619
There it is—it could not be clearer, and one could almost describe it as an election pledge. The public need to ask the Government to think about realising that pledge, notwithstanding the fact that, as I accept, challenging problems do exist.
The Minister for Sport also said:
"we don't want a Wembley or a Picketts Lock".
We certainly agree with him on that, but if we want to learn the lessons of these problems, we must first understand that they occurred under this Government. We also need to decide what we think is more important. It is perhaps tempting to argue that we should not make promises and enter into commitments that we cannot deliver on, and that is certainly one lesson of the bid for the 2005 world athletics championships. [Interruption.] The Minister is agreeing with me, but it was his Government who made that promise.
Arguably, the real lesson is to understand more clearly the role of the Government. They cannot adopt an arm's-length approach, just dipping in and out when it suits them. A successful Olympics would require strong leadership at the highest Government level, and—I say this with no disrespect—probably not even within the right hon. Lady's own Department. Someone must he able to ensure prompt and decisive action across Government Departments, but that did not happen with Wembley, as those of us members of the all-party group on football who took part in the various meetings with the planners of Brent quickly discovered.
The key stakeholders group represents a good start. Ironically, of all its members only the Government have yet to make clear their position, or to voice any real enthusiasm for the bid. We also need to engage a fourth partner: the business community.
On costs, Ministers have challenged some of the conclusions of the Ove Arup report, and they now suggest that the cost of hosting the games could be as much as £5 billion. A different figure seems to be given every time that a statement is made, and we shall have to read tomorrow's Hansard carefully to find out the exact figure that the right hon. Lady quoted. However, the Arup consultants do not accept that their original costings of £1.8 billion were wrong to anything like the extent suggested. Having re-examined all their Costings—they based them on 2002 prices, as the key stakeholder group asked them to do—they believe that the new figure should be no more than £1.9 billion.
On a like-for-like basis, the Arup figures are robust, but if the Treasury were to use inflated prices on costs, and if no account were taken of the increased revenue that the same inflation costings would generate, it would not be surprising if a higher figure came out at the end. The calculations must be made on a like-for-like basis. There is a real suspicion that costs are being loaded just for the sake of it, and the Government seem determined to adopt a "more than worst case" position in their deliberations, over-egging the contingency to take account of other failings such as the millennium dome.
Bob Russell rose—
Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: No, I will not give way. I know that many Members want to speak, and I am getting close to the end of my remarks.
620
If we want to learn a lesson from the millennium dome, it is to have a clear view on whether the investment under consideration is likely to deliver value for money. I suggest to the House that an Olympics bid, with all the advantages that I have outlined, is far more likely to deliver long-term, lasting value for money than the millennium dome. Whatever figure is arrived at, the total cost is not the cost to the Government. The cost to Government is much less because of grants from the IOC, sponsorship and inward investment.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West got it exactly right when he said in the Westminster Hall debate of 26 November that he sponsored:
"I believe that London could host the Olympic games at a much lower cost than is perhaps widely accepted at the moment."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 45WH.]
I agree with his analysis. Having commissioned the Ove Arup report, the members of the key stakeholder group need to show more support for its conclusions.
It is argued that the money could be better spent on hospitals and schools—the philosophy of despair advanced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in an interview the other day. That approach misses the point completely. It ignores the benefits for health, education and the fight against crime that would accrue from increased sporting activity among young people. The Government's own performance and innovation unit confirmed as much: the news may have been slipped out on the last day before Christmas, but the unit confirmed that those would be major benefits.
The approach that I have described also fails to recognise that a London-based Olympics would be the engine of increased economic activity, especially through tourism and regeneration. That would lead, in turn, to more jobs and more revenue. That potential was instantly recognised by the Conservative party and it underpins our enthusiasm for the project.
A London Olympics would be the inspirational catalyst for the realisation of many worthy and vital public policy objectives. For us, it is inconceivable that the Government should say no unless they can demonstrate some deep-seated and major practical obstacle that is not apparent from the Arup study. A lack of political will would not be tolerated by the public at large as the only reason not to go ahead.
In her closing remarks, the Secretary of State said that Britain was a "can do" society. There is no better way to prove it. I urge Ministers not to be afraid of failure, but instead to recognise the enormous benefits that our nation, not just our capital, would derive from success. Ministers should recognise the tremendous feel-good factor that a successful bid would bring. Above all, they should recognise that a country with the fourth largest economy in the world, which gave so many sports to the rest of the world and which has a capital city still widely regarded as one of the world's finest, ought to be capable of hosting the world's biggest sporting event. If Athens can do it, why cannot London?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all speeches by Back Benchers in this debate.
5.12 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is conducting an inquiry into the potential Olympic bid. I am Chairman of that Committee, and I speak today in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the Select Committee. In the near future, the Committee will publish its report, by which I shall be bound, whatever it says.
Considerable reference has been made to The Daily Telegraph, which yesterday published an interview with Matthew Pinsent, a member of the International Olympic Committee. He asked a series of questions to do with who, where and how: he wanted to know where the village was going to be, how the transport would work, and so on. This afternoon, I want to ask a series of questions to which we need precise answers. Those answers must cohere if a bid is to be justified. Regardless of my personal opinion about whether a bid should be lodged, I believe that a bid will not be tenable if the questions that I am about to ask are not answered in that way.
I hope that my questions can be answered at the end of the debate by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, or when Ministers come before the Select Committee tomorrow. If not, I hope that they can be answered pretty soon, as I think that the country has a right to the information.
The first question has to do with costs. So many different estimates have been made of the cumulative costs of staging the games that it is impossible to be sure about the matter. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) quoted the Ove Arup report, but only a short time ago the Financial Times said:
"The cost of a London bid for 2012 is estimated at up to £5.4bn, with almost £3bn coming from public funds."
We must be clear that the cost of any public sector project will be higher than originally estimated—and probably a lot higher. The building of the British Library cost seven times the original estimate, and took 30 years rather than the estimated five. The costs of such projects tend to balloon, so it is important for us to know them.
I want to know the cost of the projected stadium in east London. Can it be built? Can planning permission be obtained? What is the timetable, and can the stadium be built on time? If not, it is not worth building.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is present. The whole basis of Sport England's support for a rebuilt Wembley stadium, and the whole basis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State eventually agreed to Government support for it, was dual use: the stadium was to be used for athletics as well as football. This morning, the Select Committee heard that there would be a new stadium for athletics, and that Wembley would be used for football and for nothing else. What, then, was the point of that laborious process involving Wembley stadium?
Then there is the question of the village. Where will it be? How much will it cost? What about planning permission? What is the timetable? Moreover, several swimming pools are to be built, of which one, apparently, is to be retained. Where will they be, what
622
will they cost, and can they be built on time? We need to know those things, or we shall walk blindfold into a morass.
There is also the utterly bewildering question of transport. The Ove Arup report assumes that although Crossrail is not due to be completed until 2016, it will be available in time for games that will take place in 2012. The Mayor of London—whose main contribution to transport has been to make the west end static for months on end—says that he hopes for Government approval of Crossrail very soon. He says:
"Trains could start running by 2011, providing a crucial boost to London's chances of holding the 2012 Olympic Games".
In its submission to the Select Committee, however, Transport for London says:
"The transport strategy described in this paper assumes that Crossrail is not in place for the Games. The provision of Crossrail would provide significant additional capacity… However, the transport strategy should not be made contingent on the successful delivery of Crossrail by 2012."
Richard Ottaway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not.
So there are three different attitudes to Crossrail, which is the key link to a stadium in the east end of London. We must also bear it in mind, even if the timetable is accepted, that such projects are not necessarily delivered on time. The Jubilee line extension to North Greenwich was supposed to be ready at least two years before the opening of the dome, but it was ready only a few days before that—and the budget was so enormous that Mr. Tunnicliffe of London Underground did not even know what it was. We cannot operate on the basis of huge blank cheques being signed by our constituents, as taxpayers, without knowing what will happen.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Ryedale to say that there is huge public enthusiasm for this in 2003. Of course there is—The Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard are running campaigns—but what will happen in 2005 or 2006 if things start to go awry, as the track record shows they will? The Government will be about to be re-elected or will have been re-elected, and all the people who are now saying that we should bid for the games will regard this target as an Aunt Sally. That is what happened with the dome, which the Conservatives started. Indeed, under the Conservatives, £120 million was given by Sport England for Wembley stadium. It does not stop them being opportunistic.
Mr. Andy Reed: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, because I have only two minutes left.
There is also the question of organisation. Huge tributes are paid to the success of the Commonwealth games. The only reason they were a success is because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) to create a structure for the

623
Commonwealth games that had not existed before. That enabled the athletes and volunteers to achieve their superb successes.
We have no such structure now. Instead we have a concordat whereby a bevy of organisations all put their oars in. If we are to bid for the Olympic games, we must have a Minister in charge. The New South Wales Minister for Sport, for example, was in charge of organising both the games in Sydney and the transport.
It is not negative to ask these questions, it is essential. Unless the answer to every one of them is yes, our constituents will say that spending £5 billion or £6 billion—$12 billion was spent on the Barcelona games—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.22 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. I am proud to sport my Team GB tie. I admit that it is not very subtle—in fact, it makes the ties of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) look positively anaemic. However, it has the advantage of making Liberal Democrat support for the bid clear from the outset.
Our reasons for supporting the bid have been well rehearsed, and the Secretary of State set out many of them in her opening remarks. The bid is not London-centric. There is no doubt that other towns and cities would benefit, whether from holding camps, football competitions or the resulting increase in tourism. The Secretary of State referred to Barcelona. Between 1991 and 1997, Barcelona witnessed an increase in overnight stays of 70 per cent. That is the sort of increase that we could hope for in tourism in London and beyond. She spoke about the need to spread the benefits of tourism and to export it to other parts of the country, which we support.
We should support the bid for reasons of regeneration. Parts of east London have objective 2 status and clearly need regeneration. The bid could act as a catalyst for transport projects such as Crossrail. Even if Crossrail were not completed, having a portion of the line up and running would contribute significantly to increasing capacity in London, which would benefit the games. Furthermore, it is possible that, as happened in Greece, EU grants might be available to assist with some transport projects.
A further reason for supporting the bid is the fact that Londoners back it, as other Members have said. The Government pushed ahead with something that Londoners most certainly do not support—the part-privatisation of the tube. Why do they not push something that Londoners actually support? The issue does not affect only Londoners. Disparate bodies such as the Evening Standard, The Daily Telegraph, the Mayor and the London chamber of commerce and industry agree on their support for the bid, as do many London Members of all parties.
Sport has an impact on health. If the Olympic games took place in this country in 2012, it would act as a strong motivator to our children. The health of many children is at risk because of our sedentary lifestyles and the games would give them something to aim for. Ten and 11-year-olds who turn away from sport as they
624
become interested in other things might focus on the date of the Olympics, perhaps because they want to compete or because it would make them realise the importance of keeping fit.
The Secretary of State referred to the competing demands on funding—for example, for hospitals or schools. However, when the costings are being drawn up, I hope that she will take into account the effects on health that could result from motivating a generation of youngsters to participate in sport and, we hope, to maintain that participation.
I understand that Arup's presentation to the Select Committee was not entirely convincing, but if there is more confidence in the figures, we ought to support the bid. As the Cabinet will discuss the matter on 30 January, we have written to all its members asking them to back London's bid; we want them to be lions rather than chickens. As Members will have noticed from my tie, the lion is part of the British Olympic Association logo. The Government must trust our capital city and the entrepreneurial skills and drive that exist there and throughout the country—the can-do culture—to deliver on this important project.
There are as many reasons for opposing the bid as there are for supporting it, as the Secretary of State outlined so even-handedly. There is the problem of overrun that we have experienced in many sporting projects. Surely, however, the Government and the private sector have learned their lesson and we can complete projects on time and to cost.
There is a risk that we might lose money if the bid is not successful. One cannot really deny that. However, the Government push local authorities to bid for specific grants or pots of money. If they are encouraging local authorities to do that, should they not do the same?
When the Minister for Sport sums up, I hope that he will confirm that the overriding reason for the Government refusing to back the bid is not their concern that the Mayor and the Government cannot work together. That would be a great pity. If that is one of the Government's reasons they will, in effect, have been hoist by their own petard. They were scared to give the Mayor a full range of powers, so they have been left in a situation where neither party has sufficient power to push the matter through. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will not stop the bid going through.
What is needed from the Government? First, we need the Government to state their full support for the bid. We have heard a series of very mixed messages. Obviously, the media will spin what Ministers have said to a certain extent, but today's Evening Standard quotes the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as pouring cold water
"on the campaign to stage the Olympics".
She is also quoted as saying that Ministers had not yet made up their minds. Yesterday, The Times said that the Secretary of State was going to argue that there was
"a very strong sporting case"
for hosting the Olympics. Such messages do not give us a clear picture as to where the Government stand on this important issue, and her remarks have not clarified matters further. When the Minister sums up, perhaps he will make the Government's position a little clearer.
We need a clear statement from the Government on what they expect the costs to be. Arup has said that the Treasury might have to contribute about £500 million,

625
but the Government suggest that £2.5 billion of public subsidy might be required. We need to know how they arrived at that figure. What does it include and how much is for projects such as transport that are necessary but that have been brought forward? How much could be described as "wasted"? If the research commissioned shows that the bid has a significant chance of success and that the games will make a small surplus, as Arup have suggested, or will require a costed and controlled financial contribution from the Government, I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that the Government will come out in favour of the bid.
As a country, we are capable of sending, at just weeks' notice, an armada to the other side of the world. Our scientists are working with other European scientists to land a space probe on a comet—in 2012, as it happens. A rocket will have to be launched in the next couple of weeks and a probe will loop round Mars and twice round the earth before it slingshots to make contact with the comet in 2012. However, it seems that the Government's prevarication and poverty of ambition are such that we could, as a country, be deprived of the opportunity to bid for and host the world's greatest sporting event.
5.33 pm
Alan Keen: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I will not prejudge the issue; I will listen to the evidence tomorrow and to this debate. However, I am also chair of the all-party football group, one of the vice-chairs of the all-party sports group and joint secretary of the Lords and Commons cricket team, so I should at least express an opinion. It will not be surprising if I say that I support the bid. [Interruption.] Attack is usually the best form of defence, and I shall leave it to my hon. Friends to determine when I find time to enjoy myself.
The Olympics have a special value for me. I may not look it but, in 1948, I was old enough to be taken by my father, who was a racing cyclist, to Herne Hill to see the sprinting. We had the disappointment of seeing Reg Harris being beaten by the Italians in that event and in the tandem sprint. I also have a special memory of Windsor great park. Among the only 12 words in French that I remember are, "Allez, allez, allez".
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Only nine left then.
Alan Keen: I obviously know another nine words. The hair still stands on the back of my neck when I picture the scene. One of the French team had blown a tyre and his whole team stopped while he changed it. When he got back on his bike, the call was, "Allez, allez, allez". I can remember being greatly inspired by the Olympics when I was a kid. They were drab days, of course, in 1948, after the war, and the Olympics made a big difference to everyone. I can remember the atmosphere in London and being taken to Harrods to see the special display that was then in that shop. Those games were an inspiration to many people.
626
If we bid for the Olympics in 2012 and our bid is successful—I expect that it would be—the games would also inspire many young people and show those in my constituency and the four London boroughs that would be the main hosts of the 2012 games that the world is multicultural and that the fact that they exist in a multicultural community is just as things should be.
The world may not be so drab now, but it is pretty drab for those who live in housing that is not of an acceptable standard and whose jobs are not as good as they would want them to be. The Olympic games can make a big difference to people. They can teach young people that it is well worth living healthily. The Olympics inspired me to work hard and keep free of crime—at least until I was elected to the House in 1992, anyway. Let us hope that the games will have that effect on many young people, especially those in east London. We want people to aspire not only to be world champions, but to look outside their own lives and realise what they can achieve if they set their minds to it.
I want to give one or two examples to illustrate what sport can do. Again, I very well remember the 1966 World cup, when Middlesbrough, which I still regard as my home town, hosted the North Korean side that played three first-group games and knocked out the favourites, the Italians, in the first round, probably helping England to win the 1966 World cup. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that that was only a few years after the Korean war, yet the people of Teesside took the North Koreans to their hearts and supported them. Thousands travelled to Liverpool to watch the North Koreans play at Everton's ground in the quarter-finals.
That friendship still exists today. The North Koreans from that original team came over here, and Mr. Speaker entertained them in his apartments. We took them to Middlesbrough, and there was a special dinner for them. The man who scored the goal against Italy was led out on to the pitch at Riverside and allowed to put the ball into the back of the net, as he did way back in 1966. Sport can cement friendships. On the day the North Koreans arrived here, we heard the first announcement that North Korea was not going to get rid of its nuclear weapons programme, but friendship through sport can overcome many difficulties.
It is worth talking very briefly about the Manchester experience. We members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport were lucky enough to attend the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games, and I attended the first day of athletics the following day. I stayed in one of the hotels at the airport and travelled on public transport and then on the special buses out to the stadium. The Manchester people were absolutely thrilled and proud of their city on that day. The athletics were good and the opening ceremony was brilliant, but what I remember was that the hair on the back of my neck stood up—sport often causes that—as I listened to the conversations on the train and on the buses. People were really inspired; they were proud of their city.
More than anything else, what came out of the Manchester experience for me was the fact that those on the volunteer scheme—I met a lot of the volunteers, and they had given up work to do the job or had already retired—were so proud to be part of something. Many of them realised that they were able to give something,

627
probably at a time in their lives when they thought that they were past it. Again, we should build on that example.
I do not want to digress too much from sport, but we are all concerned about the future of the nation's health and social care system. As fewer people work and more are retired, how will we look after people? A controlled, co-ordinated and supported voluntary system will probably help to get us through the next half a century, when public services cannot get the funding that is needed because the working population is getting smaller and smaller. Apparently, 50,000 people have already volunteered for the Greek Olympics, and what we learn from such volunteer schemes can be applied outside the sporting world.
We are 10 years away from the 2012 Olympics, and if we set our minds to it, we can win this bid. I put out a call to those who are much higher up in politics than me: if we put our minds to it, we can use the Olympics as an example, and if we really work at it, the only conflict in the world in 2012 could be the competition at the Olympic games in London.
Before I finish speaking, I want to thank those who have already worked hard, such as the BOA and others, to advance the case for London. I hope that we make the bid, and that we are successful, because I believe that much more will come from that outside the world of sport.
5.41 pm
Richard Ottaway: There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the Government are having this debate, which all of us in London appreciate. The bad news is the downbeat assessment by the Secretary of State of the outcome of the Government's deliberations. She made a realistic assessment, but it left many questions open. Given that only two weeks remain before the Government must make a decision, I cannot help feeling that they must already have answered some of the questions, and the bid is getting the thumbs down. I hope that the outcome of the debate will be to give the Government confidence to support the bid.
First, I support the bid because it is no less than the catalyst for the regeneration of London. Secondly, I have pride in my city, and I believe that the Olympics will leave a legacy of which London will be proud not only for decades, but, possibly, for centuries. The three most important factors in making an Olympic bid are confidence, confidence and confidence. I see confidence in the British Olympic Association, confidence in the other place, confidence in every business group in London, and confidence in British Airways, which is supporting the proposals. The London boroughs have confidence, as has the London Development Agency.
There is hesitation, however, on the part of two of the three major stakeholders: the mayor and, sadly, the Government. The Greater London Assembly has confidence, but today's debate has not really focused on the key role that the Mayor of London will play in the whole process. He is a central figure in the process: he has published a press release saying that he is in favour of the bid, although his support is fairly lukewarm, if he does not mind me saying so. He answers a few questions but then returns to arguing with the Government about the underground.
628
The question is whether the Mayor of London will offer the leadership that the bid deserves. If London ever needs a champion, he is the guy to be the champion, and this is the moment to do it. He should organise the shadow London organising committee. Where is the shadow Olympic development agency? He should be arguing the case and banging the drum. The difficulty—this is a serious point—is that his communications with the Government are not perfect at the moment so it is difficult to have a dialogue with them over something so central, in which he is a key player and in which he must lead the bid.
The Government are the second hesitating stakeholder, seemingly for two reasons: first, cost; and secondly, they had their fingers burned over the Wembley stadium and the dome. The Government should learn the lessons from Wembley. They saw where they went wrong, and now they can get it right. The lesson of the dome is even clearer—the problem was that they did not know what they were going to put in it, and they did not know what they were going to do with the dome afterwards.
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): It was your project, not ours.
Richard Ottaway: And we would have made a better job of it. What did the Government expect, leaving it to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to decide what went in it? It is crystal clear what the dome is for. All the infrastructure will produce a legacy that lasts for a substantial time.
Those of us who have not had a chance to consider the detailed Ove Arup report because it has not been published are slightly in the dark, but it is possible to get a feel for its approach. It says that the cost of hosting the Olympics will be £1.8 billion and explains that although the cost in Sydney was £2.2 billion, the revenue was more than double that, at £5.5 billion. Other cities will also benefit from events such as football and sailing. We should remember that the cost will be spread over nine years. The difficulty is trying to do a cost benefit analysis of civic pride.
There are a couple of things on which the Government have to show confidence and leadership. I agree that that must come from the very top, from the Cabinet and lower levels of the Govt. The conservative estimates of Arup were that the games would break even. If they are well planned, well marketed and well run on a world-class basis, and not in a half-hearted way, they can be profitable.
The role of the private sector will be important. The dome and the Excel exhibition centre are in place. We will, of course, need a new stadium. Frankly, it will have to be built by the private sector and, as the Secretary of State said, it must have an anchor tenant. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) can tell us whether West Ham football club might be interested in taking it on.
Mr. Banks: I am a Chelsea supporter.
Richard Ottaway: I know where the hon. Gentleman spends his Saturdays; I also where his votes come from.

629
An anchor tenant of that nature is important and the Olympic village will become low-cost social housing afterwards.
The Secretary of State's second test is deliverability: can we do it? The answer is yes, of course we can. Much of the transport infrastructure is already in place. The Jubilee line goes right up to the lower Lea valley. Whether it needs another station or platform remains to be seen, but it has the capacity of taking 400,000 passengers a day. We have the docklands light railway and the Stratford channel tunnel rail link. If the Minister wishes to revisit Conservative Government decisions, perhaps he will agree that locating the terminal in Stratford was a visionary decision. We may also have Crossrail. The games could take place without it, but if that can be completed, so much the better.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asked whether the transport infrastructure could cope. In the morning rush hour, between 7 and 10 o'clock, 1.1 million people come into London on public transport. If we contrast that with the estimate of 500,000 people a day moving around during the Olympic fortnight and a peak movement in the morning of 150,000, it is clear that the existing infrastructure can cope providing it is running efficiently. On any Saturday afternoon, the grounds of Arsenal, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Charlton, Millwall and Twickenham turn out at a quarter to five. The infrastructure in those areas copes with hundreds of thousands of passengers and we can cope with the extra people who come to the city because of the games. We can deliver. We have the hotels and airports and can build the necessary infrastructure.
So let us consider the legacy. Manchester is a good example because it has been left with decent stadiums and facilities from which it can benefit. It can rightly be proud of those. The games will give a tremendous boost to the sporting culture. London has many world-class facilities and it can become the sporting capital of Europe. There will also be economic benefits for the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham. That area has some of the highest unemployment in London, so it is a great place to locate such an economic development. The benefits are obvious; for me, the whole question is a no-brainer.
We come to the final test, which is winnability. Can we win? Can we see off Paris? It is down to us. If we are confident, if we have the leadership and if we go ahead, we will win. If we are half-hearted, unsure and hesitant, we will not. This is a unique opportunity. By 2012, it will be 60 years since we last had the Olympic games in London. To delay would be an absolute disaster. I understand that our next opportunity would be 2024, and by then the land in the east end of London will almost certainly be developed and unavailable. This is a golden opportunity. Let us face it—if the capital city of the world's fourth largest economy cannot stage this bid, it does not say much, does it?
5.50 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) for the nice things that he said about my constituency. We are
630
grateful for his support, and he is always welcome to come and have a curry with me in the East India Tandoori. There are plenty of curry houses and they serve good dinners.
Obviously, I have to declare an interest, although it seems that most Members have declared it for me. Most of the proposed Olympic site is in east London; 50 per cent. of it is in Newham, and a substantial amount of that is in my constituency. Naturally, but not for that reason alone, I support the bid. I fully believe that there will be long-term economic and sporting benefits not only for London but for the country as a whole. Having said that, and knowing how much my area will benefit, we should bid for the games only after the most rigorous, dispassionate and objective assessment of the costs and benefits leads to that conclusion.
If we are to proceed, it is essential, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised, that the Government demonstrate their total commitment, both financially and politically, to the bid. Without that there can be no success and it would be folly to contemplate bidding. We also need to be aware of two inescapable basic facts. First, the organisers and supporters of major sporting bids invariably overestimate the revenues and benefits and underestimate the costs and difficulties. That seems to be almost an immutable rule.
Secondly, bids are usually launched amid intense media and public enthusiasm, but as soon as the first problems are encountered, the supporters who have been cheering from the sidelines largely disappear or become prophets of doom. They cross their arms and say, "I told you we should never have gone for it in the first place." We must be wary of listening to siren voices, whether they are those of Opposition Members, the Evening Standard or The Daily Telegraph. We must say, "If you're going to support the bid, you must continue to support it when the problems emerge."
Problems will emerge, because every bidding city has run into problems. Athens, Sydney and Barcelona ran into problems, and we will run into problems. Will we be able to count on those who have been huzzaing from the sidelines? Frankly, I think not. It seems to be one of the harsh rules of politics that if it all goes well, someone else takes the credit, but if it goes badly, the Government take all the blame, so it is little wonder that Ministers are treading very carefully. They are on a hiding to nothing. In the end, all the rhetoric in this Chamber is no substitute for a critical examination of the facts. If we go for the bid, everyone has to sign up, preferably in blood, and that includes the media, who are so negative when things go a bit awry.
Turning to the costs, my instincts and bitter experience tell me that Ove Arup's projections, both for the bid costs and the capital costs, are a gross underestimate. It is not just public projects that go over budget. A private project such as the channel tunnel went grossly over budget. I have seen costs estimates ranging from £1.8 billion to £5.4 billion. The Government would be wise to take the thick end of that estimate—£5.4 billion—and add a further sum. Then they might come somewhere near the outturn budget. Any optimistic estimate of costs at this stage, which there always are, should be ignored. If they get it wrong by overestimating the costs, they are quids in. If they get it wrong by underestimating the costs, all the problems

631
will come their way. We should examine the matter closely and assume that all the costs that we have been told so far are an underestimate.
When I went with the Secretary of State on an inspection tour of the east end sites, I pointed out to her that the regeneration of most of those sites and the investment in Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham will take place eventually, because it is such an obvious area for development, if one looks at the map of London as a whole. Clearly, the impetus of the Olympic games coming to London will make that development happen so much faster, providing, as I said at the outset, that the Government are fully signed up to the bid.
Crossrail has been mentioned, and it is a good case in point. London and the south-east desperately need Crossrail. That has nothing to do with the Olympic games at all. We have needed Crossrail for decades. We should have had Crossrail before we had the Jubilee line extension. It has been one of the facts of transport life in London for ages. Crossrail is essential to the success of an Olympic bid. I know that the Government support Crossrail and will be providing the money for it, so it seems sensible to bring that money forward and add it into the bid costs. We need Crossrail, whether or not we get the Olympics.
I shall deal with some of the other aspects. The after-use of an Olympic village in the east end of London is obvious. It will provide a large concentration of affordable, decent, new housing in an area that desperately needs it. We can see the benefits coming through immediately. Crossrail and other transport improvements will be good not just for the Olympic bid, but for the whole of the south-east region. The village will provide us with decent, affordable houses. We begin to see how a bid stacks up in terms of its long-term economic benefits.
There is a different problem arising from the after-use of the Olympic stadium. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have discussed the matter. An 80,000-seater Olympic stadium is far too big for athletics. Even if it were scaled down to 20,000, it would still be too big. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested a moment ago, the Government need to look for a football club to take it over. West Ham is a possibility, and so is Tottenham. I might add, having read the Evening Standard tonight, that with Craven Cottage being sold off by al-Fayed—there's a surprise, I might add—perhaps Fulham might be a candidate. Knowing football fans as well as I do, I recognise that it is a lot easier to make those suggestions than to bring them to fruition. It is a problem that we need to consider.
The boroughs in the east end will be worried about inheriting sites and facilities that no one wants to use or which are under-utilised. It is not just the capital costs that matter at that point, but the revenue costs. We cannot afford another dome in the east end of London. The dome came in on budget, but we did not have any set idea of what the after-use would be. When I was a Minister, I went to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he was the dome Minister of blessed memory and told him that that would be an ideal site for the Olympic games. Unfortunately, he did not see any sense in that, and we still have a very empty dome.
632
In summary, a successful Olympics are a wonderful showcase for a city and a country and could provide long-term economic benefit, particularly in terms of transport, jobs and regeneration. We should go for the bid. It is important for London and its status, but as I have said time and again, it has to be done on the basis of a cold, calculated and even cynical view of the costs and benefits. It is easy to hear people in a pub on the Romford road, where I am, say that we should go for the Olympic games, but whatever public opinion says now, when the problems come in, we can sometimes find that the people who were cheering us on have all disappeared. That is the bitter experience of the past. That point is not downbeat, but realistic. Unless we are realistic, we will find ourselves running into difficulties.
Finally, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the Olympic truce? Anyone who re-reads the founding principles of the 1894 congress will see how the political, cultural and economic objectives of the Olympic games were stated and how many of them have now been lost. I hope that she will consider that point.
6 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: We have just listened to a most fascinating contrast in styles. When we read Hansard tomorrow, we will see that the message from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is pretty similar to that of the Secretary of State. However, we got a "can do" message from the hon. Gentleman, while from the Secretary of State, we got not just a "can't do", but a "won't do" message. That is very sad, as having an Olympic games in London is the most exciting and thrilling prospect that we have to look forward to. I hope very much that the message from this debate and all the work that the Secretary of State says that she has set in train will change her attitude to a "can do" one and move it away from the negative and very low-key response that we got this afternoon.
I should like to point out to everybody who has mentioned Crossrail, which is a key part of any Olympic bid, that contrary to what the hon. Member for West Ham said, I understand that London Regional Metro has just formulated a proposition that it is putting to the Government in which the private sector would build and run the project without any cost to the Government and in time for the Olympics. I hope very much that the Secretary of State for Transport will hear the message from London Regional Metro that it can deliver Crossrail on time and at no cost to the public purse.
The reason I wanted to contribute today was not to put in a second bid for the site of the Olympics, as there is clear agreement that it should be in the east end of London, but to raise the constituency issue of the future of Crystal palace. The Secretary of State will know Crystal Palace well, as it is next door to her constituency, although it lies wholly in mine. It has been the national athletics centre and is still very well used as an athletics centre. I am sure that Ministers will know that the lease that Sport England has on Crystal Palace is due to come to an end, and that it had a full repairing lease. There are £20 million worth of dilapidations to the centre to be made good when Sport England gives up the lease, as I understand that it plans to do. There have been negotiations about a very exciting and innovative renovation, working with Bromley council, and a situation in which minimum dilapidation costs are paid and the whole thing reverts to Bromley.

633
I do not want to go into the ins and outs of the situation, which are far too tortuous. Indeed, I am conscious that a lot of hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to take too long on this point, but until a stadium is built in the east end, there will be no athletics venue in London for grand prix events other than Crystal Palace. Once a stadium is built in the east end, it is possible that it may continue as an athletics stadium after the Olympic games, but it sounds more likely that a football ground will be used. So London would be left yet again without a venue for grand prix athletic events.
There is a real need for the Government to make absolutely clear to Sport England what they see as the future of Crystal Palace, so that London is not faced with an interim situation in which there could be no grand prix athletics events at all between the end of this lease and the Olympics events and beyond. That is the crucial matter that the Government have to clarify, because I am sure that, without that pressure from the Government, Sport England will dither and duck and dive so that we may be left with no athletics for London held in London and no grand prix events.
I very much hope that the right hon. Lady and the Minister for Sport will take on board this constituency point, which, while it directly affects me and everybody in Bromley, is also key to the future of athletics provisions in London. It is also key to attracting the elite athletes, a group whom, with their investment in sport, they are trying to develop not just in London but throughout the rest of the country. If there is no venue, it will be a very sad day for athletics in London.
6.6 pm
Mr. Graham Stringer: I should like to make it clear that I believe that at some time in the future it would be right for this country to host the Olympic games. In many ways, I regret the advice that I shall give to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is not to support the British Olympic Association in its bid for the 2012 Olympics. I regret it not least because I formed many friendships with members of the BOA when they supported the previous two British bids for the Olympic games, in 1996 and 2000.
There are three prime reasons—one could have a longer debate and go into many more—why the Government should not, in the next two and a half weeks, rush into a bid for the 2012 Olympics. The first reason, which annoys me the most, although it is probably not the most important issue, is that every other time this country has decided to bid to host the Commonwealth games or the Olympic games there has been a national competition in which any city in the country that wanted to bid to host them could put its case forward and it would be considered by the Commonwealth Games Council for England or the British Olympic Association. On this occasion the British Olympic Association has decided that it can only be London. I find that completely unsatisfactory.
It may well be that, in competition and under examination, it turns out that London is the best bid. I doubt it, because over the past 18 years or so London has bid three times, twice to host the Olympic games and
634
once to host the Commonwealth games. Each time when the issues that are important to hosting the games—transport, legacy, the local political structures—have been examined, London has been found wanting. I believe that if the British Olympic Association organised that competition as it has in the past it would look at the political structures in London, which are defunct, look at the relationship between the Mayor of London and the Government, which are not good, and have second thoughts. It would examine the transport structure in London and find that it would be very difficult to host the Olympic games within London.
Mr. Banks: I would ask my hon. Friend to clarify the point about London having bid before. We had the Olympic games in 1908 and 1948, but I do not remember our being a bidding city. We might have been interested in becoming a bidding city, but it was at a time when we had no one to represent London at local government level, because the Conservative party had abolished the Greater London Council.
Mr. Stringer: I am sorry if I was not clear. London tried to be the bid city for both the 1992 and 2000 Olympic games, as well as the 2002 Commonwealth games. When its case was examined by the appropriate bodies, it was found wanting. Such an examination should have been undertaken on this occasion, not least to assure the Government and everybody else of the viability of the bid.
Tom Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the BOA did not receive advice that, from an international perspective, only London would have competitive status, or that that advice was wrong?
Mr. Stringer: I was going to come to the reason why the BOA made that decision after receiving advice on an IOC survey. Before I answer the hon. Gentleman, I advise my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to take seriously anything said by the Liberal Democrats in support of an Olympics bid, as they opposed holding the Commonwealth games in Manchester, even though they supported such a proposal in the Chamber. That is exactly the kind of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred.
On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the IOC conducted a survey in 1994 after the failure of a previous bid. IOC members, some of whom have since been sacked for corruption, found people who were willing to say that only London should be considered. Over the years, I have talked to IOC members, and a body of them holds that view. There is also a body holding the opposite view—six of the last eight cities chosen to host the Olympic games have not been capitals. The most important power of IOC members is their power to choose a bidding city, and they do not tell the absolute truth when asked which city they will support. The voting population is 100 or so, but when we talk to bidding cities we find that their votes add up to about 500.
The Government are mainly interested in the issue of whether London and Britain can win the bid. I do not believe that they can, partly for the reasons that I have already given. It was a mistake not to hold a competition

635
for other parts of the country to bid, and it is now difficult to get them to back an Olympics bid. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham—if we spend the public money envisaged by the Government, that sum is almost guaranteed to double. At a time when the health service, the transport system and the criminal justice system are not perfect, within six months of a bid many people will say that the money spent on it and the facilities required should have been spent on health. One of the enormous strengths of the Manchester bid was the fact that, until the very last minute, when the Government put in £30 million and Manchester city council put in £30 million, we did not use ratepayers' or council tax payers' money—that advantage will be absent from a London bid.
It has been assumed in our debate that the successful bid will come from a European city. Toronto and New York made increased television rights part of their case, so it is highly likely that many IOC members will be seduced by the prospect of having more money. Atlanta, not the most attractive city in the world, managed to win the 1996 bid basically because of the television rights it offered. The value of such rights is always higher when the Olympics are held in US time zones.
There has never been a time when British sport has had a weaker position in international sport's corridors of power. A small number of people make and have influence over decisions. We have two members of the IOC but, as far as I know, we do not have a single officer in international sporting federations for any of the recognised sports in the summer games, which puts us in a weak position, particularly when combined with the legacy of bad feeling after Picketts Lock and the bid for the world athletics championship. On that occasion, we promised to do something, but failed to do it, and that is remembered.
It is also remembered that, apart from at the Commonwealth games, we have not performed at that level for many years. We have been going backwards. It is false logic to say that because we organised the Commonwealth games in Manchester very well, we can also organise the Olympic games well in London. That logic does not follow when we look at the different projects that have taken place in London: the Wembley fiasco, Picketts Lock and the dome, for example. Those projects were not supported nationally, and they have given us a bad reputation internationally, in the case of two of them, and nationally in the case of all three. There is a long discussion to be had about whether we could win the vote. I do not believe that we can, at our current strength in international sport and with our recent legacy.
I realise that my final point will not be popular with hon. Members from London. If London represents the best bid, which has not been proved, we also have to ask ourselves whether the bid is a national priority. The Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), regularly tells us about regional disparities, and about the fact that London is, with the possible exception of Luxembourg, the richest region in Europe, while every other English region performs below the European average. If we are going to put investment into east London over and above the investment that would naturally occur, when more public money per head already goes into London than anywhere else, will that make regional disparities
636
greater or will it lessen them? Frankly, I do not believe that spending what may well be £10 billion in London is a national priority when we have those regional disparities. If London is the answer to that level of investment, it is a very strange question.
6.17 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I must confess that I instinctively support the enthusiasm shown in the positive comments about sport made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I am a keen sports fan and, without going too far down memory lane—I could not go as far as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen)—I, too, recall the first time that I came to London to watch a sporting event. It was the Ashes test match at Lords in 1972, and it has left me with a very positive approach towards sport over the past 30 years. I am sure that that experience is replicated by millions of schoolboys and schoolgirls.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). We must take a hard-nosed view of this issue and I know that he, too, is a keen sports fan. One might ask how any London Member of Parliament could possibly oppose these plans, but we have to ask whether this is a realistic proposition, or whether there is a great danger that, in spending the £13 million to £30 million that it would cost simply to put a bid together, we might be throwing good money after bad.
We have seen the story of the London Olympics bid in recent weeks, and, as ever in recent London governance, it has been a shameful mix of Mayor Livingstone's grandstanding and central Government's dissembling over their financial obligations—to the capital, at least. Of course, the Mayor desperately needs a PR win. He has an election of his own to run within the next 18 months, and there has been an apparent lack of delivery in the two and a half years he has held office. Transport is in a desperate state, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) rightly pointed out that Crossrail is key to what we are trying to achieve in London. Above all, the Mayor sees this as a way of distracting attention from his own failures with a prestige bid, but we should not be fooled. This is opportunism masquerading as vision. Rather like King Midas in reverse, anything that Mayor Livingstone has touched has tended to turn to dust.
I know that we have all tried to have a positive outlook in this debate but, without being over-critical, I believe that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has lived up to its reputation as one of the most monumentally useless Departments of Government. Its lack of clout means that the Treasury's view prevails too often. An Olympics bid would detract from other sporting priorities. I was sorry that the Secretary of State put the dampers on by saying that schools, hospitals and transport could suffer. I should like to believe that that would not happen. However, other sporting priorities throughout the United Kingdom would inevitably suffer if we won the bid.
Many hon. Friends drew attention to the great worry that the Treasury appears to have changed the financial goalposts several times in recent weeks. The initial report suggested a subsidy of approximately £495 million. Even on the Secretary of State's figures, that sum has increased to £2.5 billion, possibly rising.

637
After the Wembley fiasco and, perhaps more important, the Picketts Lock debacle, when financial squabbling resulted in our being forced to give up the 2005 world athletics championships, we must ask whether there is a realistic chance of winning a 2012 Olympics bid in the next two years. We cannot assume that the International Olympic Committee has suffered collective amnesia.
I am worried that the Government want to get out of a hole and are keen to find a pretext, as the Secretary of State showed today. We must wait and see what happens in the Cabinet discussions in a fortnight. The Government would ideally like to find a financial or, at worst, logistical reason to walk away from the bid. Perhaps the decision will depend on the "win-ability test", whatever that means. The Secretary of State did not make that any clearer during her comments.
Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman personally in favour of bidding for the Olympics? Is he expressing unequivocal support for Conservative Front-Bench Members' positive view of a bid?
Bob Russell: The Secretary of State refused to say whether the Government supported the bid.
Mr. Field: It is a rare occasion on which I take advice from the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), but he is right. I have spoken for five minutes; the Secretary of State's speech was six times as long, yet we did not get an answer to the question that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) asked.
I personally support making a bid, and I should like the Olympics to take place in London. However, I am worried about "win-ability" or other tests. If we have no viable, realistic chance of winning, there is little point in making the bid. We need leadership, support and vision, unfortunately not from the Conservative party but from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Reed: I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points, but the matter comes down to a crucial question, which the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman should answer. At what level does the cost become unacceptable—£2 billion or perhaps £5 billion? I support the bid, but there must be a cut-off point at which it becomes too expensive; the Government cannot write a blank cheque. Has the hon. Gentleman any views on what that figure should be?
Mr. Field: That is a fair point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency contains this country's economic powerhouse. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) pointed out that even in depressed economic times, London tends to provide a net output of £15 billion to £20 billion. That contribution alone probably means that we should run with the bid if there is a realistic chance of success.
Clearly, the tourism benefits could be huge. A conservative estimate is £750 million. The benefits for my constituency, which contains the west end and its hotel trade, would be enhanced not only during the Olympics but before and after the games.
638
However, it would be best for the Government either to commit themselves wholeheartedly to a bid for 2012 or to take the longer-term view of making a bid sometime in the future. Much depends on who wins the 2012 Olympics. If the winner is a non-European country, London would be in the running for 2016. Above all, I hope that Ministers, not only in the Department but throughout the Government, and especially in the Treasury, commit themselves to spending the next four years in the run-up to any formal bidding procedure improving London's infrastructure, especially its transport. Only then can Londoners be confident that our city is worthy of being home to the global showcase that we are considering.
6.24 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I wonder why we spent five years on Wembley, which we were told would be both a football and an athletics stadium, given that we may now have a new stadium in the east end of London. I find that extraordinary.
This morning, Sir Steven Redgrave said something to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that struck me. He said that if London does host the games, many cities and towns in Britain will be partners in that project. We could put the Japanese team in Sunderland, which built the Japanese imperial navy and is now home to Nissan. As a result, five or six years of cultural and artistic activity could be established in Sunderland. Peter the Great came to Chatham, which is near my constituency, to discover how to build a modern navy, so we could create Russian events there. The whole of Britain could be partner to a London bid that is in fact a British bid.
Sir Steven also pointed out that the British Olympic Association spent £1 million on building a brilliant rowing centre on the gold coast to win more gold medals than we have ever won before. Look what that did for Brisbane, even though the games were actually held in Sydney. The games would have a regenerative impact on the whole of Britain, because the overseas Olympic associations—of which there are more than 150—will ask us to build first-class facilities, not all of which could be sited in London. We should therefore bear it in mind that this is not just a London bid.
I am not sure why we need a stadium that can hold 80,000 people. Can the Minister confirm whether that figure relates just to the opening and closing ceremonies? As I said this morning, on 31 December 1999, 300,000 people were in The Mall, and some 3 million people were in London, to celebrate the millennium in the most spectacular way. We could bring a new buzz to the Olympic movement by changing the way in which the opening and closing ceremonies are conducted. We could celebrate the ceremonies by holding them among our people. I see no reason why we cannot twin with every city that has hosted the Olympics, and have an opening ceremony for them as well. We have the most amazing technology, so we can do all that. We could bring a different pizzazz and feel to an Olympic bid.
If we do not need a stadium that can hold 80,000 people, perhaps it would be better to build a smaller one. That would give West Ham United the chance to move, or enable athletics to make such a stadium its home. I should like confirmation of the 80,000 figure.

639
Wherever the games might be held, I wonder whether we might nick a few names to make the bid sexier. Instead of saying that it will be held in the east end of London, we could say that it will be held in "the royal city" or "the Olympic city". Perhaps we just need to brand the bid differently. At the moment, what we are saying is rather boring, and the bid needs to rise in our estimation. Have we considered putting an ambassador for sport in our Swiss embassy? FIFA and the IOC, the bodies responsible for the major sporting events, are based in Switzerland, and we need to be at that table. We no longer have political clout on the world's sporting bodies, and we need to get it back. I repeat that we should consider putting an ambassador specifically for sport in our embassy in Berne.
On the question of the best site, I take a deep breath and suggest that there is perhaps an alternative site. If the Government tick the idea that we should bid, I hope that they will allow an alternative bid from north Kent. [Interruption.] Hold on—hear me out. I have talked to Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the leader of Kent county council. Three weeks ago, the Audit Commission gave Kent county council premier league status. Kent should be allowed to open discussions with the Government, because if its bid were accepted, there would be a single owner, rather than having to involve the Greater London Authority and four boroughs as co-hosts. We must consider organisation. The recent Commonwealth games worked because Manchester city council owned them. If the GLA is not prepared to own the Olympic games, they will not work. I want us to take a deep breath and allow Kent to make an alternative bid.
Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wyatt: No, I will not give way.
In the next couple of weeks, an education paper will be published. Many of the university colleges in London are in a mess, and many do not have student accommodation. The need to provide accommodation in the event of a successful Olympic bid gives us the opportunity to give Imperial college, University college, or Queen Mary college a new campus site. After the games, students could use that accommodation. We would need to find a working campus after the games, and the greatest legacy that we could provide would be to give Imperial college university status, and the chance to be as good as the great Massachusetts institute of technology.
We cannot do these things in two weeks. We cannot bully the Government into saying on 31 January, "Okay, we are going to bid." We need to look rationally at the alternatives and the costs of the investment.
How do we cost the bid? I have a couple of ideas. In July 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor created what he called a domesday book. What is in it? I could probably find £1 billion by privatising Channel 4, and another £4 billion by privatising BBC 1. I am sure that the book contains 10 properties worth at least £1 billion.
The Wall street market is up 20 per cent. this week. It is said that if that market rises in the first week of January, it will end the next year another 20 per cent. higher. The City of London is recovering too, so the price of projects from the Chancellor's domesday book would be higher than what could be achieved at present. I should like some of what is listed in the book to be costed.
640
Who will own the games? As I said, a bid from north Kent would mean that there was only one owner. That should be taken into consideration.
Finally, the Select Committee noted in its 1999 report on international events that such events require a Minister of Cabinet rank. That is most important: we used to have half a Minister acting in that role with the present Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and he did a fantastic job. We need someone else to do the same job.
I want us to bid for the Olympics. I do not think that we have an alternative on 30 or 31 January, but we must be careful about rationalising the costs and looking at the opportunities open to us.
6.31 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Both personally and as deputy chairman of the all-party sports committee, I am totally and unequivocally in favour of a 2012 bid. I was delighted by the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by the support that he received from all the Conservative Members who have spoken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, that contrasted strikingly with the downbeat way in which the Secretary of State read from her brief. She accentuated the negative: if that was her being enthusiastic, I should hate to hear her damn something with faint praise. If she is meant to be a champion of sport, I am fearful of what the Cabinet will do.
I want to accentuate the positive in my speech. Hon. Members of all parties know of my passion for sport. I was never fortunate enough to be able to compete in an Olympic games, but I was lucky enough to do quite a lot of competitive swimming in my teens, including at international level. My coach was Charlie Wilson, who took the British swimming team to the 1972 Olympics and who remained involved in international swimming through 1976. I was lucky enough to host him at this House only a few weeks ago, after his recent recovery from a stroke. He is long past normal retirement age, but still coaches swimmers.
The captain of my swimming club, the Bedford Modernians, was the captain of the British Olympic swimming team at the 1972 games. I have seen what Olympians can do, as have all those in the House and outside it who have worked with them. I have seen the enormously positive effects that sport can have in turning around people's lives. That cannot be measured on a balance sheet. One cannot measure the positives accruing to the Australians from the success of their Olympic games.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Before that Committee has started taking evidence, he has already told The Daily Telegraph that he opposes a UK bid. It is beyond me to know how he can separate his role as Select Committee Chairman from his personal opinions. It is scandalous that so much doom and gloom should come from leading Labour Members.
The Government have set certain tests. I hate the word "winnability", which is an abuse of the English language, but the Government are right to say that there

641
would have to be a legacy from the games. We must also look at the financing that would be necessary from now on.
The Government say that they do not want to bid unless they can win, and that they cannot fix the result. The Prime Minister is the antithesis of Bob the Builder—with him it is not, "Can we fix it? Yes, we can", but, "Can we fix it? No, I don't think so, so let's not go in for it." The Prime Minister should not approach the matter in that way. He is worried about his place in history, but if the bid were made and won, the games would not be held until long after his time. He is really worried about making an unsuccessful bid in what may well turn out to be an election year.
All Members must be very conscious of the fact that far more people in this country care about sport than about politics. None of us should forget people's passion for sport and the good that it can do in turning the young away from the drugs subculture, encouraging them to keep fit, reducing obesity and saving money for the health service. Such benefits cannot be valued in the Red Book. It is vital that we give proper weight to those factors as well as so-called winnability.
In the few moments I have left now that our speaking time has been reduced, I want to mention extra ways in which funds can be raised. I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that we should think of Olympic successes, starting with Los Angeles, and the amount of additional money that has been put into tourism as a result. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that the costs always go up and the income figures always prove to be inflated, but that is not true: although the costs tend to increase with inflation, estimates of the income generated by recent Olympic events have been too low.
Various commentators have drawn attention to sources of income that have not even been considered in the Government's report. The possibility of re-energising the lottery through money provided by a successful Olympic bid should not be underestimated. The columnist and distinguished former editor, Donald Trelford, has pointed out that, unfortunately, the lottery has lost £1 million a week because of controversial—and, in my view, wrong-headed—decisions that allowed the community fund to provide grants for things that were not worthy of grants. But if we said that the lottery would support a successful British Olympic bid, it could indeed be re-energised.
There is a lot of business support out there. The London bid for 2012 has already received support from the London Business Board, a coalition consisting of CBI London, the London chamber of commerce and industry and London First. Unprecedentedly, those bodies have sent the Prime Minister a joint letter pointing out that the bid represents a "unique opportunity" for London. They say:
"The Government's wholehearted commitment to the bid is essential. To be successful requires central, London and local government to work together effectively as a team throughout the bidding and implementation stages. Business is keen to play its part. To gain business's full support, we must be wholly engaged in the development process from now on."
A DCMS official spokesman has told the press, "We are worried. What the Government is keen to avoid is starting with a low figure and then seeing it rise
642
dramatically so people end up thinking, 'Oh Christ, where is the money coming from?'" Apart from the fact that that is a disgraceful thing for a Government spokesman to say to the press, I think that we can give answers on where the money is coming from. It can come from business and from re-energisation of the lottery.
Let me end with a constituency point. Only one venue would be the same in the 2012 Olympics as it was in 1948. The only place where the Olympic shooting event could happen is Bisley, a range that is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
It is vital that we take at face value the words of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). An Olympic bid can help the whole country, including my constituency, which would be one of the venues. I unequivocally support the bid; I only wish the Government showed real signs of doing so as well, but I do not think that they do.
6.38 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am enthusiastic about the bid, but I think the hon. Gentleman did its prospects no favours with his weasel words attacking my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which they have conducted the debate and the discussions in Government. I think they were entirely right to visit countries that have hosted the Olympics in the past and to assess the benefits, and I also think they have been entirely and consistently clear about the criteria they would use to decide whether a bid should go ahead.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I do not support the case for north Kent or indeed the case for Manchester. I am a passionate supporter of the case for London, which would accelerate the regeneration of east London—so long the poor relation of our capital. It would stimulate new investment in housing, which London and the south-east desperately need. It would also stimulate new investment in transport capacity and sporting facilities, which the Commonwealth games helped deliver for Manchester.
Before the last election, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published an excellent report on the decline of swimming in the United Kingdom, highlighting the decline in the number of swimming pools in London. Holding the Olympic games here would help generate investment in grass-roots sporting facilities, which London is crying out for.
Above all, the case for holding the Olympic games in London rests on the prospect of huge benefits to British business, from engineering and construction to tourism and conference industries. It would provide a powerful opportunity to stimulate new pride in London and Britain and to foster a new sense of ambition for many of the communities that would benefit directly from the Olympic games.
I recognise that the case for a London bid is finely poised and that the most obvious argument against it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, is the cost. There are a number of estimates—will it cost £1.8 billion,

643
£2.5 billion, £4.5 billion or even £5.4 billion, which I saw flagged up in The Sunday Times only this week? The one financial appraisal made, which has been conducted by Arup, estimates that the net cost of holding the Olympic games here would be half a billion pounds. I am not an accountant, and I am not an advocate for Arup. Its figures may be underestimated, but those who criticise the Arup report should publish their assessment of why Arup has it so badly wrong. If Arup is wrong about the costs, it may also be wrong about the benefits of the games. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), Sydney benefited from £2 billion-worth of in-bound tourism and the net economic impact of the games on Barcelona was some £11 billion.
It is worth stating that Arup did not carry out its analysis in an ivory tower but before a reference group, which included some hard-headed civil servants from the Treasury, no less. Its analysis includes considerable cost overruns in the last three years when most of the construction work would take place. It is also worth highlighting the fact that the highest costs will inevitably be for the infrastructure—the stadiums, the swimming pools and warm-up tracks that will be necessary for the Olympic games to take place. However, those facilities offer a benefit long before and long after the Olympic games take place.
Some people, thinking of Picketts Lock and Wembley, fear that London cannot get its act together and deliver the games. However, London agencies regularly work together to deliver ceremonial and sporting events, and proper facilities for our tourists. To be fair to Manchester, the fact that the games held there were so successful is a powerful reminder that Britain could bid successfully for and deliver the Olympic games.
I agree strongly with the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. We need a Minister for international events, of Cabinet rank, to organise the bid and work alongside Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Manchester showed, albeit on a smaller scale, that the UK can be appealing.
The worst argument that I have heard against an Olympic bid is the suggestion that London—and, implicitly, Britain—does not need the Olympics. We are, after all, one of the world's great cities already and, unlike Sydney, we do not need to use the games to advertise the benefits of our city, because tourists flood here already. According to this argument, east London needs regeneration but the Olympic games would simply confuse or delay the plans that are already in place. Proud Londoner that I am, I think that such an argument reeks of complacency about our city. In a global culture, where information, money, jobs and business are moving in and out of countries ever more easily, the idea that we should pass up the opportunity to showcase our capital and our country to a massive international audience at their time of maximum receptiveness to the case for London and for the UK seems little short of lunacy. The Government could make no greater statement of intent about the case for regenerating east London than to launch a bid for the Olympic games.
644
There are people who say, rightly, that we might not win the bid and that New York may stand a better chance, given the emotion generated after 11 September, and the financial case that could be made. Paris, too, may have a better chance than us. The competition will certainly be tough. We may not win but we have a realistic chance of doing so; no less a figure than Jacques Rogge, the head of the International Olympic Committee, has made that clear. We may not start as favourite in the bidding competition but, given the British media's love of building a pedestal for its favourite projects or people and then tearing it down, perhaps that is no bad thing.
We need to be realistic with the people of Stratford, London and the wider UK about the prospects for an Olympic bid. A well planned, albeit unsuccessful, bid could still help to accelerate investment and regeneration in a part of the UK that has been crying out for that for much of the past 30 years. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will succeed in persuading the Cabinet to back the bid.
6.46 pm
Mr. John Randall: One of the facts of life on the Opposition Benches is that we always seem to be opposing things. Being negative sometimes gets depressing so it is a great pleasure for me to endorse something enthusiastically. An advantage of being called at this late stage of the debate is that although I am short of time most of what I wanted to say has already been said.
I shall briefly reiterate what the Olympics would mean not only for London but for the country more widely. An important aspect of the bid is that it would give us a deadline for dealing with some of the problems in London—on law and order or transport. We keep talking about all those problems, but nothing seems to happen. If there were a deadline, we could finally sort them out.
The Paralympics were mentioned. All the facilities generated by a successful bid would be replicated for disabled people. They would come to this country from all over the world and that would give us the opportunity to ensure that our facilities in London and elsewhere were up to scratch and were the best in the world. We should flag up the importance of the Paralympics.
I do not want to echo the comments about the Secretary of State sounding downbeat on the radio, because she has been enthusiastically nodding throughout the debate, to show that she really loves the whole concept and will put everything into it. Of course, I do not blame her for sounding downbeat. The trilogy of Picketts Lock, the millennium dome and Wembley is a little depressing and gives the impression that the Department cannot even run a bath.
There are some successes, however: the Millennium stadium in Wales, for example. The bid would be an opportunity for London and for the whole country. Football matches would be held throughout the country—apart, I think, from Northern Ireland because there is not a big enough stadium there.
There will be opportunities for tourism. With our skills in that industry, I am sure that once people arrive in this country for the Olympics we will be able to persuade them to travel throughout the country.

645
I am most enthusiastic about what the bid will do for our young people. We need to get a culture of sport under way and ensure that it brings fresh impetus to sport in schools and elsewhere.
As we know, the lottery has lost some of its popularity. I like the idea that the bid might bring some excitement back to the lottery and get the nation behind it again. I have pride in my country and in London—my city—but the Olympics would be an advertisement for British business and expertise and for the British people.
I am rather worried by the word "winnability". When athletes go out to compete—whether they are disabled or able-bodied—are they really thinking about winnability? Do they say that they will not enter because they may not win? They go out to try to win because they believe in themselves.
Of course, we must consider the bid carefully, because we cannot rush around spending lots of money. However if we do not go ahead with the bid, that will show an incredible lack of ambition by this country. It would be an opportunity wasted.
6.50 pm
Kevin Brennan: If being a new Member making a speech were an Olympic event, it would be a sprint. We always speak at the end of the debate and we do not have much time.
I am not a London Member of Parliament; I represent a seat in the capital of Wales. However, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of the bid for London to hold the Olympic games, for a number of reasons. The first is that Britain has not held the Olympic games since 1948. It is about time we did. Secondly, the bid has the potential to bring benefits to London, as many hon. Members have said, and to the whole country. Thirdly, I am pretty sick and tired of the country's growing reputation for not being capable of organising world-class events. We should be able to take on the challenge and to do it with enthusiasm and effectively. We can win the bid.
This country has held world events in recent years. The Commonwealth games are mentioned very frequently, but the rugby world cup has been ignored. It was held in 1999, with the final in Cardiff. The event was spread around the country and to Ireland and France. It was hugely successful and showed that this country can hold world-class events. I am not suggesting that the Olympic games are not much larger than the rugby world cup, but the evidence is that we can host such events if we get our act together. It can be done.
We should, however, be clear about one or two issues. Despite Manchester's laudable ambitions and the bids that it has made in the past, I seriously believe that no Olympic bid from Britain would be successful unless it were a bid from London. Ironically, that is also a weakness. Many Members have pointed to the weaknesses in London, not least the political weaknesses in the lack of cohesion between the Mayor of London and the Government. The failure of Britain to hold the 2005 world championships in London also represents a serious handicap. We must try to overcome it by bidding for events such as the Olympic games.
646
I believe that the bid for the world championships went wrong mainly because people gave in to the football lobby over Wembley stadium. It will be a huge white elephant unless it finds a tenant, as it will cost £700 million to build. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about the Millennium stadium, it is becoming a millennium millstone round the neck of the Welsh Rugby Union and it nearly bankrupted Laing's construction division. Although it cost more, the Welsh Rugby Union paid only £100 million for it, and £46 million of that came from the lottery. However, the debt on the stadium, even with the low interest rates that we have now, is already a millstone round the neck of the Welsh Rugby Union. It is actively considering selling the stadium.
The cost of Wembley stadium and the debt that will be carried on it will be huge. As I have argued all along, a Stade de France option should have been chosen for Wembley, as such a stadium could then have been used to host an Olympic games. If we are building an athletic stadium for the Olympic games in London, it is vital that it will provide a legacy and can be used by a football club afterwards; otherwise an 80,000-capacity athletic stadium will become a huge white elephant. Let us make sure that that point is built into the plans.
Despite that warning and despite what I have said about the Millennium stadium, it has proved a huge success. It is important that we remember the economic regeneration impact and benefit that can be brought to London and to other parts of the country by a London Olympic bid. I hope that rugby—perhaps its seven-a-side version—will be in the Olympics by 2012. Along with other events such as football, rugby could be played around the country. The competing teams will need training facilities around the country and I hope that some of them will base themselves in south Wales and in other parts of the country. However, I want to make it clear that, even if there were no direct economic spin-off to my constituents, as a Member of the UK Parliament I would support a bid for this country to hold an Olympic games.
Several people have been mentioned during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) mentioned Sir Steven Redgrave in his very clever little name-drop during the debate. Well, I want to drop in a name that many people may not have heard of before. [Interruption.] The Whip is waving at me, but I will finish this point. Before Sir Steven Redgrave, Britain's greatest Olympian was undoubtedly Paul Radmilovic. I see nods of recognition around the Chamber. He was born in Cardiff; won four Olympic gold medals and competed in five Olympic games if the interim games of 1906 are included. He would have competed in two more if Britain had bothered to enter the 1904 games in St. Louis and if it had not been for the first world war. He won three gold medals for water polo and another gold medal in the four by 200 m freestyle relay. We have heard a lot about swimming, and, in the spirit of Paul Radmilovic, I wish to say that he would not shilly-shally about our bidding to hold an Olympic games in Britain. He won two gold medals at the 1908 games in London. Let us have an Olympic games here in 2012.
6.56 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: This has been an excellent debate, although a little curtailed by the time allotted. We welcome the Government's decision to hold this debate on a very important issue, and we look forward eagerly to the Government's decision in a few weeks' time.
I should like to reiterate the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in his excellent speech. Although he pointed out some of the difficulties, he was positive and bullish about an Olympic bid and its likely success. That view is shared by all in the shadow DCMS team. It is still not clear, however, where the Government stand on this issue. Perhaps the Minister can come a little closer in his winding-up speech to mirroring my hon. Friend's enthusiasm.
Several hon. Members commented on the Secretary of State's rather downbeat contribution. That may have been because of her delivery or body language, but I am sure that she will want to give a slightly different impression from that which she gave. Indeed, with so many doubts being raised in her contribution, and with only two and a half weeks before a decision will be taken, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) feared that a negative decision had, in fact, already been made. That view was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who bemoaned the impression of a "can't do", rather than a "can do" or, better still, "will do" mentality.
Most hon. Members spoke positively and supportively, none more so that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). The negative contributions came from northern Members, such as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), both of whom challenged the costing and the provision of adequate infrastructure and housing.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley went even further and challenged head on the accepted wisdom that London is the only possible location. Although his idea of holding a competition between London and other centres for the privilege of bidding for the 2012 Olympics has some merit, no doubt the Minister will confirm in his winding-up speech the Government's view that London is their only realistic choice on grounds of winnability alone.
There is no question among Conservative Members but that London is indeed the one and only location. We were grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his support. He represents a northern constituency, but he recognises that London is indeed the only viable location throughout the United Kingdom.
Other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), emphasised the fact that the United Kingdom's bid would be not just London-centric, but would involve many other regions and cities in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale emphasised the knock-on effect of investment in sporting facilities across the board and throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South primarily supported London's bid in his contribution, particularly because of the opportunity that it will
648
afford regeneration in the city. However, he referred to the role of the Mayor of London, who appears to have adopted a slightly ambiguous position. He says that he is for the bid, but he seems keener on the parallel improvements to transport and housing infrastructure. Perhaps the Minister will clarify in replying to the debate the significance, as he sees it, of the relationship between the Government and the mayor and whether the current political difficulties represent a hindrance or a benefit.
The Secretary of State referred in her comments on funding for a bid to the potential distortion of other areas of Government spending, and implied that if the choice were between money for schools and hospitals versus an Olympic bid, there would be only one outcome. In addition, she implied that the sporting community may have to adjust its spending priorities to accommodate an Olympic bid. That view was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). Both expressed incredulity that, given the huge importance of the Olympic bid for the nation as a whole, the Government were not prepared to commit their resources fully to the success of that bid. Will the Minister confirm the Government's position on that when he winds up the debate? If the Government decide to back the bid, will they finance that independently of other investment in sport?
Mr. Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: I am afraid that I do not have enough time.
On costings, a number of contributors, including the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), alluded to the underestimates, as they described them, of the Arup report. The question is: why does such a large discrepancy exist between the figures from Ove Arup and those from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? On the one hand, it is £1.8 billion, while on the other, it is £4.5 billion to £5 billion. It is pertinent to ask the Minister to clarify which model is being used in the calculation, particularly in his Department. Are we comparing like with like in this instance? Why should we give greater credence to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's figures, which are worked up by civil servants with little or no experience in analysis of this kind? Given that only a few weeks remain before a decision is taken, it is imperative that we have figures that are universally accepted as accurate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, it is now time for the Government to make up their mind. It seems inconceivable to the Opposition that the Government could turn down this opportunity, given the case made in this debate alone in relation to regeneration in London, the economy as a whole, future tourism, the country's pride in its sporting achievements, the knock-on effects in terms of sport infrastructure and facilities, and the health and wellbeing of the nation as a whole. We want the Government's decision to be yes, and we want the full weight of Government, right up to the steps of No. 10 Downing street, to be thrown behind a bid. We believe that we can win, and if we believe that, we will win.
7.2 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): First, I want to thank the 17 Members who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. It has been an excellent debate, and we can infer from the interventions that have been made that a consensus exists to move forward, which will be taken into account by the Cabinet in making the decision.
Some of the comments made in the House this afternoon have been unfortunate, as we are genuinely trying to make sure that the we engage the House properly in the decision-making process on a serious matter that will have an impact for the next decade. If the Cabinet agree to go forward, and our bid is successful, it will concentrate a lot of minds and involve a lot of expense, and I hope that there will be a degree of unity in the House to support that. I genuinely welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said that he would be very supportive and called for the whole House, the population outside and the media to get behind the bid, if the decision is taken to make it.
That is why I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is about time we changed the way we make these major decisions: not by having a fancy dress parade around the country, but by having serious dialogue and discussion. If we had done that in relation to many major projects in the past, some very expensive mistakes, which have been made by Administrations of both parties, would not have been made. When we say that we are strategy driven, not events driven, it is important that we mean it. What has become clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary and State and me as we have visited many of the cities that have staged the games is that an exit strategy must be in place. Consequently, when the games are finished—they all finish on a high—the infrastructure can be used in a sustainable way for sport or other activities, thereby providing added value. That is what the debate is all about. It will feed into further discussions, as we said in the PIU report, because the Olympic games are the mega-event.
Let me say at the outset that although people have tried to undermine the Department, it has used its power to engage in a partnership. I want to thank the British Olympic Association and the Mayor's office for coming together to fund the first cost-benefit analysis—the Arup report—which has formed the basis of our debate. Indeed, we have gone further than that. We have again engaged the BOA and the Mayor's office to discuss the differences in the figures. They are with their professionals at the moment working out the differences and ensuring that the terms and costs that go to the Cabinet represent a shared view of the tripartite.
I can go further than that and make an offer: the official Opposition spokesmen can see the Arup report and how we evaluated the figures. If we are to move in partnership and bat for UK Ltd., we all have to understand our approach. Unfortunately, one or two hon. Members made glib remarks. We could all do that, but we are trying to act in a partnership, within the terms of the modernisation of the House, so that we act in unison for UK Ltd.
We have held discussions with the IOC and its new president, Jacques Rogge. He is an extremely honourable man and it is clear that he wants to
650
modernise the Olympic movement. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, he has returned to its fundamental principles. The president wants to remove the tarnished image of the Olympics. I hope that with our support he will be successful. Part of the modernisation is to make the games manageable so that most countries can run them. What Jacques Rogge is doing is right and I hope that his efforts will yield results by 2005, when the bid is made.
As I cannot address all the issues raised, I shall cover the main points. On the cost, no modern Olympics has taken place without a subsidy by the host country except the Los Angeles games, which came on the back of the Montreal games. The Los Angeles games used existing facilities and little capital. However, they received a heavy subsidy from the IOC, which wanted to ensure that the games after Montreal did not go into bankruptcy and again bring the IOC and the movement into disrepute. So every Olympic games except Los Angeles has received a state subsidy.
We are working through the broad figures with the BOA and the Mayor's office in a constructive way. It is Arup's view that the games will cost £3.6 billion and that the revenue will be £2.5 billion. That leaves a subsidy of £1.1 billion. As a result of the uncertainty over the 10 years, we have revisited the figures in a realistic, not a destructive, way. We have gained experience from the dome, Wembley, Picketts Lock and Manchester. We could also put Silverstone into the pot. Hon. Members who said that the civil servants in my Department do not have the necessary skills should retract that allegation. My civil servants are very skilful in such matters. We have taken their advice and revisited the figures to ensure that the Cabinet is given sound information. Our officials have worked out that the games would need a subsidy of £2.5 billion. We are working through that with the BOA, which challenged the figures to some extent, and I hope that we will agree a position that we can present to the Cabinet.
It is not for the BOA or the Government to decide the size of the stadium. That is a matter for the IOC and it is one thing that Jacques Rogge will investigate. There was some discussion at the last bidding process about whether we needed an 80,000 seater stadium. It is debatable, but we will see what happens. We will bid according to criteria laid down by the IOC.
Those who say that Wembley could be used for the Olympics are not taking into consideration the extent of the games. The Olympics are the biggest sporting event in the world, and they could not take place at Wembley, even if we wanted them to, simply because the area could not accommodate the athletes. We must remember that these are the finest athletes in the world, so we could not stick them on the tube and tell them to get over to Wembley from accommodation that may be 20 miles away across London.
The aim of the Olympic park is to bring together the facilities so that the best athletes in the world have access to them, with minimum disruption, and can perform at the highest standard. Anyone who thinks that we can build an Olympic village in Wembley is wrong. We have considered that, and I think that it would be extremely difficult even to put a warm-up track around Wembley.

651
We must consider the size of the Olympics and what it entails. Apart from the number of athletes, there are 20-odd events, perhaps more.
Mr. Banks: More like 30-odd.
Mr. Caborn: That is right. There were 17 events in the Commonwealth games, which was one of the largest Commonwealth games ever run.
I turn now to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Ryedale about the opinion poll. The results of that have been given to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so that the Committee can consider them tomorrow. They show that 73 per cent. of respondents are in favour of the games, and that result is for people who were asked about the costs. In fact, about 81 per cent. of people support the bid, and I hope that people will consider that figure. Regional analysis of the poll results has been undertaken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton asked about the project costs. I know that the Select Committee has gone through Arup's costings, and I hope that when its report is completed, it will give us a view on Arup's realistic assessment. Tomorrow we will present the Committee with evidence about the development of facilities that is needed, and we will try to answer questions on transportation.
Departments are still in the process of realistically considering the potential problems and cost implications raised by Arup. We will work through those and make sure that the Cabinet has the necessary information when it comes to make a decision. That is the job of the DCMS, as the lead Department for sport, and nobody can say that the Secretary of State has not championed sport in the quest to host the Olympics.
As the lead Department, we also have a wider responsibility to the Government. It is our job to co-ordinate the partnership, outside the Government, with the BOA and the Mayor's department, and to try to convince our colleagues within the Government. Sometimes that takes a little quiet diplomacy and a little persuasion, and sometimes matters are better kept out of the press. I hope that when push comes to shove, the press will be behind us all the way, as I know that the Secretary of State will be behind us, all the way.
I say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that I, too, am wearing a tie. Mine is from Sapporo in Japan, where England beat Argentina. We both boast sporting ties this evening, but mine is more successful than his—at least we beat Argentina in Sapporo. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats, including those in local authorities, will remain consistent.
Bob Russell: It is the Government we are worried about.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman should not worry about the Government; he should worry about the Liberal Democrats. I hope that they will pass on the sense of partnership and unity in the House to their minions in local authorities who will, like their colleagues in Manchester, bash the hell out of the bid.
652
I have no doubt however that the comments of Opposition Members this evening were genuine. If we decide to make a bid, we accept that they will support it.
I assure hon. Members that we are working with the Mayor's office. In the event of our making a bid, it would be a red herring and a dangerous sign to send from the House that there were differences between us on the project. The partnerships that we have forged with the Greater London Authority, the Mayor's office and the City—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been working hard with City leaders and the Bank of England to make sure that we know the attitude of the private sector—will stand us in good stead. A message should not go out from the House that there are major differences of opinion. There are not. We are working together with those other bodies to make sure that if we do make a bid, there will be unanimity.
May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) that, in my opinion, his command of the French language is brilliant? What he said was true: one can know the price of everything and the value of nothing—
It being three hours after commencement of proceedings, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [7 January].
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seriously concerned that Parliament is not being kept properly informed of very significant changes in Government policy.
Over the past few hours, it has become evident that the Government are planning to make a statement tomorrow on Government policy on missile defence. It is being reported already on the Press Association wires, and the written press is preparing to report in detail, that the Government are minded to accept the American request for the use of the Fylingdales base in Yorkshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I hope that you will share my concern that the announcement appears to be being made outside this place, instead of in this place as a courtesy to Members and to allow proper scrutiny.
If that were not enough, earlier today a written statement was issued on further contingency preparations being made for possible military action in the Gulf. Little was made explicit in that written statement, but it is being taken by the informed defence press to mean that that constitutes the final decision to deploy 7 Brigade and elements of 4th Armoured Brigade, possibly comprising as many as 20,000 men. Although the Government may have made no final decision about that deployment, it again seems that they are trying to smuggle announcements out to avoid embarrassment and proper scrutiny, instead of being honest with the British people, Parliament and the armed forces. Will you express this concern to the Government and ensure that we have proper statements tomorrow on both subjects?
Mr. Speaker: This is the first that I have heard of the matter and the complaints that the hon. Gentleman makes. The best thing that I can do for him is to investigate the matter. I will reply to him as soon as I can.

2012 Olympics Bid

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time—[Mr. Kemp.]

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr Norman Baker be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr David Chidgey be added.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  PETITION

    Arms Controls
    7.18 pm
    Rachel Squire: I am honoured to present a petition signed by 178 pupils of St. Columba's high school, Dunfermline, and organised by the school's Amnesty International youth group.
    The petition declares that the current arrangements for arms controls are in need of improvement, and that the United Kingdom Government need to display a more robust style of leadership on the issue. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to strengthen UK arms controls, make the export control system more open and accountable, and demonstrate robust international leadership in pushing for the adoption of tough regional and international controls on arms transfers.
    To lie upon the Table.

Public Services (Isle of Wight)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
7.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for offering me the opportunity to raise this subject in an Adjournment debate. Although the debate is about public services on the Isle of Wight, for reasons that will become apparent, I shall devote my speech almost entirely to health, and I thank the Minister for taking up the challenge.
I should like to acknowledge the hard work done by all those involved in the provision of health services on the island—and not only those at the front line, as the managers sometimes come in for undue criticism. I acknowledge with thanks the help that David Crawley and Graham Elderfield, respectively the managers of the primary care trust and of St. Mary's and the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS trust, have given to me in preparing for this debate.
I wanted to raise four issues—dentists, financial allocations, HealthFit, as it is called, and the King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst—but the Minister and I had a little outing over dentists earlier today and I do not propose to repeat it. I shall therefore start with island health funding. The question that concerns many people on the island is whether we are to live a hand-to-mouth existence in health funding or whether the funding formula will explicitly recognise the island's needs. In autumn 2000, the case was made for recognition of the island's particular needs and it was referred to ACRA—the advisory committee on resources action—on 23 August 2001. ACRA made recommendations that led to Ministers turning down our case for the island's specific needs, and we were notified of that decision on 19 December 2001.
I recognise that the Government are putting an extra £37 million into the Isle of Wight primary care trust over three years, as was announced on 11 December last year. However, is that a recognition of the island's explicit needs or merely part of a funding uplift that the Government are imposing generally? The basis of the argument that has been advanced, which is set out in more detail in the document "The Isle of Wight Health Economy: The Island Factor", dated September 2000, is that the Isle of Wight is an atypical health authority or PCT. Indeed, it is a unique health authority—or PCT—as it is, first, an island. Things cost more on the island because of the cost of transport. There are diseconomies of scale on the island that cannot he met by merger with an adjoining health authority. Secondly, we have a population of 125,000 most of the year round, which is swollen to 350,000 by tourism in the middle of the year. Thirdly, we are one of only two non-ambulance trusts with responsibility for ambulances. Fourthly, our boundaries are defined not by arbitrary and easily adjustable lines on maps, but by something that is rather more difficult to adjust—coastlines and cliffs. Travel to the mainland takes about one hour and 45 minutes from St. Mary's hospital in Newport to the Southampton hospitals, or one hour 15 minutes to St. Mary's in Portsmouth.
The manifestations of our needs are that we have more consultant posts per head of population because they are needed to provide 24-hour cover. We have an

655
increased cost of specialist residential care. For example, when patients go to the mainland for cancer treatment, they need to stay at the Abbey unit in Southampton. In their condition, they are unable to take two sea journeys a day, five days a week for up to six weeks. That is an additional cost, and there are additional costs in running the ambulance service. Of course, there is also unused capacity. It was estimated in 2000 that those additional costs, which are unique to the island, amounted to between £2.4 million and £2.8 million.
I recognise that the Government may argue that those costs have been met in 2003 to 2006, but I ask the Minister to confirm whether those needs are explicitly met in the funding allocation formula for PCTs or whether it is merely a matter of luck. If they are explicitly met, how has the formula been changed to take that into account?
The assumption underlying our argument is not like those for Scottish islands or remote rural parts of England, where there is a population of fewer than 30,000 or where there are road links to other hospitals. It is that 350,000 people in the summer and 125,000 in the winter must have an accident and emergency service, and therefore must have the 24-hour cover that supports that accident and emergency service, which has been described by the joint consultants committee of the BMA as acute medicine, acute surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, a full anaesthetic service, ITU, CCU and HDU, pathology and radiology, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. That is a basic minimum without which A and E cannot function effectively or, indeed, safely. The excess cost of having that was £1.4 million in 2000.
The island also runs its own ambulance service and has made great efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of that service. The cost of patient transport is not covered by other activities as it is in other areas. I am asking the Government to recognise the continuing need for the accident and emergency service, for patients on the island to be treated within that golden hour within which they need to be treated if they are to have a good chance of survival.
That brings me on to a proposal that emerged only last week from the strategic health authority. It is bringing forward proposals which, if implemented, would undermine the argument that there is a minimum "must have" provision for the population as I have described. Last week it published Healthfit, a set of proposals with the effect of reducing from five to three the number of district general hospitals in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
I recognise, of course, the continuing need to obtain greater efficiency and improved patient care, but the health authority itself states:
"It is clear that further centralisation per se will not be tolerated by communities."
It proposes two primary care diagnostic and treatment centres with a range of functions, and it looks as though it is proposed that St. Mary's hospital in Newport should be one of those centres. Two sites would lose under those proposals—Winchester, which, of course, can speak for itself, and the Isle of Wight.
656
It is curious that the document states elsewhere:
"The issue of access in an emergency situation is particularly sharp for the…Isle of Wight."—
I certainly recognise that—
"However, the emerging view of the Healthfit event was that greater thought needs to be given to emergency access to the mainland rather than treating the Solent as a barrier".
Let us examine what the closure of accident and emergency services means. It means that 2,000 people in February and 3,000 in August would have to travel to the mainland accident and emergency services. Air ambulances at present are used about once a month. Emergency transfer by ambulance and ferry can be undertaken within 35 minutes, but what would the walking wounded do? What would those who do not need an ambulance do? What would happen when the ferry was fully booked? Would private cars be able to jump the queue if it were claimed that somebody needed accident and emergency treatment? What would happen at night, when ferries do not run for two hours and the high-speed service does not run at all? What about the occasions—only two or three days a year, perhaps—when the high-speed ferries are cancelled, and those occasions—fewer, but there are still some—when all ferries are suspended? That has to happen when there is a force seven gale or worse. As the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS trust has said,
"There have been several occasions in the past few weeks where ferries were unable to run and helicopters could not fly. Safe transportation of patients in a critical condition has been shown, through experience, to be difficult and the last option of choice."
Indeed, it is not an option of choice at all, as my constituents know to their cost.
What about maternity provision? I had the privilege of visiting the maternity unit at St. Mary's on the Friday before Christmas. The report says that a relatively small number of units offering the most high-tech care to women were required. In terms of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, it was suggested that two units at Southampton and Portsmouth would be sufficient. The group recognised the particular needs of the island, which it says will need careful thought. My reading of that proposal accords with that of the overwhelming majority of islanders. The Isle of Wight County Press described the report as "explosive". A packed meeting of the community health council last night rejected the proposals. The trust says that islanders
"will not take any change, meaning a reduction in services, lying down."
The strategic health authority obviously thinks that it is Moses and can make the seas part. I fear that it is more like Canute, because the islanders are not the children of Israel and accident and emergency services in Portsmouth are certainly not the promised land. If the Department of Health is really putting as much new money into the NHS as it says, the proposals should be unnecessary. Whether or not that is the case, they are unacceptable to my constituents and to me. I very much hope that they are unacceptable to the Minister, too.
Finally, I come to the receivership and possible closure of King Edward VII hospital, Midhurst. One hundred of my constituents were brought together at 24 hours' notice on Friday, and were joined by many more people today from across the south of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie),

657
I suspect, will seek to catch your eye in a moment, Mr. Speaker, to add to my comments. It was an appalling and terrible shock to hear that that fine hospital was in receivership on 30 December. The immediate reason is clear—the failure of NHS purchasers to offer dependable contracts. Patients and supporters on the Isle of Wight have been harrying me, quite rightly, since my election to prevent the cardiology contract being moved to Brighton. The primary care trusts reckoned that eight patients could be treated at King Edward VII for the same sum that could be used to treat 10 at Brighton, which has greater capacity. However, waiting times at King Edward VII were three months, but are six months or more at Brighton. Brighton only counts waiting times—this is idiosyncratic in the extreme, with one doctor describing it as scandalous—from the point of the first appointment with a consultant. Patients are now being sent to Oxford, Tooting and further afield. The PCT has to pay the trust from patients' choice funding to send the patients elsewhere, despite the fact that Brighton cannot fulfil its contract. Last Wednesday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said:
"The Government…believe in the NHS. It can become the service that we want it to be, offering more choice to patients over where and when they are treated, greater access to higher quality care and faster, more convenient treatment."—[Official Report, 8 January 2003; Vol. 397. c. 276–77.]
I asked him about King Edward VII—words came aplenty, but answer was there none. I shied away from expressing my view on the PCT's decision when it was made—after all, I have to live with its members and have no reason to distrust them. Now, however, I know of other business taken from King Edward VII by hospitals across the south of England, and can report the view of a doctor in my constituency, who told me on Monday that
"overwhelmingly, the motivation was political."
I cannot begin to understand why a hospital that was built and upgraded at no cost to the NHS is good enough for the NHS when the NHS fails to meet its waiting list targets, but not at other times. I cannot begin to understand why it is wrong for a PCT to make a contract with a hospital, but it is right for a trust to sub-contract to the same hospital. I cannot begin to understand why 400 opportunities for cardiac intervention a year are lost while my constituents are waiting—and one or two of them regrettably die on the waiting list.
Dr. Mark Connaughton, the heart doctor at St. Mary's hospital, Newport, told me:
"South coast hospitals simply cannot cope."
He said that King Edward VII is of
"good provenance…There is really no problem that would stop you referring patients there."
Most people who need cardiac intervention are old. They have paid into the NHS since its inception, yet in their hour of need they are told to wait, despite capacity being available. That is quite simply something that neither they nor I can understand. I hope that if the Under-Secretary can understand it, he can explain it.
7.34 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I should like to say a few words that follow on directly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was saying about King Edward VII hospital. The closure of that hospital, if it takes place, will indeed be dire for the citizens of the Isle of Wight and will make life difficult for many patients throughout the region.
I just want to put a few points to the Minister, so that they will be clear in his mind. First, the King Edward VII is not a private hospital. It is an independent charitable hospital that has taken roughly 50 per cent. of its patients from the NHS sector for the past 50 years. In many respects, it is a prototype of exactly what a foundation hospital should look like—that is, a genuine public-private partnership. As my hon. Friend said, many capital costs are borne by the private sector. The NHS reaps all kinds of benefits—some tangible, some less tangible—from having such a superb hospital available for its use. That is reflected in the fact that it generates enormous local charitable giving. People are keen to give to it; they want to support it. It has achieved exactly what the Secretary of State for Health has said he wants foundation hospitals to achieve: a genuine partnership with the local community.
The main reason the hospital is in trouble is that there has been a sharp drop in the NHS work being referred to it. The figures for patient discharges over the past 18 months show a drop from 270 per month to 112 per month. NHS funding has gone down 40 per cent. in the past six months. One of the reasons given for that is that the hospital is more expensive to run than others—that it costs more per unit of treatment. I notice that a press release from the strategic health authority today suggested that a coronary bypass costs 38 per cent. more at King Edward's than in Southampton. I have discussed that figure with experts, who tell me that it may look all right, but that NHS figure excludes all costs relating to consultants. There is no consultancy fee in the NHS comparator, so the figures are not comparable. I know from my time in the Treasury—I am sure that the Minister is becoming aware of this—that who really bears the costs in the NHS is a hugely complicated question. Most of the comparator figures that he is being given are questionable, to say the least. The more he delves into them and scratches them, the more he will discover that.
What will happen if the King Edward VII hospital closes? Patients from the Isle of Wight will find themselves on very long waiting lists at other hospitals—in Southampton, Portsmouth and Guildford, in particular. What will happen to waiting time targets for radiotherapy, for example? Those targets are already not being met. There is no way that the 2004 targets that have been published will be met by those hospitals, even without the closure of King Edward's. King Edward's has superb radiotherapy facilities, which would no longer be available. While all this is going on, patients are being sent abroad—for orthopaedic care, for example—at a much greater cost than that of the treatment they could get just up the road. That includes patients from the Isle of Wight. There really must be an absurdity in the NHS funding system if that is what is going on.

659
There is more to the closure of some hospitals than patients going through them like pieces of meat through a sausage factory. Here, we are talking about a centre of excellence. King Edward's has not just been a private hospital doing some routine surgery. It has been at the cutting edge of research, treatment and innovation, particularly in orthopaedics, in some aspects of cardiac care and now, with the equipment that it has, in radiotherapy. I implore the Minister to look at how these extraordinary decisions to cut NHS funding at such short notice have been taken. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will be gravely affected by this, as will mine in Chichester.
7.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing a debate on a subject that is important to the NHS and, especially, to his constituents. National health service and social services provision on the island is rightly of particular concern to him and he eloquently expressed the reasons for that. I assure him from the outset that the Government are committed to providing high-quality health services for everyone, wherever they live.
I am pleased to respond to the debate because it enables me to put on record the developments and improvements on the Isle of Wight in the past few years. Not only has health care provision been reorganised but the Government have invested considerably in NHS infrastructure and service delivery.
Health services are never stagnant: they adapt to new opportunities and challenges as they appear. That applied especially when the Government introduced the NHS plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative. In accordance with those policies, it is up to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, with their specific local knowledge and expertise, to plan and develop health services in line with the needs of their local communities.
It might help if I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point on special status for the island immediately. As he knows, the advisory committee on resource allocation—ACRA—considered any additional cost that is associated with being an island in September 2001. The announcement was made in the following December.
The committee concluded that the arguments in a local consultancy report on behalf of Isle of Wight health bodies did not constitute a convincing case. It recommended no adjustment to the Isle of Wight's target under the resource allocation formula. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted ACRA's recommendations.
Since 1997, there has been continuous investment in the Isle of Wight's health economy. It may help to remind the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) of some of that investment, which includes: £28 million to refurbish mental health accommodation; £640,000 for personal dental services; £631,000 to implement the free nursing care policy; £400,000 to improve intermediate care; £100,000 to help reduce waiting lists; £100,000 for local capital modernisation funding; £38,000 for smoking cessation programmes; £29,000 for palliative care; £17,000 to help
660
reform the emergency care that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, and a further £10,000 for the booked admissions programme.
However, we are considering not simply investment but improving health care for those who live on the Isle of Wight. I shall give one example of service improvement. The Government set ambulance services a target of reaching 75 per cent. of category A—life-threatening—calls in eight minutes. In 1997, the Isle of Wight ambulance service reached only 55 per cent. of such calls in the target time. The trust informs me that, as of January this year, the figure is 81 per cent. I congratulate the men and women who operate the Isle of Wight's ambulance service on fulfilling and exceeding the target.
The trust also anticipates reaching the 12-month in-patient waiting time, the 21-week out-patient targets and the accident and emergency access target times this year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight wishes to join me in congratulating all members of his local NHS team on their industry and hard work.
Let me consider the increases in financial resources. In 1997–98, the island received an allocation of £68 million—a 3.48 per cent. increase over the previous year. That has risen considerably to £108 million in 2001–02—a cash increase of 9.6 per cent. By any standards, those are considerable increases in financial allocation.
In fact, next year the Isle of Wight's primary care trust will receive a further increase of 9.7 per cent.—some £11.6 million. That is one of the highest increases in funding across the strategic health authority, and higher than the national average increase of 9.24 per cent. Even the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, far from the cash available for improvements to health care on the island being reduced, resources have increased dramatically during the period of office of this Government.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that that proves that the principles set out in the NHS plan were not just empty gestures. We have put the necessary money into the system to carry the reforms through and to support service delivery. Of course, we are not stopping there. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the budget allocations that PCTs will receive in the next three years. For the first time since the inception of the NHS, local organisations can plan service provision years in advance, and according to local priorities and needs, many of which were articulated by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the Isle of Wight PCT, which is the hon. Gentleman's local organisation, will receive a 9.7 per cent. cash-terms increase—a cash allocation of some £131.7 million. That is a significant amount of money.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of HealthFit. HealthFit is a process that is taking place across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to ensure that safe and sustainable health services are available for local people. We have a responsibility not just to provide health services today, but to ensure that they are fit for the future. The NHS in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight takes these responsibilities very seriously, and it is at the early stages of a process that will go on throughout this year and beyond, and which will include open discussion

661
and debate with patients, the public and partner organisations. It will ensure that local people are fully involved in that process.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned the King Edward VII hospital in Midhurst. I do not want to make the point too strongly, but there is something of a paradox here. Both hon. Members are keen to ensure central intervention and investment in that local hospital, but in some senses that is in conflict with the policy position of their party. We are putting in the money, and ensuring that such local decisions are taken by local people.
Mr. Tyrie: If the money is going in, why is there a £60 million deficit in the strategic health authority's budget?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows that, across the piece in Britain, different health economies find themselves in different positions for historical reasons. The issue that he raises goes back some considerable time, but we have reached a point where we are putting
662
in significant investment. I should point out to him that a 20 per cent. cut would make the situation even worse for his local strategic health authority.
Much has been said in the media, and recently in this House, about the future of the King Edward VII hospital, and the issue has been raised again today. Let me state from the outset that the NHS remains prepared to continue with its current commitment to the hospital. Its refusal to provide the support that was requested immediately before Christmas related to serious concerns about the additional volume required, which was at a price and through a process that could not be defended in terms of accountability in the use of public money. Officials from both the Department of Health and the strategic health authority have held discussions with hospital representatives for a number of weeks, and all parties will continue to hold discussions with the hospital and with the liquidator. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that there remains—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.